Ashwani K. Chaudary

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14276534 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

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.
14/276,534 05/13/2014 Ashwani K. Chaudary 60070/14-0410-US-NP 5534
122219 7590 01/02/2020
Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company
One North Franklin Street
Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
bmatthias@millermatthiashull.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
ynunez@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASHWANI K. CHAUDARY

Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES A. TARTAL, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, 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 rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 12–16, and 18–21. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method of controlling a payload angle of a payload
that is slung from an aerial vehicle comprising:
determining an angle of the payload relative to a body of
the aerial vehicle;
ignoring the angle of the payload when the angle is less
than a threshold angle in a range of three to five degrees;
generating an adjustment command corresponding to the
angle of the payload when the angle is greater than the
threshold range of three to five degrees; and
applying the adjustment command to cause a change in at
least one of a pitch angle of the body and a roll angle of the
body that accelerates the aerial vehicle in a direction of the
angle of the payload.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 3,137,459 June 16, 1964
Hagerott et al.
(“Hagerott”)
US 2014/0114505 A1 Apr. 24, 2014
Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”) US 9,146,557 B1 Sept. 29,2015
Hamers et al. (“Hamers”) EP 1 146 317 A1 Oct. 17, 2001

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hamers.3

2 The Final Office Action (page 2) rejected dependent claims 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). On June 9, 2017, the Examiner entered a claim
amendment (submitted by the Appellant on May 2, 2017, in the paper
entitled Supplemental Amendment Prior To Consideration of Appeal Brief),
obviating this rejection.
3 The Final Office Action (page 3) includes claims 9 and 11 in this rejection.
These claims are canceled.
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

3
II. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hamers and Hagerott.
III. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hamers, Hagerott, and Smith.
IV. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hamers and Ahmed.
V. Claims 15, 16, and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hamers and Ahmed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 5–7
The Appellant contends that Hamers fails to teach the limitation of
independent claim 1 of “ignoring the angle of the payload when the angle is
less than a threshold angle in a range of three to five degrees.” Appeal Br.
15–16.
According to the Examiner, Hamers’ paragraph 8 teaches the
identified limitation, because Hamers employs automated control whenever
the payload angle exceeds zero degrees. See Final Action 3; see also
Answer 3–4. According to the Examiner:
The examiner has made the argument that Hamers teaches
ignoring the angle of the payload when the angle is zero. As is
well understood, the angle zero is equal to an angle that is less
than a range of three to five degrees.
Id. at 3.
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

4
Yet, the claim limitation at issue requires the control system to ignore
all payload angles that are less than the “threshold angle in a range of three
to five degrees” — not only instances in which the angle is zero degrees.
That is, the control system will not “apply the adjustment command” for
payload angles that are less than the “threshold angle.” This construction is
supported by paragraphs 37 and 46 and Figure 8 of the Specification.
Paragraph 46, for example, states:
If, at block 326, the magnitude of the payload angle is
below the threshold value, the ‘yes’ branch may be taken to
block 328 and the adjustment command may be set to zero, so
that no changes are made to the input control signal.
Spec. ¶ 46. By contrast, the Hamers system would make adjustments for
payload angles below such a lower threshold, so long as they are greater
than zero, because Hamers adjusts for all such angular deviations greater
than zero, per the Examiner’s reading of the reference. See Answer 3; see
also Final Action 3.
Therefore, the Appellant persuades us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1, such that we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 —
along with dependent claim 6 (the rejection of which relies upon the
Examiner’s analysis for claim 1) — under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Further,
because the Examiner relies upon the same analysis in the rejections of
claim 2, 5, and 7, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 8, 10, and 12–14
Independent claim 8 recites:
8. An aerial vehicle that damps oscillation of a payload
that is slung from the aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle
comprising:
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

