Ex Parte Buchmueller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

14491215 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/491,215
136715 7590
Athorus, PLLC
P.O. Box 579
FILING DATE
09/19/2014
08/23/2018
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Buchmueller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
110.0223 1065
EXAMINER
GICZY, ALEXANDER V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
athorus.docket@athorus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL BUCHMUELLER, BRIAN C. BECKMAN,
AMIR NA VOT, BRANDON WILLIAM PORTER, GUR KIMCHI,
JEFFREY P. BEZOS, and FREDERIK SCHAFF ALITZKY
Appeal 2017-011329
Application 14/491,215 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 13-20. Final Office
1 Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (May 1,
2017) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."), at 2.
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
Action (December 29, 2016) (hereinafter "Final Act."). 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The claimed subject matter relates to an automated aerial vehicle
("AA V") and system for automatically detecting a contact or an imminent
contact between a propeller of the AA V and an object. Specification
(September 19, 2014) (hereinafter "Spec."), ,r 15. Upon detecting a contact
between the propeller and object, a safety profile is automatically performed
to reduce any harm to the object and/or the AAV by quickly stopping the
propeller. Id. In other implementations, if imminent contact with the
propeller by an object is detected, a safety profile is automatically performed
to either avoid or prevent the contact from occurring. Id. ,r 16. For example,
the propeller may be stopped and/or the AA V may maneuver away from the
detected object. Id. By eliminating or reducing harmful contacts between a
propeller of an AAV and an object, AA Vs may be operated in areas with
unknown or changing surroundings, such as delivering a payload including
an item ordered from an e-commerce website to the backyard of the
customer's home. Id. ,r 17.
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over the prior art.
Appellant contests the rejections. For the reasons explained below, the
Examiner's reasoning as to why one having ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to combine the prior art teachings in the manner claimed is not
based on rational underpinnings. Accordingly, we REVERSE.
2 Claims 5, 8, and 12 are withdrawn, and claim 7 is canceled. Final Act. 1.
2
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the pertinent
claim language shown in italics.
1. An automated aerial vehicle, comprising:
a frame;
a motor coupled to the frame;
a propeller coupled to and rotated by the motor;
a controller configured to at least:
determine a position of the automated aerial vehicle,
wherein the position is based at least in part on an altitude
of the automated aerial vehicle or an area surrounding the
automated aerial vehicle;
select a safety profile from a plurality of safety
profiles based at least in part on the determined position,
each safety profile being associated with a respective
safety perimeter of the propeller;
detect an object within a selected respective safety
perimeter associated with the selected safety profile of the
propeller; and
stop the propeller in response to detecting the object
within the selected respective safety perimeter of the
propeller.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
Wood
Tetelbaum et al. ("Tetelbaum")
Maeda
Takeuchi
Christoph
EVIDENCE
US 6,804,607 Bl
US 2010/0206145 Al
US 2011/0227435 Al
US 2012/0235606 Al
US 8,473,189 B2
Oct. 12, 2004
Aug. 19, 2010
Sept. 22, 2011
Sept. 20, 2012
June 25, 2013
A. Amato, "Parrot Announces New Bebop Drone" (May 12, 2014)
3
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
N. Chan, "Hands-On with Parrot's Bebop Drone Quadcopter" (May 12,
2014)
I. Barajas, "Parrot Unveils New Drone and Controller" (May 14, 2014)
REJECTIONS
The Final Office Action, as modified by the Advisory Action 3,
includes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected as unpatentable over
Barajas, Chan, Amato, and Christoph.
2. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected as unpatentable over Barajas, Chan,
Amato, Christoph, and Maeda.
3. Claim 4 stands rejected as unpatentable over Barajas, Chan,
Amato, Christoph, and Tetelbaum.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected as unpatentable over Barajas, Chan,
Amato, Christoph, and Wood.
5. Claims 15-18 and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable over Barajas,
Chan, Christoph, Amato, and Maeda.
6. Claims 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable over Barajas,
Chan, Christoph, Amato, and Takeuchi.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness of claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 13 as
unpatentable over Barajas, Chan, Amato, and Christoph
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite a controller and a computer-
implemented method, respectively, that selects a safety profile from a
3 In the Advisory Action, the Examiner entered Appellant's proposed claim
amendments and indicated that Appellant's reply to the Final Office Action
overcame a rejection of claims 1-4, 10, 11, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). Advisory Action (February 24, 2017), at 1-2.
4
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
plurality of safety profiles based at least in part on a determined position of
the automated aerial vehicle. Appeal Br. 24, 25 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because
there is no motivation to combine the prior art teachings such that a resulting
controller or control method would select a safety profile from a plurality of
safety profiles. Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues:
Id.
Each of Amato, Barajas, and Chan merely describes shutting
down all propellers if someone touches a propeller, and
Christoph merely describes stopping a tail rotor in response to
an object being within a critical minimum distance of the tail
rotor. However, there is absolutely no motivation to combine
the disclosures of Amato, Barajas, and Chan, which is related to
a Bebop drone, with the disclosure of Christoph, which is
related to a tail rotor of a helicopter, in the manner alleged by
the Office. For example, each of Amato, Barajas, Chan, and
Christoph merely describes a single safety profile, such that
there is no motivation in any of the cited references that would
result in "a plurality of safety profiles."
The Examiner responds that the Bebop drone controller, as described
in Barajas, Chan, and Amato, executes a safety profile to shut down the
propeller in response to an object being within a safety perimeter during
flight. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner finds that Christoph teaches employing a
safety profile associated with a safety perimeter of a propeller to stop the
propeller if an object is detected within the safety perimeter while the
helicopter is on the ground. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds that Christoph
provides a second safety profile using sensors that detect the distance
between the object and the propellers to shut the propeller down before
contact. Id. at 11. The Examiner proposes to modify the Bebop drone
controller to include Christoph's second safety profile to be employed when
5
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
the drone is on the ground to "further enhance the safety of the drone to
reduce the risk of injury to a person [from] a rotating propeller by stopping
the propeller prior to the person touch[ing] it." Id. at 10.
The Examiner has not articulated adequately how the proposed
modification to the Bebop drone, based on the teaching of Christoph to use
sensors to determine a distance from the object to the propellers and to stop
the propellers prior to the object contacting the propellers, would result in a
system in which the controller selects from among a plurality of safety
profiles based at least in part on the determined position. Specifically, the
Examiner has not explained adequately why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to use the improved technique of Christoph only in
the instance in which the Bebop drone is on the ground. Instead, it seems
more logical that one having ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve the
Bebop drone control system, would have implemented the improved
technique of Christoph to avoid contact between the drone propellers and an
object under both circumstances, i.e., on the ground and during flight. In
other words, we find that the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art to use the determined
distance to avoid contact whenever the propellers of the drone are rotating,
regardless of the drone's location in the air versus on the ground. In this
case, the Bebop drone, as modified, would still employ a single safety
profile, i.e., shutting off the propellers if imminent contact is anticipated,
regardless of the position of the drone.
As such, the Examiner has not articulated adequate reasoning based
on rational underpinnings to explain why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led by the cited prior art teachings to select a safety profile
6
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
from a plurality of safety profiles based at least in part on the determined
position of an automated aerial vehicle. For this reason, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, and their dependent claims 3, 9,
10, and 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Barajas, Chan,
Amato, and Christoph.
Second through Fourth Grounds of Rejection: Obviousness of claims 2, 4,
11, and 14
The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 11, and 14 are
based on the same deficient explanation, discussed above, for the proposed
combination of Barajas, Chan, and Amato with the teaching of Christoph to
meet the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6. Final Act. 17-21. The
Examiner does not rely on Maeda, Tetelbaum, or Wood to cure the
deficiencies in the base combination. Id. As such, we likewise do not
sustain the second through fourth grounds of rejection.
Fifth and Sixth Grounds of Rejection: Obviousness of claims 15-20
Independent claim 15 is directed to an apparatus including a safety
profile component configured to select a safety profile from a plurality of
safety profiles based at least in part on the determined position of the
apparatus ("the selecting limitation"). Appeal Br. 27 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner's rejections of independent claim 15, and its dependent claims
16-20, are based on the same deficient explanation, discussed above, for the
proposed combination of Barajas, Chan, and Amato with the teaching of
Christoph to meet the selecting limitation. Final Act. 21-32. The Examiner
does not rely on Maeda or Takeuchi to cure the deficiencies in the base
combination. Id. As such, we likewise do not sustain the fifth and sixth
grounds of rejection.
7
Appeal2017-011329
Application 14/ 491,215
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, and 13-
20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8