Ex Parte Jenkins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

13916901 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/916,901 06/13/2013
120226 7590 09/19/2018
Patterson & Sheridan - The Boeing Company
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin M. Jenkins
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.
13-0219-US-NP (073459) 1029
EXAMINER
ISMAIL, MAHMOUD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PatentAdmin@boeing.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. JENKINS
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, The Boeing Company, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of moving a
tethered load with a vehicle. Spec. ,r,r 3-5. Claims 1, 15, and 26 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 16 (Claims Appendix)
of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of moving a load comprising:
determining an actual position of a load tethered with a
tether to a vehicle using a plurality of sensors disposed on the
vehicle;
determining a required tether tension and required tether
angle for the tether to move the load from the actual position to
a commanded position;
determining an actual tether tension and actual tether
angle of the tether using the plurality of sensors;
determining a thrust vector to be applied by the vehicle to
change the actual tether tension and the actual tether angle of
the tether to the required tether tension and the required tether
angle; and
applying with the vehicle the thrust vector to reposition
the vehicle relative to the load to achieve the required tether
angle and to create the required tether tension to move the load
to the commanded position.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Madden
Simpson
McWhirk
So
US 6,422,089 B 1
US 2009/0012666 Al
US 2009/0152391 Al
US 2009/0299551 Al
REJECTIONS
July 23, 2002
Jan. 8,2009
June 18, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
I. Claims 1, 3-15, 17-28, and 30-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mc Whirk and So.
2
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
II. Claims 2, 16, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mc Whirk, So, Simpson, and Madden.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1, 3-9, 13-15, and 17-25
Appellant presents arguments for claims 1, 3-9, 13-15, and 17-25
collectively. Appeal Br. 11-13. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Mc Whirk discloses a method of moving a
load substantially as recited in claim 1, including, inter alia, that airship 101
corresponds to the recited vehicle and skycrane 103 corresponds to the
recited load. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner relies on So to teach
determining required tether angles of multiple aircraft. Id. at 6.
Appellants traverse, arguing:
Mc Whirk does not disclose "determining a required tether
tension and tether angle to a tether to move [a] load" and
"determining a thrust vector to be applied by the vehicle to
change the actual tether tension and actual tether angle of the
tether to the required tether tension and the required tether
angle."
Appeal Br. 11 (modification in original). Appellant notes that both airship
101 and skycrane 103 include propulsion systems, and argues that tether 102
is kept under tension "so that the airship 101 and the skycrane 103 can
weathervane for maximum aerodynamic lift and to support helium
circulation through the tethers 102." Id. at 11-12. Referring to paragraphs
133 and 327, Appellant argues that "[n]either of the above-cited portions of
3
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
Mc Whirk discloses using tension in the tether 102 to move the skycrane."
Id. at 12. According to Appellant, "[t]he skycrane 103 is moved by its own
engines rather than the tether 102." Id. Continuing, Appellant argues that
"Mc Whirk does not disclose manipulating the tether angle (by moving the
airship 101) to move the skycrane 103." Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant cites
paragraph 364 in supporting its contention that McWhirk's skycrane is
moved by its own engines rather than being towed via tether 102 by airship
101. Id. at 11-12. This interpretation is explicitly refuted by the following
paragraph of Mc Whirk:
During payload transfer operations, however, should the
Skycrane use turbofan propulsion more vibration, more noise
and turbulence results; [a] lso fuel consumption increases and
creates more fire risk. Therefore, having the Skycrane
maneuver by more passive means is far more preferable, i.e. by
tether control line torque adjustment, through wind flow and
aerodynamic lift (the Skycrane uses an Elevon for flight
control), and adjustments to helium density and buoyancy force
via the helium circulatory system.
McWhirk ,r 365 (emphases added). Thus, McWhirk informs the skilled
artisan that the sky crane's turbofan engines are not to be used when moving
a payload. Instead, the skycrane is moved via a passive system, including
the use of tether 102. As correctly noted by the Examiner, McWhirk
discloses that, during payload transfer operations, "the Airship and
Skycrane/Loadframe are interconnected and have interplay by way of a high
tension, ultra-strong cable or tether control line" and "[a] Laser Direction
Finder (LADAR) would beam along the tethered control line to orient
direction, determine angle of attack, measure distances and control line
tension and tensile strength requirements." Id. ,r 7 4 ( emphasis added); see
4
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
also Final Act. 5 ( citing same). We further note that, with respect to
Mc Whirk' s airship 101, "adjusting the power thrust and vectoring angle is
the main type of actuation." McWhirk ,r 344. Thus, we are not persuaded
by Appellant's assertions that Mc Whirk' s skycrane 103 maneuvers under its
own propulsion system rather than being towed by airship 101.
Appellant's arguments regarding Mc Whirk' s alleged lack of teaching
of manipulating a tether angle are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies
on So to teach this feature. See Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9,
13-15, and 17-25 as being unpatentable over McWhirk and So.
