Digital Aerolus, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2022

2021005291 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2022)

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. 15/807,191 11/08/2017 Thomas D. Williams 49113 8328 23589 7590 03/16/2022 Hovey Williams LLP 10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000 Overland Park, KS 66210 EXAMINER ROBERSON, JASON R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2022 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): uspatents@hoveywilliams.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, IAN J. MCEWAN, and JEFFERY J. ALHOLM Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 Technology Center 3600 Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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, 3-14, and 16-26. Appeal Br. 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party as Digital Aerolus, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Method for Flight Control by How a Device is Thrown.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. See Appeal Br. 20-25 (“Claims App.”). We reproduce claim 1, below: 1. A control system for controlling an at least partially autonomous device, the control system comprising: at least one sensor mounted on the at least partially autonomous device, the at least one sensor being configured to sense a physical manipulation of the at least partially autonomous device and an aspect of the physical manipulation; and a processor in communication with the at least one sensor, the processor being configured to: select an action according to the sensed physical manipulation; modify an aspect of the selected action according to the sensed physical manipulation aspect; and instruct the at least partially autonomous device to perform the selected action such that the at least partially autonomous device executes the selected action in accordance with the sensed physical manipulation aspect. Claims App. 20 (emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Gong US 9,412,278 B1 Aug. 9, 2016 Ashjaee US 2015/0234055 A1 Aug. 20, 2015 Wang US 2016/0313742 A1 Oct. 27, 2016 Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 3 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3-11, 14, 16-24 103 Wang 12, 25 103 Wang, Gong 13, 26 103 Wang, Ashjaee See Final Act. 3-10. ANALYSIS I. Claims 1, 3-11, 14, 16-24 (Wang) The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-11, 14, and 16-24 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang. Final Act. 3. Appellant presents arguments contesting the rejection of claims 1, 3- 7, 10, 14, 16-20, and 23, but does not present separate arguments contesting the rejection of dependent claims 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, and 24. See Appeal Br. 6- 12. a. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 21, 22, and 24 We treat claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, and 24 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020). i. Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches a sensor and a processor in communication with the sensor, in which the processor is configured to perform several of the claimed steps. See Final Act. 3-6 (citing, in part, Wang’s Figure 8) (addressing claim 1); see also id. at 9 (addressing claim 14). Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 4 Figure 8 illustrates “a person 801 throws or tosses a UAV 802, with non- rotating rotor blades into the air in an arc-like trajectory 803.” See Wang ¶ 56; see also id. ¶ 59 (“a UAV may be released by the person 801 . . .via one or more holding members 810.”). Wang describes that “the release of the UAV by a human hand may be detected.” Id. ¶ 57. The Examiner finds that Wang’s Figure 8 and paragraphs 5, 6, 56, and 59 disclose “at least one sensor being configured to sense a physical manipulation of the at least partially autonomous device and an aspect of the physical manipulation.” See Final Act. 3 (underlining omitted). Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 5 The Examiner further finds that Wang teaches “a processor in communication with the at least one sensor, the processor being configured to” perform the recited steps. See id. at 3-6. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that “it is conceded that Wang does not explicitly ‘select’ the launching action,” and instead explains that “it may be considered inherent of Wang that the launch of the unmanned rotorcraft is indeed selected in some meaningful way.” Id. at 4. The Examiner further reasons that “it would have been obvious at the time of filing to modify Wang to include an explicit selection of a control, with predictable results, with the motivation of controlling the UAV with only visual signals.” Id. at 5 (citing Wang ¶ 4). ii. Appellant’s Arguments In contesting the rejection of claims 1 and 14, Appellant argues that “Wang fails to disclose the term ‘modify an aspect of the selected action according to the sensed physical manipulation aspect.’” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that “the Examiner does not explain how the broadest interpretation of an ‘aspect of an action’ includes activation of rotors.” Id. at 11. Appellant explains that “the Wang device merely passively hovers at the trajectory peak,” and because of this, “the Examiner has failed to show how the Wang device modifies an aspect of the selected action according to the sensed physical manipulation aspect and executes the selected action in accordance with the sensed physical manipulation aspect.” Id. at 12. In specifically addressing claim 14, Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Wang discloses “adjustment of lift/thrust based on the aspect of a throw of grip pressure,” because “[i]n Wang, the Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 6 pressure sensor is used only to determine if the drone has been released.” See id. iii. Analysis Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appellant’s arguments are premised on a misunderstanding that the limitations recited in claims 1 and 14 are narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments are based on a misunderstanding that Wang must use the same terms in its disclosure as recited in the claims to satisfy the claimed limitations. This is not the case. See in re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding that the description in the prior art need not be ipsis verbis to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation). Claim 1 requires, inter alia, a processor configured to “modify an aspect of the selected action according to the sensed physical manipulation