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 .
Status of Claims
This first non-final action is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 12/18/2025.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 21-28, 30, 32-33, 35-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardini (US 11079752 B1) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200337151 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lombardini discloses a controller for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller), comprising:
control elements configured to receive inputs from a user (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV);
a circuit board arranged within the controller (see at least column 11, lines 12-33 disclosing flexible circuit boards connecting the control panel and display of the controller);
and a cover movably coupled to the controller and configured to enclose the control elements in a closed position and expose the control elements in an open position (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed), wherein the cover is mechanically aligned with the control elements such that, when the cover is in the closed position, the control elements are positioned within an interior volume of the cover (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the circuit board comprises:
a first region implementing control element circuitry electrically connected to the control elements;
a second region implementing inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry configured to provide IMU data;
and a cutout separating the first region from the second region to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests a first region implementing control element circuitry electrically connected to the control elements (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
a second region implementing inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry configured to provide IMU data (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
and a cutout separating the first region from the second region to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 32, Lombardini discloses a controller for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller), comprising:
a circuit board arranged inside of a cavity defined by the controller (see at least column 11, lines 12-33 disclosing flexible circuit boards connecting the control panel and display of the controller);
and a cover movably coupled to the controller and configured to enclose the control elements in a closed position and expose the control elements in an open position (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed), wherein the cover is mechanically aligned with the control elements such that, when the cover is in the closed position, the control elements are positioned within an interior volume of the cover (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
While Lombardini discloses control element circuitry electrically connected to control elements of the controller (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV), it does not explicitly disclose being coupled to a first region of the circuit board;
and inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry configured to provide IMU data and coupled to a second region of the circuit board that is spaced apart from the first region of the circuit board by a cutout.
However, Zhu suggests being coupled to a first region of the circuit board (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
and inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry configured to provide IMU data and coupled to a second region of the circuit board that is spaced apart from the first region of the circuit board by a cutout (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 38, Lombardini discloses a system, comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see at least abstract and Figs. 1-2);
a controller in wireless communication with the UAV (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller), wherein the controller includes a circuit board arranged within the controller (see at least columns 9-10, lines 59-67 and lines 1-4 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV);
and a cover pivotally coupled to the controller and that defines an interior space configured to enclose a portion of the controller (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the circuit board comprises:
a first region implementing control element circuitry;
a second region implementing inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry;
and a cutout defined by the circuit board that separates the first region from the second region to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests a first region implementing control element circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
a second region implementing inertial measurement unit (IMU) circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body);
and a cutout defined by the circuit board that separates the first region from the second region to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 22, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the cutout is configured to physically isolate the IMU circuitry from the control element circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests the cutout is configured to physically isolate the IMU circuitry from the control element circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 23, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the circuit board further includes a circuit board lead that is configured to dampen extraneous movements detected by the IMU circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests the circuit board further includes a circuit board lead that is configured to dampen extraneous movements detected by the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0022], [0025], and [0037-0040] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body to ensure IMU accuracy and reduce mechanical and thermal stress).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 24, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the extraneous movements includes a user providing inputs via the control elements, and wherein the inputs are received as mechanical actuations at the control element circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests the extraneous movements includes a user providing inputs via the control elements, and wherein the inputs are received as mechanical actuations at the control element circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0022], [0025], and [0037-0040] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body to ensure IMU accuracy and reduce mechanical and thermal stress).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 25, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the extraneous movements cause stress or strain on the circuit board that negatively impacts operation of the IMU circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests the extraneous movements cause stress or strain on the circuit board that negatively impacts operation of the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0022], [0025], and [0037-0040] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body to ensure IMU accuracy and reduce mechanical and thermal stress).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 26, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the circuit board is a single circuit board such that the first region and the second region of the circuit board are formed with one another.
However, Zhu suggests the circuit board is a single circuit board such that the first region and the second region of the circuit board are formed with one another (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claims 27 and 40, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the control element circuitry is mounted to the first region of the circuit board and the IMU circuitry is mounted to the second region of the circuit board.
However, Zhu suggests the control element circuitry is mounted to the first region of the circuit board and the IMU circuitry is mounted to the second region of the circuit board (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 28, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the cutout physically isolates the control element circuitry from the IMU circuitry by defining an air gap between the first region and the second region.
However, Zhu suggests the cutout physically isolates the control element circuitry from the IMU circuitry by defining an air gap between the first region and the second region (see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0022], and [0028-0030] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body separated by spacing grooves).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 30, Lombardini discloses the control elements include at least one of a button, a directional pad, an electronic touchscreen, or a joystick, and wherein the cover is configured as a clamshell that is coupled to the controller by a hinge and movable to the closed position to enclose the control elements within a cavity of the cover (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and 47-54 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17- 18, where the controller is depicted to include joysticks and is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
Regarding claim 33, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the cutout is defined by the circuit board to physically separate the first region of the circuit board from the second region of the circuit board.
However, Zhu suggests the cutout is defined by the circuit board to physically separate the first region of the circuit board from the second region of the circuit board (see at least ¶ [0005-0007] and [0022] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 35, Lombardini discloses the first region of the circuit board is configured for mechanical actuation by a user, and wherein the mechanical actuation is received by the first region of the circuit board based upon a user providing inputs via the control elements (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and 47-54 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17- 18, where the controller is depicted to include joysticks and is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
Regarding claim 36, Lombardini does not explicitly disclose the cutout defines an air gap between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry.
However, Zhu suggests the cutout defines an air gap between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry to reduce electromagnetic interference between the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0022], and [0028-0030] and Figs. 1-6 where a circuit board has a micro-controller disposed on a main body and an IMU disposed on an isolated body separated by spacing grooves).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the isolated IMU built into the controller of Zhu into the controller of Lombardini with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Zhu is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the IMU and its isolation serve the same functions whether integrated into an onboard or remote controller. This would help the system track inertial information and make sure the information is accurate and not affected by external influence.
Regarding claim 39, Lombardini discloses the cover is configured to enclose control elements of the controller that are electrically connected to the control element circuitry (see at least column 10, lines 14-36 and Figs. 5, 7, and 17-18 where a UAV remote controller is configured into a control case, with various control input elements to control the flight of the UAV positioned on a lower part of the case while a display screen is positioned on the upper lid that covers the lower part when closed).
Claims 29 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardini in view of Zhu et al., as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and in view of Meier (US 20210343170 A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 37, the combination of Lombardini and Zhu does not explicitly disclose a heatsink that includes one or more fins;
and a fan coupled to the heatsink, wherein the heatsink and the fan are arranged on an under portion of the controller and are configured for cooling the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry.
However, Meier suggests a heatsink that includes one or more fins (see at least ¶ [0049] and Fig. 1 describing a vehicle controller for an autonomous vehicle with an integrated heat sink formed from a plurality of planar fins);
and a fan coupled to the heatsink, wherein the heatsink and the fan are arranged on an under portion of the controller and are configured for cooling the control element circuitry and the IMU circuitry (see at least ¶ [0049] and Fig. 1 describing a vehicle controller for an autonomous vehicle with a fan to increase airflow over the integrated heat sink).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the finned heat sinks and fans of Meier into the combination of Lombardini and Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. While the controller of Meier is on board the drone while Lombardini's controller is remote, the cooling function of the heat sinks would function the same whether the controller is onboard or remote. This would help the controller dissipate heat either generated through operation or from collecting ambient heat from the environment.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardini in view of Zhu et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hutson (US 20170277176 A1).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Lombardini and Zhu does not explicitly disclose the control elements include a portable electronic device that is detachable from the controller.
However, Hutson suggests the control elements include a portable electronic device that is detachable from the controller (see at least ¶ [0072-0072] and Fig. 1A-2 disclosing a UAV controller body able to mount a wireless communication device to provide additional control to the UAV).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mounting wireless communication device of Hutson into the combination of Lombardini and Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. This would help augment the control capabilities of the UAV controller by being able to connect a wireless communication device to the controller.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardini in view of Zhu et al., as applied to claim 32 above, and in view of Fujimoto et al. (US 20220029715 A1).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Lombardini and Zhu does not explicitly disclose the circuit board is a multilayer printed circuit board.
However, Fujimoto suggests the circuit board is a multilayer printed circuit board (see at least ¶ [0096] disclosing an antenna for an unmanned flight vehicle using multilayer laminated printed circuit boards).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the multilayer laminated printed circuit board of Fujimoto into the combination of Lombardini and Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are in the same field of controlling drones. One of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be an easy matter of design choice to implement multilayer laminated printed circuit boards into the circuitry of Lombardini and Zhu without undue experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/27/26
Prosecution Insights