Claims 10-12, 26-28, and 30-36
Claim 10 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites "a plurality
of vehicles moving the load with each of the plurality of vehicles following
the method to move the load." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Independent
claim 26 requires, inter alia, each of a plurality of vehicles to include a
memory containing programming code for execution by a processor to
perform steps similar to those recited in claim 1. Id. at 20 (Claims App.).
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner relies on So to teach the use of a
plurality of vehicles to move a load. Final Act. 9. Regarding claim 26, the
Examiner finds that Mc Whirk discloses "a system for moving a load
comprising: a plurality of vehicles," citing paragraph 156 to disclose
"tether-connected collaborative vehicles [(]AIRSHIP/SKYCRANE/
Loadframe) with heavy payloads." Id. at 14 ( emphasis omitted). The
Examiner also relies on So to teach determining required tether angles of
multiple aircraft in a similar manner as with claim 1. Id. at 16.
5
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
Appellant presents additional arguments for claims 10 and 26;
namely, Appellant argues that "none of the cited references disclose a
plurality of vehicles with respective tethers attached to a load wherein each
vehicle independently" performs the recited method steps. Appeal Br. 14.
Regarding So, Appellant argues that "the plurality of vehicles ('swarm') ...
are controlled by a swarm waypoint controller (803 in Figure 8 of So) that
outputs commands to the individual vehicles." Id.
Claims 10-12
Regarding claim 10, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Contrary to Appellant's assertion, claim 10 does not require each of the
plurality of vehicles to perform the method steps recited in claim 1. Claim 1
recites four "determining" steps, but does not specify what performs these
steps. Id. at 16 (Claims App.). By requiring that "each of the plurality of
vehicles follow[] the method [ of claim 1] to move the load" (id. at 17
(Claims App.)), claim 10 also does not specify what performs the
determining steps. As noted by Appellant, So's "swarm waypoint controller
... outputs commands to the individual vehicles." Appeal Br. 14. This
satisfies the determining steps of claim 1 as incorporated into claim 10.
Thus, Appellant's argument that "the vehicles in So do not independently
calculate the required tether angles and tensions, and the thrust vectors to
achieve them, to move the load to a commanded position" (Appeal Br. 14) is
not commensurate in scope with claim 10.
Moreover, the Examiner relies on So to teach the use of multiple
vehicles, which, when applied to Mc Whirk, would result in multiple airships
101. Final Act. 9. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not address the rejection
as set forth by the Examiner, and, therefore, fail to apprise us of error.
6
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and its dependent
claims 11 and 12, which are not argued separately, as being unpatentable
over Mc Whirk and So.
Claims 26-28 and 30-36
Regarding claim 26, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Claim 26 requires each of the vehicles to have a plurality of sensors, at least
one processor, and a memory containing programming code for execution by
a processor to perform the recited steps, including "determin[ing] an actual
position of a load tethered with a respective tether to the vehicle using the
plurality of sensors." Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
To the extent the Examiner relies on Mc Whirk to disclose a plurality
of vehicles, it is not clear what the Examiner considers to be the load to
which each vehicle is tethered. See Final Act. 14 (identifying McWhirk's
airship 101, skycrane 102, and loadframe 104 as vehicles), 15 ( stating that
each vehicle is tethered to a load, but not identifying the load). We note that
airship 101 is tethered to skycrane 103 and the skycrane is tethered to
loadframe 104 (see, e.g., Mc Whirk Fig. 1 ), but Mc Whirk does not
contemplate, as far as we can determine, tethering each of the airship,
skycrane, and loadframe individually to a single load as required by claim
26.
To the extent the Examiner relies on So to teach a plurality of
vehicles, So discloses that
the payload waypoint controller 802 [ within the pilot station
processor] monitors and controls the payload state variables,
... [and] generates a path along which the payload 14 will
travel from its current state to the desired payload state as
determined by the pilot 508. . . . This path is sent to the swarm
waypoint controller 803, which coordinates the individual
7
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
aircraft within the swarm 18 to obtain the desired payload state
at time t. ...
The swarm waypoint controller 803 uses the previously
generated payload path to determine the relative orientations
and positions for all of the individual aircraft. . ..
So ,r,r 42--43. Thus, we agree with Appellant that "the vehicles in So do not
independently calculate the required tether angles and tensions, and the
thrust vectors to achieve them, to move the load to a commanded position"
as required by claim 26. Appeal Br. 14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 26, and its
dependent claims 27, 28, and 30-36, as being unpatentable over McWhirk
and So.
Rejection II
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 2, 16, and 29. Id. at 11-14. Accordingly, for the same
reasons as discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, which
depends from claim 1, and of claim 16, which depends claim 15, and do not
sustain the rejection of claim 29, which depends from claim 26, as being
unpatentable over Mc Whirk, So, Simpson, and Madden. We note that the
rejection of claim 29 does not rely on Simpson or Madden in any manner
that would remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 26 discussed
above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 26-36 is reversed.
8
Appeal2017-006903
Application 13/916,901
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9