Sanmina CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 23, 20202020001692 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/841,223 12/13/2017 Max Edward Klein SAN-1129T1 2884 56522 7590 10/23/2020 LOZA & LOZA, LLP/Sanmina 305 N. Second Avenue #127 Upland, CA 91786-6064 EXAMINER BADAWI, MEDHAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): julio-pto@lozaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAX EDWARD KLEIN Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–14, and 16–22. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sanmina Corp. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to devices and methods for facilitating capture of unmanned aerial vehicles. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capture device, comprising: a netting system including a net launch device and a net; a propulsion system including a plurality of propellers coupled to one or more motors; a positioning system; a camera system; and a processing system coupled to the netting system, the propulsion system, the positioning system, and the camera system, the processing system comprising logic to: operate the propulsion system to autonomously navigate to a general location of a target UAV in response to information obtained from the positioning system and from the camera system; determine a direction of travel of the target UAV and a speed of the target UAV from images and information obtained by the camera system; operate the propulsion system to pursue the target UAV in response to the determined direction of travel of the target UAV and a speed of the target UAV; and deploy the netting system to propel the net at the target UAV. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Pavek US 9,739,881 B1 Aug. 22, 2017 Nannoni US 2012/0153074 A1 June 21, 2012 Rastgaar Aagaah US 2017/0144756 A1 May 25, 2017 Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–14, and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rastgaar Aagaah and Pavek. Final Act. 4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rastgaar Aagaah, Pavek and Nannoni. Final Act. 13. OPINION Claims 1, 8 and 16 are independent and argued on the same basis. Appeal Br. 7–12. Appellant separately argues2 claim 6 (Appeal Br. 12–13), 13 and 17 together (Appeal Br. 13), and 21 and 22 together (Appeal Br. 13– 14). Claim 1 is representative of claims 2, 3, 5, 8–12, 14, 16, 18–20 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and dispositive as to claim 4 argued based only on dependency. The Examiner correctly found Rastgaar Aagaah to disclose the basic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capture device of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5. Appellant contends “the sensors making up the intruding detecting electronics [in Rastgaar Aagaah] are described as being utilized only for the detection of an intruding drone, and are not described as being utilized to fly the hunter drone or to operate the rotors of the octocopter.” Appeal Br. 8. And, according to Appellant, “[t]he [Rastgaar Aagaah] reference is noticeably silent about being flown responsive to any camera system.” Appeal Br. 8. 2 Appellant is reminded that under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) “any claim(s) argued separately or as a subgroup shall be argued under a separate subheading that identifies the claim(s) by number.” Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 4 Even though Rastgaar Aagaah expressly mentions the use of its onboard camera in connection with the operation of its net launcher (Rastgaar Aagaah para. 17), it is somewhat difficult to imagine that Rastgaar Aagaah’s system does not have at least some capability to “determine a direction of travel of the target UAV and a speed of the target UAV” and “operate the propulsion system to pursue the target UAV in response to the determined direction of travel of the target UAV and a speed of the target UAV.” The capacity to know and utilize the position, speed, and direction of a target would seem to be a necessary requirement for any type of “hunter” seeking to intercept that target, particularly a hunter that can operate “autonomously.” Rastgaar Aagaah para. 5. Appellant points out that the sensing and calculating aspects of pursuit can, according to Rastgaar Aagaah, occur remotely from the UAV. Reply Br. 3. First, we see no language in the claim precluding this and the language of the cited portion of paragraph 5 would seem to suggest while that is preferable to minimize the amount of hardware on the drone, presumably for weight minimization purposes, it could be either on the drone or remotely located. In any case, the Examiner, recognizing it is at least arguable as to whether the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Rastgaar Aagaah alone, additionally cites Pavek for its additional specificity in demonstrating it was well known in the autonomous vehicle arts to utilize information obtained via cameras 2605 on an autonomous vehicle 2600 to determine the position and velocity of other “target” vehicles T in the area and operate the vehicle’s navigation and propulsion systems 2716, 2614 in response to such information. Final Act. 5–6 (citing, inter alia, Pavek col. 8, ll. 13–22; Fig. 24). Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 5 It is not clear why Appellant believes “Pavek et al. will only teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the camera system of Pavek et al. to detect a presence of an intruding drone and to aim and launch the net launchers, since these are the limited teachings for the camera system in Rastgaar Aagaah et al.” Reply Br. 3. It is clear that Rastgaar Aagaah must have some mechanism to autonomously intercept the drone in order for its projectile net system, having limited range, to be effective. Pavek’s system, which utilizes, inter alia, a camera 2605 to create a 4D map of both where potential targets are and where they are going, and propel 2614 an automated vehicle 2600 in response thereto, provides just such a mechanism. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). The fact that the so-called “targets” in Pavek are non-stationary objects such as other vehicles which are generally to be avoided as opposed to those with which a rendezvous is desired does not undermine the Examiner’s position. A skilled artisan would know how to use Pavek’s 4D model to intercept just as well as avoid a target vehicle. “[A] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellant’s argument that Pavek relies exclusively on RF radar to produce the 4D model (Appeal Br. 10) appears to be plainly inaccurate. Although Pavek touts certain advantages of RF radar over optical sensors (Pavek col. 8, ll. 6–12), Pavek clearly contemplates the use of camera 2605 as well. Pavek col. 28, ll. 8, 23; Fig. 24 (cited at Final Act. 5). For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejections of claims 1–5, 8– 12, 14, 16, and 18–20. Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 6 Concerning claims 13 and 17 Appellant briefly asserts, “there is not [sic] teaching of ‘cutting the tether.’” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s assertion is contrary to paragraph 17 of Rastgaar Aagaah which states “the string or cable may be detached (such as cut or otherwise released).” Ans. 5. Concerning claims 21 and 22 Appellant briefly asserts, “[t]he cited references fail to disclose, teach, or even suggest utilizing images and information obtained by a camera system to ‘localize the target UAV in azimuth, elevation, and range relative to the UAV capture device.’” Appeal Br. 13–14. This appears to be precisely the transformation described at Pavek col. 7, ll. 12–17 (cited at Ans. 5). Appellant does not offer any argument or evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Regarding claims 13, 17, 21, and 22 we recognize the Examiner, in the Answer, departed from and/or supplemented the findings made with respect to these claims in the Final Action from which this appeal was taken. Appellant elected neither to pursue the options available under 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.181) or apprise us of Examiner error in the Examiner’s new findings and reasoning under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for purposes of the present appeal. We nevertheless remind the Examiner that rule of 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2), among other things, serves an important statutory function by helping to ensure that appellants are treated fairly and given timely and adequate notice of all matters of fact and law asserted prior to a case being adjudicated by the board. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 660 F. 3d 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 554); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Plager, J., Concurring (“The examiner cannot sit mum, leaving the applicant to shoot Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 7 arrows into the dark hoping to somehow hit a secret objection harbored by the examiner. The ‘prima facie case’ notion. . .was intended to leave no doubt among examiners that they must state clearly and specifically any objections (the prima facie case) to patentability, and give the applicant fair opportunity to meet those objections with evidence and argument. To that extent the concept serves to level the playing field and reduces the likelihood of administrative arbitrariness.”). Turning to claim 6, the Examiner responds to Appellant’s assertion that neither of the cited references “identif[ies] the target UAV as a target to be captured based on the determined size and shape” (Appeal Br. 12–13) by stating, “Pavek, is a precision camera system that can identify the target based on size and the shape since the system utilizes a camera, multiple radar systems and sensors used for detection.” Ans. 5. The Examiner does not cite to any specific portion of Pavek for this finding. Nor does the Examiner explain precisely what “can identify the target.” Just because Pavek’s system can be made or used to identify a target with its cameras, presumably with some human judgment or intervention, does not mean that Pavel’s system comprises “logic” for doing so as required by claim 6. Our reviewing court’s predecessor has held that a “programmed machine is structurally different from a machine without that program.” In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 148 (CCPA 1976); see also In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399–1400 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]f a machine is programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is physically different from the machine without that program; its memory elements are differently arranged. The fact that these physical changes are invisible to the eye should not tempt us to conclude that the machine has not been changed.”); In re Alappat, 33 F.3d Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 8 1526, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011). If the prior-art apparatus lacks the logic to perform the function stated in the claim the prior-art apparatus cannot be said to teach or disclose such subject matter. See Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For the foregoing reasons we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–14, and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rastgaar Aagaah and Pavek is affirmed. The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rastgaar Aagaah and Pavek is reversed. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rastgaar Aagaah, Pavek and Nannoni is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 14, 16–22 103 Rastgaar Aagaah, Pavek 1–3, 5, 8– 14, 16–22 6 4 103 Rastgaar Aagaah, Pavek, Nannoni 4 Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–14, 16–22 6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-001692 Application 15/841,223 9 AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation