Patent Application 18090246 - DRONE LED LIGHT SYSTEM - Rejection
Patent Application 18090246 - DRONE LED LIGHT SYSTEM
Title: DRONE LED LIGHT SYSTEM
Application Information
- Invention Title: DRONE LED LIGHT SYSTEM
- Application Number: 18090246
- Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-12-28T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-12-28T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 701
- National Sub-Class: 003000
- Examiner Employee Number: 98530
- Art Unit: 3669
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 8
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16, filed 03/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhou (CN 208281852) and additionally in view of 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1, 17, and 19 recite that the LEDs receive power from the power supply of one or more drones. However, the original disclosure is silent as to how the LEDs are powered. Paragraph [0022] teaches that “[e]ach drone may include its own power supply 41, such as a battery, which may operate independently or receive power via the electronic media tethers 36”, but is silent on the electronic media tether receiving power from the on-board power supply of the drone.
Claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-17, 18, and 20-22 are dependent on claims 1, 17, and 19, and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohmi et al. (US 20190256207, previously cited) in view of Zhou.
Claim 1.
Nohmi et al. teaches:
a first drone comprising a first drone body,
(Nohmi – [0022]) “the drone comprises a plurality of thrust generation mechanisms, each of the thrust generation mechanisms comprising a plurality of rotary blades”
a second drone comprising a second drone body,
(Nohmi – Abstract) “a wired drone group having a plurality of drones”
(Nohmi – [0022]) “the drone comprises a plurality of thrust generation mechanisms, each of the thrust generation mechanisms comprising a plurality of rotary blades”
an electronic media tether coupled to the first drone and the second drone
(Nohmi – Abstract) “a wired drone group having a plurality of drones”
Nohmi et al. does not teach that the tether comprises a plurality of LEDs; however, Zhou teaches:
a
(Zhou – [0040]) “A wire (7) is also connected between the light string group and the drone (1), and the wire (7) is used to transmit battery power carried by the drone (1) to the light string group, to supply power to the LED pixel lights (5) on each light string in the light string group”
wherein the electronic media tether comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and is configured to receive power from the first power supply and/or the second power supply and transmit the power to the plurality of LEDs
(Zhou – [0040]) “A wire (7) is also connected between the light string group and the drone (1), and the wire (7) is used to transmit battery power carried by the drone (1) to the light string group, to supply power to the LED pixel lights (5) on each light string in the light string group”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the tethered drone group of Nohmi et al. with the light strings of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do this to improve the close-up visibility of the drones (Zhou – [0004]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
a control system including memory and one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that are configured to be executed by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to instruct the first drone to move to a first aerial position and instruct the second drone to move to a second aerial position
(Nohmi – [0054]) “The controller (or maneuvering device) 3 controls the drone group so that the distance between the adjacent drones is kept at a predetermined interval and the distance between each drone 1 and the object 10 such as piping to be inspected is kept at an interval suitable for inspection.”
Claim 3.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
wherein the instructions are configured to be executed by the one or more processors to define the first aerial position and the second aerial position based on a desired shape of the electronic media tether
(Nohmi – [0013]) “the line obtained by connecting the plural wired cables through the drones includes a line having an arbitrary shape such as an arc-like line, a chevron-like line, and a waveform-like line, without being limited to a zigzag line.”
Claim 4.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
identify desired locations for the first drone and the second drone
(Nohmi – [0054]) “the drone group moves in the air to a position where the drone group surrounds a columnar object to be inspected from above and obliquely from the side, and inspects the object 10.”
define the first aerial position and the second aerial position based on the desired locations
(Nohmi – [0054]) “The controller (or maneuvering device) 3 controls the drone group so that the distance between the adjacent drones is kept at a predetermined interval and the distance between each drone 1 and the object 10 such as piping to be inspected is kept at an interval suitable for inspection.”
confirm the first drone and the second drone are in the desired locations based on feedback from the first positioning sensor and the second positioning sensor
(Nohmi – [0054]) “The controller (or maneuvering device) 3 controls the drone group so that the distance between the adjacent drones is kept at a predetermined interval and the distance between each drone 1 and the object 10 such as piping to be inspected is kept at an interval suitable for inspection.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
a third drone comprising a third drone body and a third propeller system configured to propel the third drone through the air
(Nohmi – Abstract) “a wired drone group having a plurality of drones”
an additional electronic media tether coupling the third drone to the first drone
(Nohmi – [0072]) “In the example shown in FIG. 12A, each drone 1 has two cable hoisting mechanisms 18 for hoisting and rewinding of the wired cable 2 connected to the drone 1.”
PNG
media_image1.png
181
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: An embodiment of Nohmi et al. with separate cables (originally Nohmi Fig. 12A)
Claim 6.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
a third drone comprising a third drone body and a third propeller system configured to propel the third drone through the air, wherein the electronic media tether couples the third drone to the first drone
(Nohmi – Abstract) “a wired drone group having a plurality of drones”
(Nohmi – [0073]) “In the example shown in FIG. 12B, each drone 1 is movable along the wired cable 2 so that the position of the drone 2 can be changed with respect to the wired cable 2.”
PNG
media_image2.png
201
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: An embodiment of Nohmi et al. with a single cable (originally Nohmi Fig. 12B)
Claim 7.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
wherein the electronic media tether couples the third drone to the second drone
(Nohmi – [0073]) “In the example shown in FIG. 12B, each drone 1 is movable along the wired cable 2 so that the position of the drone 2 can be changed with respect to the wired cable 2.”
Claim 9.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
a control system including memory and one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions wherein the instructions are to be executed by the one or more processors to define a first aerial position and a second aerial position based on a desired shape of the electronic media tether
(Nohmi – [0013]) “the line obtained by connecting the plural wired cables through the drones includes a line having an arbitrary shape such as an arc-like line, a chevron-like line, and a waveform-like line, without being limited to a zigzag line.”
Claim 16.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
wherein the first drone comprises a rigid offset coupled to the electronic media tether, wherein the rigid offset extends away from the first drone body transversely to an axis of rotation of a propeller of the first propeller system
(Nohmi – [0060]) “As shown in FIG. 5B, … both ends of the wired cables 2 are connected to upper portions of the airframes of the two drones 1”
Claim 22.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhou further teaches:
wherein the plurality of LEDs are configured to emit a first light at a first time and a second light at a second time
(Zhou – [0007]) “Each light-emitting unit… can emit light of different colors and intensities… The pixels generated by all the light-emitting points constitute a dynamic fantasy, text, pattern, or video displayed in the air, which can show various light changing effects such as flowing water, chasing light, scanning, pattern, writing, fireworks, etc.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Petit et al. (DE 102018106058, previously cited).
Claim 8.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Neither of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches detachable tether segments; however, Petit et al. teaches:
wherein the electronic media tether comprises separate tether segments configured to detachably couple with the first drone, the second drone, and/or the third drone
(Petit – [0014]) “the connection between the unmanned aircraft and the aircraft is interrupted after the take-off phase, e.g. This can be achieved, for example, by the unmanned aircraft shedding the elongated, flexible coupling element.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the wired drone group of Nohmi et al. with the detachability of Petit et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow a single drone more freedom of movement to complete a mission (Petit – [0014]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oral (US 20100319226).
Claim 11.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches a plurality of speakers; however, Oral teaches:
wherein the electronic media tether comprises a plurality of speakers and is configured to transmit the power to the plurality of speakers
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the wired drone group of Nohmi et al. with the tether-mounted attention-getting devices of Oral. One would have been motivated to do this in order to attract attention to the drone group (Oral – [0008]).
Claim 12.
The combination of Nohmi et al., Zhou, and Oral teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
cause the one or more processors to instruct the first drone to move to a first aerial position and instruct the second drone to move to a second aerial position
(Nohmi – [0054]) “The controller (or maneuvering device) 3 controls the drone group so that the distance between the adjacent drones is kept at a predetermined interval and the distance between each drone 1 and the object 10 such as piping to be inspected is kept at an interval suitable for inspection.”
define the first aerial position and the second aerial position to establish a
(Nohmi – [0054]) “the drone group moves in the air to a position where the drone group surrounds a columnar object to be inspected from above and obliquely from the side, and inspects the object 10.”
Nohmi et al. does not teach a plurality of speakers; however, Oral teaches:
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound”
[Examiner Note: The presence of two or more speakers would result in stereophonic sound.]
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the same reasons given in discussion of claim 11.
Claim 13.
The combination of Nohmi et al., Zhou, and Oral teaches all the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
wherein the stereophonic arrangement is configured to
(Nohmi – [0054]) “the drone group moves in the air to a position where the drone group surrounds a columnar object to be inspected from above and obliquely from the side, and inspects the object 10.”
Nohmi et al. does not teach a plurality of speakers; however, Oral teaches:
wherein the stereophonic arrangement is configured to provide surround sound at the observation location from the plurality of speakers
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound”
[Examiner Note: The presence of speakers surrounding a position would result in surround sound.]
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the same reasons given in discussion of claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suefuku (US 11679873).
Claim 15.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither of the aforementioned references teaches controlling the plurality of drones from a single drone; however, Suefuku teaches:
comprising a plurality of drones coupled together via segments of the electronic media tether, wherein a single drone of the plurality of drones is configured to communicate via the electronic media tether to control flight patterns of the plurality of drones, and wherein the first drone and the second drone are part of the plurality of drones
(Suefuku – Col. 4, lines 42-53) “the flight control means of each of the slave aircrafts obtains altitude information and position information of the master aircraft from the master aircraft… so that a certain distance is maintained with respect to the master aircraft on the basis of the altitude information and the position information of the master aircraft”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the wired drone group of Nohmi et al. with the master and slave aircraft of Suefuku. One would have been motivated to do this in order to make it easier for the group of drones to be controlled as a unit (Suefuku – Col. 4, lines 54-55).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartz et al. (US 20210269151) in view of Zhou.
Claim 17.
Bartz et al. teaches:
a mesh of
(Bartz – [0056]) “The netting 102 may be attached at the top two corners to the UAVs 106-1 and 106-2 and at the bottom two corners to the UAVs 106-3 and 106-4.”
a plurality of propeller drones configured to fly in air and coupled together via the mesh of electronic media line, wherein at least one of the plurality of propeller drones comprises a respective power supply that is configured to provide power
(Bartz – [0049]) “the UAV 106 may be battery operated”
(Bartz – [0056]) “The netting 102 may be attached at the top two corners to the UAVs 106-1 and 106-2 and at the bottom two corners to the UAVs 106-3 and 106-4.”
a control system including memory and one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions that are configured to be executed by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to instruct the plurality of propeller drones to fly in a pattern to form a desired shape with the mesh of electronic media line
(Bartz – [0056]) “the netting 102 is rectangular in shape. … the plurality of UAVs by flying in coordination may keep the netting 102 completely air-borne”
Bartz et al. does not teach a plurality of LEDs; however, Culver teaches:
(Zhou – [0040]) “A wire (7) is also connected between the light string group and the drone (1), and the wire (7) is used to transmit battery power carried by the drone (1) to the light string group, to supply power to the LED pixel lights (5) on each light string in the light string group”
at least one of the plurality of propeller drones comprises a respective power supply that is configured to provide power to the plurality of LEDs
(Zhou – [0040]) “A wire (7) is also connected between the light string group and the drone (1), and the wire (7) is used to transmit battery power carried by the drone (1) to the light string group, to supply power to the LED pixel lights (5) on each light string in the light string group”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the net and drones system of Bartz et al. with the LED tether of Culver. One would have been motivated to do this to improve the close-up visibility of the drones and netting (Zhou – [0004]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bartz et al. and Zhou as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Paczan et al. (US 11480958).
Claim 18.
The combination of Bartz et al. and Culver teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Bartz et al. further teaches:
peripheral drones coupled to peripheral edges of the mesh of the electronic media line
(Bartz – [0056]) “The netting 102 may be attached at the top two corners to the UAVs 106-1 and 106-2 and at the bottom two corners to the UAVs 106-3 and 106-4.”
Neither of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches at least one central drone; however, Paczan et al. teaches:
at least one central drone coupled to a central portion of the mesh of the electronic media line
As seen in Fig. 3 below, a configuration taught by Paczan et al. includes a plurality of central drones in addition to peripheral drones.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: A configuration of a collective UAV (originally Paczan Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the net and drones system of Bartz et al. with the collective UAV system of Paczan et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the netting is held up by a drone without sagging.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohmi et al. in view of Oral.
Claim 19.
Nohmi et al. teaches:
defining, via a control system, a flight pattern based on a desired shape for an electronic media tether and based on a desired stereophonic arrangement of speakers disposed along the electronic media tether
(Nohmi – [0013]) “the line obtained by connecting the plural wired cables through the drones includes a line having an arbitrary shape such as an arc-like line, a chevron-like line, and a waveform-like line, without being limited to a zigzag line.”
flying, via the control system, a plurality of drones coupled together via the electronic media tether in the flight pattern
(Nohmi – [0054]) “The controller (or maneuvering device) 3 controls the drone group so that the distance between the adjacent drones is kept at a predetermined interval and the distance between each drone 1 and the object 10 such as piping to be inspected is kept at an interval suitable for inspection.”
Nohmi et al. does not teach a plurality of speakers; however, Oral teaches:
defining, via a control system, a flight pattern based on a desired shape for an electronic media tether and based on a desired stereophonic arrangement of speakers disposed along the electronic media tether
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound, music, dynamic images”
at least one of the plurality of drones comprises a respective power supply
(Oral – [0039]) “In embodiments equipped with an on-board power source, the power source may take the form, in whole, or in part, of one or more solar panels 42, batteries”
controlling power, via the control system, through the electronic media tether to operate light emitting diodes disposed along the electronic media tether and the speakers disposed along the electronic media tether based on providing the power via the respective power supply
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound, music, dynamic images”
(Oral – [0039]) “In embodiments equipped with an on-board power source, the power source may take the form, in whole, or in part, of one or more solar panels 42, batteries”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 11.
Claim 20.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Oral teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as discussed above. Nohmi et al. further teaches:
instructing, using one or more processors, the plurality of drones to fly in the flight pattern based on the desired
(Nohmi – [0054]) “the drone group moves in the air to a position where the drone group surrounds a columnar object to be inspected from above and obliquely from the side, and inspects the object 10.”
Nohmi et al. does not teach a plurality of speakers; however, Oral teaches:
instructing, using one or more processors,
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound, music, dynamic images”
instructing, using the one or more processors, the speakers to provide stereophonic sound at an observation location from the speakers
(Oral – Abstract) “The mounted attention-getting devices may include those capable of generating… sound, music, dynamic images”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 11.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abron (US 20210341128, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 21.
The combination of Nohmi et al. and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Nohmi et al. nor Zhou explicitly teaches wireless control; however, Abron teaches:
wherein the first drone and the second drone are configured to communicate with a control system via wireless communication
(Abron – [0030]) “The drone is connected to the controller wireless control system”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the wired drone group of Nohmi et al. with the wireless control system of Abron. One would have been motivated to do this to allow drones to remain in the air in the event that the tether is severed, rather than losing control.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669