DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 7/9/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/9/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 12-13, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 as currently presented states “…the process of following the movable platform…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state“…the process of following the movable platform to move…” so as to align with the phrase established in claim 1 and so as to avoid any potential misinterpretations.
Claim 6 as currently presented states “…obtaining a traffic sign…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state“…obtaining a traffic sign information…” or similarly, “…obtaining information from a traffic sign…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 12 as currently presented states “…landing to the marking member…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…landing [ [ to ] ] on the marking member…” or similarly, “…landing [ [ to ] ] near the marking member…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…land toward a carrier surface…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…land on a carrier surface…” or similarly, “…land near a carrier surface…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 15 as currently presented states “…lands to the marking member…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…lands [ [ to ] ] on the marking member…” or similarly, “…lands [ [ to ] ] near the marking member…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 17 as currently presented states “…lands to the marking member…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…lands [ [ to ] ] on the marking member…” or similarly, “…lands [ [ to ] ] near the marking member…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner is unsure what information the claim is attempting to convey, and is thus indefinite. The specification and figures appear to imply that the “projection” is a current and/or future trajectory of the aerial vehicle in relation to the vehicle, and that the “a plane is in the constrained area” is an area in which information on a traffic sign pertains to, however this interpretation was not clearly explained in the specification or figures and is merely speculation given the information available to the Examiner.
Regarding claim 8, the specification and figures appear to imply that a distance between the vehicle’s trajectory and the drone’s trajectory is measured; this distance measurement appears to occur at a variety of times, of which they are plotted and analyzed, however the extent of how many distances are determined and at what time these distances are obtained in a path of travel is not clearly conveyed in the claim, and thus the claim is indefinite.
Additionally, the connection line as claimed appears to imply that there may be connection lines 1) between the drone and the vehicle, 2) between the vehicle and the moving direction guided by the traffic sign, and 3) between the drone and the moving direction guided by the traffic sign. This does not appear to align with the information in the specification, therefore the Examiner recommends updating the claim to more precisely detail all of the terminology relied upon in this claim.
Additionally, the Examiner does not understand the overall intention of the claim, due to the seemingly idiomatic phrase “…to allow the projection of the moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle following the movable platform on the plane where the movable platform is to be in a flight path…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US-9,056,676) in view of Brunet et al. (US-2015/0331421; hereinafter Brunet).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an aerial vehicle control method (see Wang at least Abs) comprising:
controlling an aerial vehicle to follow a movable platform to move based on an image of the movable platform collected by a visual sensor carried by the aerial vehicle (see Wang at least col 32 lines 11-14 "The marker 930c may be detected using an IR sensor. The marker may be detected using thermal imaging. The marker may be detectable along the near IR spectrum, far IR spectrum, or any combination thereof." and col 33 lines 4-22 "Once a landing sequence is initialized, the UAV may travel to the location of the companion vehicle. In some instances, the vehicle may transmit its geographic coordinates to the UAV. In one example, a UAV may receive the GPS coordinates of the vehicle in real time. The coordinates may be sufficient to get the UAV to the general location of the vehicle. However, there may also be other vehicles or similar objects close by. The UAV may employ one or more sensors to discern the marker of the companion vehicle from the other surrounding vehicles. For example, the UAV may use vision-based methods to provide accurate landing. The UAV may have an on-board camera (e.g., on the underside of the UAV), that may provide accurate positioning. Machine vision techniques may be employed to read the marker. Any other techniques or sensors may be employed to detect and distinguish a marker. Once the marker of the companion vehicle has been discerned, the UAV may land on the companion vehicle and dock with the companion vehicle.");
in a process of following the movable platform to move, controlling the aerial vehicle to move to a right side of the movable platform in response to an obstacle existing on a left front side of a moving direction of the movable platform (see Wang at least col 16 lines 45-47 "In other instances, it may be necessary to alter the lateral trajectory of the UAV to avoid the obstacle."); and
in the process of following the movable platform to move, controlling the aerial vehicle to move to a left side of the movable platform in response to an obstacle existing on a right front side of the moving direction of the movable platform (see Wang at least col 16 lines 45-47 "In other instances, it may be necessary to alter the lateral trajectory of the UAV to avoid the obstacle.").
However, while Wang discloses the generic concept of obstacle avoidance by moving a drone from side to side, the Examiner recognizes that this citation is not as detailed as the claim.
Brunet, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…in a process of following the movable platform to move, controlling the aerial vehicle to move to a right side of the movable platform in response to an obstacle existing on a left front side of a moving direction of the movable platform (see Brunet at least [0138] "…The guidance means determine whether the obstacle in front of it is more in the left-hand part or more in the right-hand part of its perception area. It decelerates and then goes in the direction away from the presence of the obstacle: if the obstacle is more present to the left than to the right, the drone will go to the right, and vice-versa.")…
…in the process of following the movable platform to move, controlling the aerial vehicle to move to a left side of the movable platform in response to an obstacle existing on a right front side of the moving direction of the movable platform (see Brunet at least [0138] "…The guidance means determine whether the obstacle in front of it is more in the left-hand part or more in the right-hand part of its perception area. It decelerates and then goes in the direction away from the presence of the obstacle: if the obstacle is more present to the left than to the right, the drone will go to the right, and vice-versa.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drone operations as disclosed by Wang with obstacle avoidance as taught by Brunet with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of providing guidance to autonomous machines (see Brunet at least [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to move to the right side of the movable platform in response to the obstacle existing on the left front side of the moving direction of the movable platform includes:
controlling the aerial vehicle to move to the right side of the movable platform in response to the obstacle existing on the left front side and located at an inner side of a turning direction of the movable platform (see Brunet at least [0138] "…The guidance means determine whether the obstacle in front of it is more in the left-hand part or more in the right-hand part of its perception area. It decelerates and then goes in the direction away from the presence of the obstacle: if the obstacle is more present to the left than to the right, the drone will go to the right, and vice-versa.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the drone operations as disclosed by Wang with obstacle avoidance as further taught by Brunet with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to move to the left side of the movable platform in response to the obstacle existing on the right front side of the moving direction of the movable platform includes:
controlling the aerial vehicle to move to the left side of the movable platform in response to the obstacle existing on the right front side and being located at an inner side of a turning direction of the movable platform (see Brunet at least [0138] "…The guidance means determine whether the obstacle in front of it is more in the left-hand part or more in the right-hand part of its perception area. It decelerates and then goes in the direction away from the presence of the obstacle: if the obstacle is more present to the left than to the right, the drone will go to the right, and vice-versa.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the drone operations as disclosed by Wang with obstacle avoidance as further taught by Brunet with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in the process of following the movable platform, in response to no obstacle existing, maintaining the aerial vehicle to follow the movable platform at a rear side of the movable platform (see Wang at least col 38 lines 15-18 "The flight patterns may include the UAV flying above the vehicle, in front of the vehicle, behind the vehicle, to a right side of the vehicle, to a left side of the vehicle, or any combinations thereof.").
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to move to the right side or the left side of the movable platform includes at least one of:
controlling an angle between an orientation of the visual sensor and the moving direction of the movable platform to gradually increase in a first preset angle range;
controlling a distance between the movable platform and the obstacle to be smaller than a distance between the aerial vehicle and the obstacle at a same moment (see Wang at least col 16 lines 45-47 "In other instances, it may be necessary to alter the lateral trajectory of the UAV to avoid the obstacle.");
controlling the orientation of the visual sensor to be inconsistent with a moving direction of the aerial vehicle;
controlling a distance between the aerial vehicle and the movable platform to remain in a preset distance range (see Wang at least col 16 lines 45-47 "In other instances, it may be necessary to alter the lateral trajectory of the UAV to avoid the obstacle…" and col 38 lines 38-52 “For example, the UAV may be instructed to remain within about 10 km, 9.5 km, 9 km, 8.5 km, 8 km, 7.5 km, 7 km, 6.5 km, 6 km, 5.5 km, 5 km, 4.5 km, 4 km, 3.5 km, 3 km, 2.5 km, 2 km, 1.5 km, 1 km, 500 m, 300 m, or 100 m of the companion vehicle. The distance may be lateral distance, altitude, or any combination thereof. The distance may incorporate both the lateral distance and vertical distance. The UAV may fly in accordance with a pre-set flight pattern within the distance. In another instance, the UAV may autonomously fly within the distance without following a pre-set pattern, but may remain within the distance. In another example, a user may manually control the UAV freely within the distance. If the user tries to control the UAV outside the distance, the UAV may refuse to go outside the distance and may remain within the distance.”);
controlling an angle between an orientation of an optical axis of the visual sensor and an orientation of a connection line between the movable platform and the aerial vehicle to be in a second preset angle range (see Wang at least col 16 lines 45-47 "In other instances, it may be necessary to alter the lateral trajectory of the UAV to avoid the obstacle."); or
adjusting a moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle based on a category of the obstacle (see Wang at least col 15 lines 36-53 “An obstruction 330 may be any item that may be in the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path. The obstruction may be an item that would damage the UAV if the UAV were to collide with the obstruction. The obstruction may be a static obstruction or a dynamic obstruction. For example, the static obstruction may remain stationary, while a dynamic obstruction may be moving. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, buildings, signs, poles, bridges, tunnels, towers, ceilings, roofs, power lines, trees, fences, plants, lights, parked vehicles, or any other type of obstruction. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, other UAVs, other movable objects (e.g., moving vehicles), humans, animals, kites, or any other type of obstruction that may move. For dynamic obstructions, the predicted path or trajectory of the dynamic obstruction may be assessed to determine whether a collision between the dynamic obstruction and the UAV along the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path is likely or imminent.” and col 16 lines 17-28 “In some implementations, the obstruction may be detected based on information known about the environment within which the vehicle and/or the UAV are traversing. For example, geographic information may be accessed. Examples of geographic information may include local map information. In some instances, topographic map information may be provided, or map information about local structures, or other types of objects that may be static obstructions. For example, if the presence of a tunnel is known and the location of the vehicle and/or UAV relative to the tunnel is known, it may be determined whether the tunnel would be an obstruction to the UAV landing on the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a traffic sign in a space where the movable platform is located (see Wang at least col 15 lines 28-53 “In some embodiments, the UAV and/or vehicle may be able to sense an obstruction in the vehicle's trajectory, or an aligned travel trajectory for the UAV and vehicle. Similarly, the UAV path may be altered to avoid a detected obstruction... An obstruction 330 may be any item that may be in the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path. The obstruction may be an item that would damage the UAV if the UAV were to collide with the obstruction. The obstruction may be a static obstruction or a dynamic obstruction. For example, the static obstruction may remain stationary, while a dynamic obstruction may be moving. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, buildings, signs, poles, bridges, tunnels, towers, ceilings, roofs, power lines, trees, fences, plants, lights, parked vehicles, or any other type of obstruction. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, other UAVs, other movable objects (e.g., moving vehicles), humans, animals, kites, or any other type of obstruction that may move. For dynamic obstructions, the predicted path or trajectory of the dynamic obstruction may be assessed to determine whether a collision between the dynamic obstruction and the UAV along the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path is likely or imminent.”); and
adjusting an orientation of the aerial vehicle following the movable platform according to the traffic sign (see Wang at least col 15 lines 28-53 “In some embodiments, the UAV and/or vehicle may be able to sense an obstruction in the vehicle's trajectory, or an aligned travel trajectory for the UAV and vehicle. Similarly, the UAV path may be altered to avoid a detected obstruction... An obstruction 330 may be any item that may be in the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path. The obstruction may be an item that would damage the UAV if the UAV were to collide with the obstruction. The obstruction may be a static obstruction or a dynamic obstruction. For example, the static obstruction may remain stationary, while a dynamic obstruction may be moving. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, buildings, signs, poles, bridges, tunnels, towers, ceilings, roofs, power lines, trees, fences, plants, lights, parked vehicles, or any other type of obstruction. Examples of static obstructions may include, but are not limited to, other UAVs, other movable objects (e.g., moving vehicles), humans, animals, kites, or any other type of obstruction that may move. For dynamic obstructions, the predicted path or trajectory of the dynamic obstruction may be assessed to determine whether a collision between the dynamic obstruction and the UAV along the UAV's predicted flight trajectory or path is likely or imminent.”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
controlling the aerial vehicle to land toward a carrier surface of the movable platform, wherein before the aerial vehicle contacts the carrier surface of the movable platform, a thrust of the aerial vehicle is reduced to a preset thrust range, and/or a motor rotation speed of the aerial vehicle is reduced to a preset rotation speed range (see Wang at least col 10 lines 11-27 “A vertical position and/or velocity of the UAV may be controlled by maintaining and/or adjusting output to one or more propulsion units of the UAV... Decreasing the speed of rotation of one or more rotors of the UAV may aid in causing the UAV to decrease in altitude or decrease in altitude at a faster rate. Decreasing the speed of rotation of the one or more rotors may decrease the thrust of the one or more rotors... When the UAV is landing, such as on a vehicle, the output provided to the propulsion units may be decreased from its previous flight state.”).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Brunet teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Wang discloses the following:
…an aerial vehicle control apparatus (see Wang at least Abs)…
…one or more processors (see Wang at least col 66 lines 58-64 “The processing unit 1804 can have one or more processors, such as a programmable processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)). The processing unit 1804 can be operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium 1806. The non-transitory computer readable medium 1806 can store logic, code, and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1804 for performing one or more steps.”)…
…one or more memories storing a program (see Wang at least col 66 lines 58-64 “The processing unit 1804 can have one or more processors, such as a programmable processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)). The processing unit 1804 can be operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium 1806. The non-transitory computer readable medium 1806 can store logic, code, and/or program instructions executable by the processing unit 1804 for performing one or more steps.”)…
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Brunet teach the analogous material of that in claim 2 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Brunet teach the analogous material of that in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Brunet as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Johnston et al. (US-2020/0401157; hereinafter Johnston).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 6. However, while Wang discloses general obstacle avoidance, there is not any indication that refined controls are inhibited for the UAV in complicated situations, such as the following:
…the traffic sign instructs the movable platform to move in a constrained area…
…a projection of a moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle following the movable platform on a plane is in the constrained area…
Johnston, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the traffic sign instructs the movable platform to move in a constrained area (see Johnston at least [0047] "With reference now to FIG. 4, additional detail regarding the metadata that the supervisory service annotates the one or more video streams is shown. In FIG. 4, the supervisory service has identified that that an autonomous vehicle 402 may be attempting to park in a parking space 404 and is traveling in a region of a parking area 406 that is requires traffic to go one direction, as indicated by a sign 408...")…
…a projection of a moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle following the movable platform on a plane is in the constrained area (see Johnston at least [0047] "With reference now to FIG. 4, additional detail regarding the metadata that the supervisory service annotates the one or more video streams is shown. In FIG. 4, the supervisory service has identified that that an autonomous vehicle 402 may be attempting to park in a parking space 404 and is traveling in a region of a parking area 406 that is requires traffic to go one direction, as indicated by a sign 408...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drone controls such as taught by Wang in view of Brunet with refined controls such as taught by Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide guidance to autonomous vehicles (see Johnston at least [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Brunet and Johnston teach the method according to claim 7, wherein:
the traffic sign guides the moving direction of the movable platform (see Johnston at least [0047] "With reference now to FIG. 4, additional detail regarding the metadata that the supervisory service annotates the one or more video streams is shown. In FIG. 4, the supervisory service has identified that that an autonomous vehicle 402 may be attempting to park in a parking space 404 and is traveling in a region of a parking area 406 that is requires traffic to go one direction, as indicated by a sign 408..."); and
an angle between an orientation of a connection line between the aerial vehicle and the movable platform and the moving direction guided by the traffic sign is smaller than a preset angle to allow the projection of the moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle following the movable platform on the plane where the movable platform is to be in a flight path of the movable platform (see Wang at least col 38 lines 15-18 "The flight patterns may include the UAV flying above the vehicle, in front of the vehicle, behind the vehicle, to a right side of the vehicle, to a left side of the vehicle, or any combinations thereof.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the drone controls such as taught by Wang in view of Brunet with controls indicative of signs guidance such as further taught by Johnston with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 7.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Brunet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciliberti et al. (US-11,789,469; hereinafter Ciliberti).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a landing instruction to instruct the aerial vehicle to land on the movable platform, the movable platform including a marking member configured to guide the aerial vehicle to land toward the marking member (see Wang at least col 14 lines 10-32 “The command signal may be generated in response to a command to the UAV to initiate the landing sequence. The command may be provided from the vehicle... In some instances, there may be some error to the GPS coordinates so additional aids may be provided for landing the UAV on the vehicle. For example, a marker may be provided as described in greater detail elsewhere herein. The marker may be a vision based marker which will utilize a camera on board the UAV to provide more accurate positioning. The marker may be any other type of marker as described elsewhere herein.”);
…
…
However, while Wang discloses a marking member to guide the drone to a landing position on the vehicle, the drone controls appear to either execute the task of landing, or retreat temporarily until any nearby obstacles are properly avoided; therefore neither Wang nor Brunet appear to explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member and obtaining an imaging feature of the marking member through the visual sensor of the aerial vehicle…
…adjusting a relative attitude between the aerial vehicle and the marking member based on the imaging feature to allow the aerial vehicle to land toward the marking member…