aspect.” Claims App. 20. Claim 14 recites similar language. See id. at 23. Appellant’s argument presumes that the term, “aspect of the selected action,” cannot reasonably include Wang’s activation of rotors. See Appeal Br. 11 (“the Examiner does not explain how the broadest interpretation of an ‘aspect of an action’ includes activation of rotors.”). We agree with the Examiner, however, that Wang’s “UAV may hover over the peak of the trajectory, clearly modifying the hovering action’s location based on the peak of the trajectory, fully meeting the claim limitations.” Ans. 6 (italics omitted). Indeed, Wang discloses that its “UAV may hover over the peak of the [throwing] trajectory.” Wang ¶ 56; see also id. at Fig. 8. Here, the “selected action” is hovering, the “aspect of the selected action” is activating or adjusting the rotors’ speeds to maneuver the UAV’s location, and the Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 7 “physical manipulation” is the user’s throw. See Wang ¶ 56; see also Ans. 7 (“the broadest reasonable interpretation of the aspect may include any characteristic of the hover (action) of Wang, including the hover location. (i.e., at the trajectory peak[.)]”). We further note that Appellant’s own Specification describes that “an action may be flying, hovering, . . . or any other suitable action.” Spec. ¶ 5. Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and of claims 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, and 24, which fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). b. Claims 3, 16 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein one of the at least one sensors is a pressure sensor, the physical manipulation is a throwing motion, and the physical manipulation aspect is selected from the group consisting of a grip location and a grip pressure during throwing motion.” Claims App. 20. Claim 16 depends from claim 14 and recites similar language. See id. at 23. In addressing these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches this limitation, citing to Wang’s paragraph 59. See Final Act. 6, 9. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by failing “to explain how ‘detected release’ can be considered a physical manipulation aspect or how an aspect of the selected action is modified according to the physical manipulation aspect.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner has the stronger position. Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 8 Wang discloses that “a UAV may be released by the person 801 of FIG. 8 via one or more holding members 810 . . . . The holding members may be provided with one or more sensors, such as a touch sensor, pressure sensor . . . to detect the contact or lack thereof.” Wang ¶ 59. We agree with the Examiner that “the grip is clearly a physical manipulation, and the grip pressure is clearly an aspect of the grip.” Ans. 10 (emphasis omitted). We further note that Appellant’s Specification describes that “the physical manipulation may be a grasp/grip, hold, shake, move, throw, toss, . . . or any other suitable physical interaction.” Spec. ¶ 4. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 16. c. Claims 4, 17 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the at least one sensor includes a sensor selected from the group consisting of an accelerometer and a motion sensor and the physical manipulation aspect is selected from the group consisting of a throw intensity, a rotation direction, a rotation speed, a throw launch angle, a throw launch direction, and a throw type.” Claims App. 20. Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and recites similar language. See id. at 23. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches this limitation, finding that Wang discloses an inertial sensor and that the peak of Wang’s throwing trajectory “is inherently proportional to the intensity of the throw.” See Final Act. 6 (citing Wang ¶¶ 56, 61, 81), 9. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to explain how “throwing or tossing the UAV . . . can be considered a physical manipulation aspect or how an aspect of the selected action is modified according to the physical manipulation aspect.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant submits that “the throw or Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 9 toss of Wang does not have the significance implied by the Examiner and in fact illustrates the opposite.” Id. Appellant’s argument is unavailing. Appellant’s argument presumes that the claim language is narrower than the broadest reasonable one. We agree with the Examiner that “the strength (i.e. the intensity) of the throw is kinematically directly proportional to how high the UAV’s peak trajectory will be for the given upward throwing angle shown in Fig. 8 of Wang.” Ans. 11. Underlying Appellant’s argument is a misunderstanding that the claim requires more, or that Wang does not satisfy the limitation if the terms used in Wang differ from those used in the claims. As explained above, this is not the case. Bond, 910 F.2d at 832-33. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 4 and 17. d. Claims 5, 18 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the at least one sensor includes a sensor selected from the group consisting of an accelerometer and a motion sensor and the physical manipulation aspect is selected from the group consisting of a throw launch direction relative to compass directions, another object, and a GPS coordinate system.” Claims App. 21. Claim 18 depends from claim 14 and recites similar language. See id. at 23. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang satisfies these limitations, citing Wang’s paragraphs 6, 15, 25, 56. Final Act. 6, 9. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to explain “how the action of launch can be considered a physical manipulation aspect or how an aspect of the selected action is modified according to the physical manipulation aspect.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant explains that “Wang is entirely Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 10 concerned with identifying that the UAV is ready to launch and then proceeding with its launch.” Id. We disagree with Appellant. Wang discloses that its “sensor of the foregoing UAV can be configured to detect a positional change of the UAV,” and that “[i]n some embodiments, a sensor for sensing the positional change is . . . an inertial sensor (including but not limited to a gyroscope and an accelerometer), a GPS receiver . . . , compass.” Wang ¶ 15. Wang further discloses that “[o]ne or more of these types of sensors can be utilized, alone or collectively, to sense any one or combination of the following . . . a change in location with respect to a reference object.” Id. Based on this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that “Wang clearly detects a change in location with respect to a reference object, clearly equivalent to the claimed physical manipulation aspect including a throw launch direction relative to another object.” Ans. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 18. e. Claims 6, 19 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the at least one sensor includes a proximity sensor and the physical manipulation aspect is a position of the at least partially autonomous device at a release point of the physical manipulation.” Claims App. 21. Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and recites similar language. See id. at 23. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses this limitation, citing Wang’s paragraphs 52 and 59. Final Act. 7, 9. Appellant argues that the “Examiner [] fails to explain how release of the grip can be considered a physical manipulation aspect or how an aspect Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 11 of the selected action is modified according to the physical manipulation aspect.” Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner has the better position. Wang discloses that “the UAV may autonomously start or activate the rotors and rotor blades in response to detected positional change of the UAV and/or detected release of the UAV from the mechanical hand[,] similar to that discussed in connection with FIG. 8.” Wang ¶ 61; see also Ans. 15 (citing the same). Based on this disclosure, Wang discloses detection of the position of the release point of the physical manipulation in order to autonomously start or activate the rotors and rotor blades. See Ans. 15 (finding the same). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 6 and 19. f. Claims 7, 20 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, inter alia, “wherein . . . the physical manipulation being a throwing motion, the physical manipulation aspect including a plurality of throwing motion aspects including . . . an aspect selected from the group consisting of a throw intensity . . . and a throw type.” Claims App. 21. Claim 20 recites similar language. See id. at 23-24. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang satisfies these limitations. See Final Act. 7-9. Appellant contends that the “Examiner does not provide any explanation how the mere use of a touch sensor or pressure sensor . . . amounts to detecting grip location or grip pressure as a throwing motion aspect.” Appeal Br. 17. We disagree with Appellant. Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 12 Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Wang’s contact sensor “includes a location on the UAV where the grip is detected, such as the bottom of the UAV in the case where the support of the palm of the hand is withdrawn from the UAV.” Ans. 16 (citing Wang ¶ 63). In particular, Wang discloses that: In some embodiments, instead of or in addition to sensing freefall, the UAV may also detect the release of the UAV, for example, by a contact sensor (e.g., touch sensor, pressure sensor, or temperature sensor). In response to the detected positional change and/or release of the UAV, the UAV may spontaneously and autonomously actuate the rotors (and corresponding rotor blades) to generate the desired lift and/or thrust[.] Wang ¶ 63 (emphasis added). We find Wang’s disclosure in at least paragraph 63 satisfies the limitation. Appellant repeats the same arguments addressed previously regarding the Examiner’s failure to explain the rejection. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 18 (“Examiner provides no explanation for how the inertial sensor in Wang . . . amounts to detecting a throw type throwing motion aspect”). We agree with the Examiner that Appellant is merely repeating the same unpersuasive arguments addressed above. See Ans. 16-17 (“These are repeated arguments”). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 7 and 20. g. Claims 10, 23 Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein the action aspect is selected from the group consisting of a start delay, duration, intensity, speed, linear direction, rotational direction, and path.” Claims Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 13 App. 21. Claim 23 depends from claim 14 and recites similar language. See id. at 24. In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Wang’s paragraph 5 discloses this limitation. Final Act. 8, 9. Appellant argues that “while the rotor blades may have a speed, nowhere in Wang is it taught that the speed (as an action aspect) is modified.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Wang discloses a “sensor being configured to detect release of a grip of said rotorcraft by a hand, the method comprising the steps of: (a) detecting by the sensor, the release of the grip by said hand; and (b) in response to the detected release of the grip, generating an activating signal to actuate the one or more rotor blades of the rotorcraft to generate a lift and/or thrust.” Wang ¶ 5. Based on this disclosure, the rotor blades are activated to generate lift, thus modifying the speed (an action aspect) of Wang’s rotor blades. Again, underlying Appellant’s argument is a misunderstanding that the claim is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation, or that Wang does not satisfy the limitation if the terms used in Wang differ from those used in the claims. Bond, 910 F.2d at 832-33. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 23. h. Summary of Rejection Under Wang We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 14, and 16-24 as unpatentable over Wang. We further adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as set forth in the Final Office Action and Answer. Appeal 2021-005291 Application 15/807,191 14 II. Remaining Rejections Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejections of claims 12, 13, 25, and 26 based on Wang in view of Gong or Ashjaee. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 12 and 25 as unpatentable over Wang in view of Gong, and we affirm the rejection of claims 13 and 26 as unpatentable over Wang in view of Ashjaee. III. Conclusion We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-14, and 16-26. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-11, 14, 16-24 103 Wang 1, 3-11, 14, 16-24 12, 25 103 Wang, Gong 12, 25 13, 26 103 Wang, Ashjaee 13, 26 Overall Outcome 1, 3-14, 16-26 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). AFFIRMED