5
a body having lift elements;
a payload attachment configured to attach the payload,
the payload coupled to the payload attachment; and
a controller configured to:
measure an angle of the payload relative to the body;
implement a forward control path that controls the
orientation of the body;
implement a feedback function that processes the angle
of the payload and, responsive to the angle of the payload being
greater than a range of three to five degrees, adjust an
orientation of the body in a direction of the angle of the
payload; and
responsive to the angle of the payload being less than the
range of three to five degrees, create a null-control zone
wherein no adjustment to the orientation of the body is made.
(Emphasis added). The limitation “responsive to the angle of the payload
being less than the range of three to five degrees, create a null-control zone
wherein no adjustment to the orientation of the body is made” is similar to
the claim 1 limitation discussed above because the creation of a null-control
zone at angles of less than a particular angle (in the range of three to five
degrees) is akin to measuring the angle against a threshold angle (in the
range of three to five degrees). Like the identified limitation of claim 1, the
Examiner relies upon Hamers’ paragraph 8 as teaching this claim 8
limitation. See Final Action 5. Also, the Appellant’s argument, with regard
to claim 8 (see Appeal Br. 17–18), is similar to and references the argument
provided for claim 1, discussed above.
Our analysis provided with regard to claim 1 also reasonably applies
to the identified similar limitation of claim 8, because the Examiner has not
identified a controller in Hamers that is configured to create a null-control
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

6
zone at angles less than an angle in the range of three to five degrees.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, and of claims 10 and
12–14 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Claims 15, 16, and 18–21
Independent claim 15 recites:
15. A quadrotor configured to automatically compensate
for changes in an angle of a payload that is slung from the
quadrotor comprising:
four lift rotors;
a body coupling the four lift rotors;
a payload attachment; and
a controller configured to:
measure the angle of the payload relative to a
plane through the four lift rotors;
when a threshold condition is present, generate an
adjustment command responsive to the angle of the
payload; and
apply the adjustment command to an input control
signal to cause the quadrotor to accelerate in a direction
of the angle of the payload, wherein the controller is
further configured to cap the adjustment command to a
value corresponding to a saturation threshold angle
when the angle of the payload exceeds the saturation
threshold angle.
(Emphasis added).
The Specification illuminates the meaning of the limitation
emphasized above, in explaining the operation of the “saturation”
functionality:
A saturation function 246 is a function that caps the
magnitude of the adjustment command to a output signal that is
equivalent to a saturation threshold angle. . . . All angles less
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

7
than the saturation threshold angle will be passed through
unaltered. This may help prevent overcorrection that might
cause instability in the quadrotor 102 should the operating
environment include, for example, large wind gusts or
tampering with a payload.
Spec. ¶ 38. Thus, per the identified limitation of claim 15, the controller will
apply an adjustment command that corresponds to the payload angle;
however, for payload angles that exceed the “saturation threshold angle,” the
controller will not increase the adjustment, but will only apply the
adjustment command corresponding to that of the “saturation threshold
angle.” See Appeal Br. 22.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner takes the position that
Hamers’ paragraph 8 teaches claim 15’s limitation of capping the adjustment
command to that corresponding to the “saturation threshold angle.” Final
Action 10. The Final Office Action states that, per Hamers’ teaching, “the
adjustment command creates no response, or is capped, at zero degrees.”
Id. The Examiner’s Answer emphasizes, instead, paragraph 8’s disclosure
of a “pilot” “suppress[ing]” the oscillation of a payload. Answer 4–5.
Further, the Answer refers to other portions of Hamers, disclosing the use of
a “warning” signal, when the payload oscillations reach a particular angle.
Id. at 5 (citing Hamers ¶¶ 13, 15, 20, 21).
Yet, there is no disclosure, in the cited portions of Hamers, of capping
the adjustment command at a level associated with a particular angle (the
claimed “saturation threshold angle”). See Hamers ¶¶ 8, 13, 15, 20, 21; see
also Reply Br. 21–22.
Appeal 2018-000372
Application 14/276,534

8
Therefore, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of independent
claim 15, such that we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 (and claims
16, and 18–21 depending therefrom) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8, 10,
12–14
102(a)(1) Hamers 1, 6, 8, 10,
12–14
2 103 Hamers, Hagerott 2
5 103 Hamers, Hagerott,
Smith
5
7 103 Hamers, Ahmed 7
15, 16, 18–
21
103 Hamers, Ahmed 15, 16,
18–21
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 5–8,
10, 12–16,
18–21

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).
REVERSED