Ciliberti, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member and obtaining an imaging feature of the marking member through the visual sensor of the aerial vehicle (see Ciliberti at least col 10 lines 55-67 “When the UAV 12 reaches the general area of the UAV station 14, the UAV may increase its altitude to several feet above where the UAV station is (e.g., should be) located. The UAV 12 may then rotate while using the camera of the landing pad locator 110 to capture images of the area. The image classifier processes the images, as described above, to identify the UAV landing pad 28 and determine the action that needs to be taken by the UAV 12 in order to land on the UAV landing pad 28. Once the image classifier has identified the UAV landing pad 28, the UAV 12 moves toward the UAV landing pad 28 and the image classifier may continue to process images form the landing pad locator 110 to continuously direct the UAV to the UAV landing pad.”)…
…adjusting a relative attitude between the aerial vehicle and the marking member based on the imaging feature to allow the aerial vehicle to land toward the marking member (see Ciliberti at least col 10 lines 63-67 “Once the image classifier has identified the UAV landing pad 28, the UAV 12 moves toward the UAV landing pad 28 and the image classifier may continue to process images form the landing pad locator 110 to continuously direct the UAV to the UAV landing pad.”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drone landing sequence as disclosed by Wang with a verification process such as taught by Ciliberti with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of refined controls during a critical maneuver period (see Ciliberti at least col 3 line 60 – col 4 line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Brunet and Ciliberti teach the method according to claim 9, wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member includes:
controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member in a reference direction, the reference direction being opposite to a landing direction of the aerial vehicle (see Ciliberti at least col 10 lines 55-67 “When the UAV 12 reaches the general area of the UAV station 14, the UAV may increase its altitude to several feet above where the UAV station is (e.g., should be) located. The UAV 12 may then rotate while using the camera of the landing pad locator 110 to capture images of the area. The image classifier processes the images, as described above, to identify the UAV landing pad 28 and determine the action that needs to be taken by the UAV 12 in order to land on the UAV landing pad 28. Once the image classifier has identified the UAV landing pad 28, the UAV 12 moves toward the UAV landing pad 28 and the image classifier may continue to process images form the landing pad locator 110 to continuously direct the UAV to the UAV landing pad.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the drone landing sequence as disclosed by Wang with a verification process such as further taught by Ciliberti with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Brunet and Ciliberti teach the method according to claim 9, wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member includes at least one of:
controlling the aerial vehicle to ascend in a vertical direction to cause the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member in the vertical direction (see Ciliberti at least col 10 lines 55-67 “When the UAV 12 reaches the general area of the UAV station 14, the UAV may increase its altitude to several feet above where the UAV station is (e.g., should be) located. The UAV 12 may then rotate while using the camera of the landing pad locator 110 to capture images of the area. The image classifier processes the images, as described above, to identify the UAV landing pad 28 and determine the action that needs to be taken by the UAV 12 in order to land on the UAV landing pad 28. Once the image classifier has identified the UAV landing pad 28, the UAV 12 moves toward the UAV landing pad 28 and the image classifier may continue to process images form the landing pad locator 110 to continuously direct the UAV to the UAV landing pad.”); or
reducing a speed of the aerial vehicle in a horizontal direction to form a speed difference between the aerial vehicle and the movable platform in the horizontal direction to allow the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member in the horizontal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the drone landing sequence as disclosed by Wang with a verification process such as further taught by Ciliberti with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Brunet and Ciliberti as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US-2023/0141818; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Brunet and Ciliberti teach the method according to claim 9. However, while Wang implies landing a UAV on a vehicle under a variety of conditions, neither Wang nor Brunet nor Ciliberti explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…in a process of the aerial vehicle landing to the marking member of the movable platform, in response to detecting a moving status of the marking member not satisfying a preset moving condition, controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member.
Cho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…in a process of the aerial vehicle landing to the marking member of the movable platform, in response to detecting a moving status of the marking member not satisfying a preset moving condition, controlling the aerial vehicle to move away from the marking member (see Cho at least [0032] "If UAV 105 is unable to locate a geofiducial marker 415, or otherwise unable to calculate a geofiducial navigation solution (decision block 328), then UAV 105 will land back at its original launch location (process block 330) using motion tracking guidance and set a status flag indicating an unsuccessful fitness test mission (process block 332). UAV 105 may also deactivate or otherwise power cycle to reset itself in preparation for a retry of the fitness test mission and bring operator awareness to the failed fitness test mission.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drone landing sequence as disclosed by Wang with last minute adjustments such as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation of success so as to have a backup plan for drone controls if conditions are not as intended (see Cho at least [0003]).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Brunet as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sullivan et al. (US-2018/0009549; hereinafter Sullivan).
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Brunet teach the method according to claim 13, further comprising:
…
estimating a relative displacement between the aerial vehicle and the movable platform in the moving direction of the movable platform (see Wang at least col 33 lines 62-65 “For example, if the size of the fiducial marker is known, the distance from the UAV to the marker may be gauged depending on the size of the marker showing up in the sensors of the UAV.”) ...
However, neither Wang nor Brunet explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…estimating landing time of the aerial vehicle on the movable platform…
…the estimated landing time…
Sullivan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…estimating landing time of the aerial vehicle on the movable platform (see Sullivan at least [0077] "...For example, if the ground vehicle 11 is passing under a bridge or underpass when the docking or deployment command is given, the docking or deployment may be delayed until the ground vehicle emerges from under the bridge or underpass. In addition, the UAV or ground vehicle computing system may be configured to estimate a length of time that the vehicle may continue to travel at a steady speed, and compare this with estimated time needed for the UAV to deploy or dock. If the estimated amount of time available to dock or deploy the UAV is deemed insufficient, the docking or deployment may be delayed until the vehicle speed can be stabilized for a sufficient time period.")…
…the estimated landing time (see Sullivan at least [0077] "...For example, if the ground vehicle 11 is passing under a bridge or underpass when the docking or deployment command is given, the docking or deployment may be delayed until the ground vehicle emerges from under the bridge or underpass. In addition, the UAV or ground vehicle computing system may be configured to estimate a length of time that the vehicle may continue to travel at a steady speed, and compare this with estimated time needed for the UAV to deploy or dock. If the estimated amount of time available to dock or deploy the UAV is deemed insufficient, the docking or deployment may be delayed until the vehicle speed can be stabilized for a sufficient time period.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drone landing sequence as disclosed by Wang with an estimated time such as taught by Sullivan with a reasonable expectation of success so as to determine if additional controls steps are required prior to landing (see Sullivan at least [0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Brunet and Sullivan teach the method according to claim 14, wherein a moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle includes a trajectory segment where a height of the aerial vehicle first decreases and then increases when the aerial vehicle lands to the marking member (see Wang at least col 13 lines 22-27 “The vertical component of the UAV velocity V.sub.UAV.sub.--.sub.Y may include a descent of the UAV to land on a top surface of the vehicle. In some instances, the UAV may be descending from a higher altitude to land on the vehicle. In alternate embodiments, the UAV may come up to the vehicle landing spot from the same altitude and/or from a lower altitude.”).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Brunet and Sullivan teach the method according to claim 15, wherein in the trajectory segment, a minimum height of a trajectory point of the aerial vehicle is lower than a height of the marking member (see Wang at least col 13 lines 22-27 “The vertical component of the UAV velocity V.sub.UAV.sub.--.sub.Y may include a descent of the UAV to land on a top surface of the vehicle. In some instances, the UAV may be descending from a higher altitude to land on the vehicle. In alternate embodiments, the UAV may come up to the vehicle landing spot from the same altitude and/or from a lower altitude.” and col 34 lines 19-26 “The marker may be provided anywhere on the vehicle. In some instances, the marker may be provided on an exterior surface of the vehicle. The marker may be on a roof of the vehicle, trunk of the vehicle, hood of the vehicle, extension attached to the vehicle (e.g., carriage, two, or sidecar pulled by the vehicle), side of the vehicle, door of the vehicle, window of the vehicle, mirror of the vehicle, light of the vehicle, or any other portion of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Brunet and Sullivan teach the method according to claim 14, wherein when the aerial vehicle lands to the marking member, a moving trajectory of the aerial vehicle includes a first trajectory segment for height decrease, a second trajectory segment for height increase, and a third trajectory segment for height decrease in sequence, and the height decrease of the aerial vehicle in the first trajectory segment is greater than the height decrease of the aerial vehicle in the third trajectory segment (see Wang at least col 13 lines 22-27 “The vertical component of the UAV velocity V.sub.UAV.sub.--.sub.Y may include a descent of the UAV to land on a top surface of the vehicle. In some instances, the UAV may be descending from a higher altitude to land on the vehicle. In alternate embodiments, the UAV may come up to the vehicle landing spot from the same altitude and/or from a lower altitude.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nuernberger et al. (US-10,275,668) teaches collision detection and avoidance for a movable platform such as a UAV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights