DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 102 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 102 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 102 rejection of the claims below.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of recognizing an indication and causing an action based on that indication, constituting an abstract idea based Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "identifying a first indication of the first human body in a field of view of the imaging sensor based on the image data; and” covers mental processes including evaluating an image and judging if the contents of the image contain a human body. The limitation of " prior to causing the movable object to operate, confirming the identified first indication of the first human body by verifying that the identified first indication of the first human body persists for a predetermined time period;” covers mental processes including evaluating an image and judging if the contents of the image contain a human body for a period of time. The limitation of "generating an operation instruction based on the identified first indication of the first human body and a stored set of rules that associate respective body indications with corresponding operation instructions for the movable object;” covers mental processes including making a judgment of what kind of instruction should be given after evaluating the indication given. The limitation of " generating one or more control signals for one or more propulsion devices of the movable object based on the generated operation instruction; and” covers mental processes including making a judgement about how the drone should be controlled, i.e. forward apply signal to motors 2 and 4, based on the evaluation of the instruction. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional limitation of “transmitting the generated one or more control signals to a controller of the movable object for execution, to cause the movable object to operate in response to the identified first indication of the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor” and similarly recited in claims 9 and 16, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “causing the one or more propulsion devices of the movable object to operate in accordance with the generated one or more control signals.” in claim 1, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to cutting hair (moving) after first determining the hair style (after determining how to move), which has been identified by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of “obtaining image data based on one or more images captured by an imaging sensor on board the movable object, each of the one or more images including at least a portion of a first human body;” in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to obtaining information (images) about transactions (about a user) using the Internet (a sensor) to verify credit card transactions (to verify the person is in the image), which has been identified as extra solution activity. In particular, claim 5 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the indications associated with the one or more human bodies are determined by applying a machine learning model to the image data obtained from the one or more images”, however these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “causing display of a confidence map of the plurality of key physical points for at least one of the one or more human bodies on a display device.” in claim 7, as well as “causing display of one or more bounding boxes respectively surrounding the one or more detected human bodies on a display device” in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information (information in the image), based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment (based on the humans in the image), for collection (collected in the image), analysis (confidence map and bounding box) and display (displaying the results), which has been identified by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations of “in response to identifying the first indication of the first human body, causing the movable object and the imaging sensor to track the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor” in claim 11, as well as “determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies a predefined criterion, and causing the movable object to autonomously land” in claim 13, as well as “causing autonomous adjustment of one or more parameters of the imaging sensor to change from a first photography mode to a second photography mode” in claim 15, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional limitation of “transmitting the generated one or more control signals to a controller of the movable object for execution, to cause the movable object to operate in response to the identified first indication of the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor” and similarly recited in claims 9 and 16, only amounts to mere instructions to apply as it only recites the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional limitation of “causing the one or more propulsion devices of the movable object to operate in accordance with the generated one or more control signals.” in claim 1, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to cutting hair (moving) after first determining the hair style (after determining how to move), which has been identified by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of “obtaining image data based on one or more images captured by an imaging sensor on board the movable object, each of the one or more images including at least a portion of a first human body;” in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to obtaining information (images) about transactions (about a user) using the Internet (a sensor) to verify credit card transactions (to verify the person is in the image), which has been identified as extra solution activity. In particular, claim 5 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the indications associated with the one or more human bodies are determined by applying a machine learning model to the image data obtained from the one or more images”, however these additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “causing display of a confidence map of the plurality of key physical points for at least one of the one or more human bodies on a display device.” in claim 7, as well as “causing display of one or more bounding boxes respectively surrounding the one or more detected human bodies on a display device” in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 12, can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information (information in the image), based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment (based on the humans in the image), for collection (collected in the image), analysis (confidence map and bounding box) and display (displaying the results), which has been identified by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations of “in response to identifying the first indication of the first human body, causing the movable object and the imaging sensor to track the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor” in claim 11, as well as “determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies a predefined criterion, and causing the movable object to autonomously land” in claim 13, as well as “causing autonomous adjustment of one or more parameters of the imaging sensor to change from a first photography mode to a second photography mode” in claim 15, these limitations do not amount to significantly more because they are nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the number of indications determined, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the determination of a criterion and that the body detected is the operator, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the detection of the operator, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the detection of points on the human body, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining number of indications and humans in the determination, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the generation of an operation instruction, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 12 is directed to further defining the determination that the first human body satisfies a criterion, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the determination that the first body indication satisfies a criterion, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the sand flow signal, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining the determination of characteristics associated with the indication, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the body movement associated with the indication, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 is directed to further defining the body pose of the human , which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 19 is directed to further defining the confirmation that the human detected intends to operate the movable object, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Mao et al. USPPN 2018/0001480.
Regarding claim 1, Mao anticipates obtaining image data based on one or more images captured by an imaging sensor on board the movable object, ([0083], [0112], an intelligent photographing UAV robot is used; Figures 2 and 3, [0089]-[0090] the images are captured by the robot)
each of the one or more images including at least a portion of a first human body; (Figures 2 and 3, [0089]-[0093], an image of the operator is taken)
identifying a first indication of the first human body in a field of view of the imaging sensor based on the image data; and (Figures 2 and 3, [0088]-[0093] a gesture of the operator is captured in the image)
prior to causing the movable object to operate, confirming the identified first indication of the first human body by verifying that the identified first indication of the first human body persists for a predetermined time period; ([0101], a follow up image is captured after a predetermined period of time to ensure that the gesture persists)
generating an operation instruction based on the identified first indication of the first human body and a stored set of rules that associate respective body indications with corresponding operation instructions for the movable object; ([0096], [0100]-[0105], the gesture is matched to a set of passwords; Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; Figure 3, [0074], [0126]-[0127], the operation instruction moves the robot)
generating one or more control signals for one or more propulsion devices of the movable object based on the generated operation instruction; and (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; Figure 3, [0074], [0126]-[0127], the operation instruction moves the robot)
transmitting the generated one or more control signals to a controller of the movable object for execution, to cause the movable object to operate in response to the identified first indication of the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor, comprising causing the one or more propulsion devices of the movable object to operate in accordance with the generated one or more control signals. (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; Figure 3, [0074], [0126]-[0127], the operation instruction moves the robot)
Regarding claim 2, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates detecting one or more human bodies including the first human body in each of the one or more images; and (Figures 2 and 3, [0089]-[0093], an image of the operator is taken, and the operator is detected)
determining indications associated with the one or more human bodies respectively based on the one or more images. (Figures 2 and 3, [0089]-[0093], the gestures of the operator are determined from the image)
Regarding claim 3, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao also anticipates determining that the first indication satisfies a predefined criterion; and (Figures 1-3, [0089]-[0093], the gestures are matched against predefined gestures)
in accordance with determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies the predefined criterion, determining the first human body is associated with an operator to operate the movable object. and (Figures 1-3, [0089]-[0093], system confirms that the person in the picture is the operator and that the operator is performing a gesture)
Regarding claim 4, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao also anticipates determining that the first human body is associated with a registered user by performing facial recognition on the one or more images; and (Figure 2, [0095]-[0096], [0098], facial recognition is performed)
in accordance with determining that the first human body is associated with the registered user, determining the registered user is an operator to operate the movable object. (Figure 2, [0095]-[0096], [0098], the face of the operator, who is able to operate the robot, is determined)
Regarding claim 5, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao also anticipates wherein the indications associated with the one or more human bodies are determined by applying a machine learning model to the image data obtained from the one or more images. ([0099], [0104]-[0108], a support vector machine (machine learning model) sis applied to the one or more images)
Regarding claim 6, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao also anticipates wherein determining the indications associated with the one or more human bodies further comprises: determining respective locations of a plurality of key physical points on each of the one or more human bodies. ([0088], the hand and arm in relation to each other (key points) are determined so the arm can be identified as bent; [0097] walking is determined by looking at the respective locations of the legs (key points))
Regarding claim 9, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao also anticipates further comprising: determining that a plurality of indications associated with a plurality of human bodies satisfy predefined criteria, and ([0088], [0097], the gesture is matched with predetermined gestures, [0100], this can come from multiple operators, Figures 1-3, [0089]-[0097], the gesture from multiple images can be determined)
causing the movable object to operate in response to the plurality of indications. (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; [0126], the operation instruction moves the robot)
Regarding claim 10, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates generating an operation instruction to operate the movable object in accordance with predefined criteria associated with the identified first indication. (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; [0126], the operation instruction moves the robot; [0088], [0097], the gesture is matched with predetermined gestures)
Regarding claim 11, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates further comprising: in response to identifying the first indication of the first human body, causing the movable object and the imaging sensor to track the first human body in the field of view of the imaging sensor. (Figures 1 and 2, [0088], [0093], [0096]-[0098], the user is tracked as multiple images are taken while the user is walking)
Regarding claim 13, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies a predefined criterion, and causing the movable object to autonomously land. (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; [0126], the operation instruction moves the robot; [0112], the instruction is for the robot to autonomously land)
Regarding claim 14, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates further comprising: determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies predefined criteria, and (Figures 1-3, [0089]-[0093], the gestures are matched against predefined gestures)
causing the imaging sensor to autonomously capture one or more images of the first human body. ([0083], [0093], multiple images are taken; [0088]-[0098] for dynamic gestures more than one image is required of the same body)
Regarding claim 16, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates determining one or more characteristics associated with the first indication of the first human body; and (Figures 1-3, [0083]-[0097], gestures associated with the operator are determined including static and dynamic gestures)
causing the movable object to operate in accordance with the determined one or more characteristics. (Figures 1-3, [0096], [0100], [0110], a gesture is converted to an operation instruction; [0126], the operation instruction moves the robot)
Regarding claim 17, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates wherein the first indication of the first human body includes a body movement identified based on a plurality of images, ([0088]-[0097], body movement of limbs is detected)
the body movement including at least one of a hand movement, a finger movement, a palm movement, a facial expression, a head movement, an arm movement, a leg movement, or a torso movement. ([0088], [0097], waving and walking is identified)
Regarding claim 18, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates wherein the first indication of the first human body includes a body pose associated with a stationary bodily attitude or position that is identified based on one image. (Figures 2 and 3, [0088], [0096], static poses are identified)
Regarding claim 19, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates further comprising: prior to causing the movable object to operate, confirming that the first indication of the first human body is intended to operate the movable object. (Figures 1-3, [0021]-[0022], [0030], the gesture is checked with the preconfigured gestures to make sure the gesture is one to operate the robot)
Regarding claim 20, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao also anticipates wherein the movable object is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). ([0083], [0112], an intelligent photographing UAV robot is used)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Tang et al WO2018/023727 and in view of Xiao et al. “Tracking small targets in infrared image sequences under complex environmental conditions”.
Regarding claim 7, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 6. Mao does not explicitly teach causing display of … the plurality of key physical points for at least one of the one or more human bodies on a display device.
Tang teaches causing display of … the plurality of key physical points for at least one of the one or more human bodies on a display device. (Figures 3A, 4A and 4B, [0019], [0038], [0052], a plurality of key physical points are displayed; [0030] all information is displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mao with Tang as the references deal with drone imaging, in order to implement a system that displays images from the drone. Tang would modify Mao by displaying the images from the drone. The benefit of doing so is the user can view the information. (Tang [0030])
The combination of Mao and Tang does not explicitly teach a confidence map
Xiao teaches a confidence map (Abstract, Section 2, Figure 1, a confidence map is created)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mao and Tang with Xiao as the references deal with imaging, in order to implement a system that uses a confidence map. Tang would modify Mao by using a confidence map. The benefit of doing so is it can enhance the reliability and robustness of tracking for complex environmental conditions including camera ego-motion, competing background clutter, low contrast, and intense noise. (Xiao Section 2)
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Tang.
Regarding claim 8, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 2. Mao does not explicitly teach causing display of one or more bounding boxes respectively surrounding the one or more detected human bodies on a display device.
Tang teaches causing display of one or more bounding boxes respectively surrounding the one or more detected human bodies on a display device. (Figures 3A, 4A and 4B, [0019], [0038], [0052], a plurality of key physical points are displayed as well as a bounding box on the collected image; [0030] all information is displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mao with Tang as the references deal with drone imaging, in order to implement a system that displays images with bounding boxes from the drone. Tang would modify Mao by displaying the images with bounding boxes from the drone. The benefit of doing so is the user can view the information. (Tang [0030])
Regarding claim 12, Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao teaches determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies a predefined criterion, (Figures 1-3, [0083]-[0093], it is determined that the human body is the operator and the operator is performing a gesture)
Mao does not explicitly teach causing display on a display device of a first bounding box surrounding the first human body. (Figures 3A, 4A and 4B, [0019], [0038], [0052], a plurality of key physical points are displayed as well as a bounding box on the collected image; [0030] all information is displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mao with Tang as the references deal with drone imaging, in order to implement a system that displays images with bounding boxes from the drone. Tang would modify Mao by displaying the images with bounding boxes from the drone. The benefit of doing so is the user can view the information. (Tang [0030])
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Stroppiana et al. USPPN 2020/0382696.
Regarding claim 15 Mao anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Mao teaches determining that the first indication of the first human body satisfies predefined criteria, and (Figures 1-3, [0083]-[0093], it is determined that the human body is the operator and the operator is performing a gesture)
Mao does not explicitly recite causing autonomous adjustment of one or more parameters of the imaging sensor to change from a first photography mode to a second photography mode.
Stroppiana teaches causing autonomous adjustment of one or more parameters of the imaging sensor to change from a first photography mode to a second photography mode. (Figures 10 and 11, [0044], [0098]-[0099], based on the users movements, the drone changes from one photography mode to another)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Mao with Stroppiana as the references deal with drone imaging, in order to implement a system that changes photography modes of the drone. Stroppiana would modify Mao by changing photography modes of the drone. The benefit of doing so is the user can start and stop different modes of photography based on the gestures they are performing. (Stroppiana [0098]-[0100])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dasgupta et al. USPPN 2018/0158197: Also teaches the racking of a human by a UAV that is guided by gestures. A machine learning system is employed to process the cues and learn specific gestures of the owner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights