DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on September 2, 2025. Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are pending with claims 10 and 20 canceled, claims 11-19 currently amended, and claims 21-22 newly presented.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention via Tang [US20200126249A1].
Regarding Claims 1-9 (Original), the claims share similar limitations to claims 11-19. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 11-19 below.
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant has canceled the claim after the First Action on the Merits.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
A training system, comprising:
a first uncrewed vehicle (Tang, [0030], “The movable platform may include a UAV, an unmanned ground vehicle, or a robot, etc.”);
a sensor configured to detect a first body reaction of a user's body, the first body reaction corresponding to the first uncrewed vehicle(Tang, [0047], “The following descriptions use the TOF camera as an example of the depth image acquisition device. The TOF camera may transmit an electromagnetic signal to the operator, and may receive an electromagnetic signal reflected by the operator. The TOF camera may output a depth image regarding the operator and the background scene.”);
a controller coupled to the first uncrewed vehicle and the sensor (Tang, [0030], “In the following descriptions, the UAV is used as an example of the movable platform. In some embodiments, the movable platform 1 may include the acquisition device 2…The acquisition device 2 may include a control device…”); and
a memory coupled to the controller and storing a first preset trajectory, wherein the memory further stores at least one computer-executable instruction that, when executed by the controller, causes the controller to:
control a first movement of the first uncrewed vehicle along the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…when the recognized action is a swaying action of the target object, subsequent operations may be performed, such as photographing, moving away, moving closer, suspension, etc.”);
determine whether the first body reaction matches a first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…recognized action…”); and
in a case of determining that the first body reaction does not match the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory, control the first uncrewed vehicle to provide a first perceptible prompt (Tang, [0081], “…the process may be ended when an operator is not recognized in the acquired depth image.” The user notices the UAV has ended the process as an indication that the body reaction does not match a preset reaction.).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 11, wherein controlling the first uncrewed vehicle to provide the first perceptible prompt comprises:
suspending the first movement of the first uncrewed vehicle (Tang, [0081], “…the process may be ended when an operator is not recognized in the acquired depth image.”).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 12, wherein the at least one computer-executable instruction, when executed by the controller, further causes the controller to:
in a case of determining that the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory, continue the first movement of the first uncrewed vehicle along the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…[After the recognized action is performed,] the UAV may move away from the target object in a slantly upward direction, then capture images of the target object. In some embodiments, after capturing images, the UAV may return to the starting point.”).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 11, wherein the memory further stores a second preset trajectory which is different from the first preset trajectory, and controlling the first uncrewed vehicle to provide the first perceptible prompt comprises:
controlling the first movement of the first uncrewed vehicle along a second preset trajectory (Tang, [0082], “If the depth image does not include the operator, other operations may be continued.”).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 11, wherein detecting the first body reaction of the user's body comprises
obtaining location information of a part of the user's body (Tang, [0030], “The depth image may include location information of the operator of the UAV and depth information.”).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 15, wherein determining whether the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory comprises:
determining, based on the location information, whether a distance between the first uncrewed vehicle and the part of the user's body is within a predetermined range (Tang, [0048], “Therefore, a body of the operator may be determined based on different depth information, the differences of depths of the body being within a predetermined range.”);
in a case that the distance outside of the predetermined range, determining that the first body reaction does not match the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0081], “…the process may be ended when an operator is not recognized in the acquired depth image.”); and
in a case that the distance is within the predetermined range, determining that the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…[After the recognized action is performed,] the UAV may move away from the target object in a slantly upward direction, then capture images of the target object. In some embodiments, after capturing images, the UAV may return to the starting point.”).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 15, wherein determining whether the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory comprises:
determining, based on the location information, whether a distance between the first uncrewed vehicle and the part of the user's body is greater than a maximum threshold (Tang, [0007], “The method further includes determining an action of the target object is a swaying action based on a detection, within a predetermined time, that a number of movements in the first moving direction is not smaller than a first predetermined value, a number of movements in the second direction is not smaller than a second predetermined value, and the moving distance is not smaller than a predetermined distance.”);
in a case that the distance is greater than the maximum threshold, determining that the first body reaction does not match the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0081], “…the process may be ended when an operator is not recognized in the acquired depth image.”); and
in a case that the distance is not greater than the maximum threshold, determining that the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…[After the recognized action is performed,] the UAV may move away from the target object in a slantly upward direction, then capture images of the target object. In some embodiments, after capturing images, the UAV may return to the starting point.”).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 15, wherein determining whether the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory comprises:
determining, based on the location information, whether a distance between the first uncrewed vehicle and the part of the user's body is less than a minimum threshold (Tang, [0048], “Therefore, a body of the operator may be determined based on different depth information, the differences of depths of the body being within a predetermined range.” A predetermined range includes ensuring a distance is above a minimum value and below a maximum value.);
in a case that the distance is less than the minimum threshold, determining that the first body reaction does not match the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0081], “…the process may be ended when an operator is not recognized in the acquired depth image.”); and
in a case that the distance is not less than the minimum threshold, determining that the first body reaction matches the first preset reaction corresponding to the first preset trajectory (Tang, [0191], “…[After the recognized action is performed,] the UAV may move away from the target object in a slantly upward direction, then capture images of the target object. In some embodiments, after capturing images, the UAV may return to the starting point.”).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Tang discloses:
The training system of claim 18, wherein controlling the first uncrewed vehicle to provide the first perceptible prompt comprises:
control ling the first uncrewed vehicle to move away from the part of the user's body (Tang, [0062], “The operations may include at least one of:…moving away from the target…”).
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been canceled by the Applicant after the First Action on the Merits.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang.
Regarding claims 21 and 22 (New), the claim discloses similar limitations to claims 1 and 11, aside from the introduction of pluralizing various elements of claims 1 and 11. Although, Tang discloses the ability to monitor a plurality of user actions to execute a plurality of other movements (Tang, [0062], “Different controls may be triggered based on different target postures to control the UAV to execute different operations.”), the duplication of parts does not patentably distinguish a patent application from prior art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.) (See MPEP 2143.04, VI).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on page 1, filed September 2, 2025, with respect to the Rejections of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks on pages 1-5, filed September 2, 2025, with respect to the Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a stimulus is causing an operator to react to the guidance system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Tang’s disclosure of, “a silent cessation of a process, which fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the “perceptible prompt” as recited in unamended independent claim 1” (Remarks, page 4, para 2), the Examiner respectfully submits that the instant application discloses (emphasis added):
In some implementations, at time point t3, the controller 100 may determine that the body reaction of the user 20 does not match the preset reaction corresponding the first preset trajectory because the distance between the uncrewed vehicle 120 and the part of the user’s body 1s greater than the maximum threshold Dmax. In this case, the controller 100 may control the uncrewed vehicle 120 to provide the perceptible prompt including suspending the movement along the first preset trajectory, until the controller 100 finds the distance between the uncrewed vehicle 120 and the part of the user’s body is not greater than the maximum threshold Dmax (e.g., at time point t4) (Specification, [0116]).
The instant application explicitly states suspending the movement of the uncrewed vehicle is an included characteristic of the perceptible prompt; therefore, Tang’s disclosure of ending the process teaches the limitation. The Examiner withdraws any speculative import into Tang.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the system of Tang does not control the uncrewed vehicle along a preset trajectory to actively guide and elicit a user’s body reaction” (Remarks, page 5, para 1), the Examiner respectfully submits, as cited above, that Tang discloses (emphasis added):
In the method shown in FIG. 10, the method may further include performing an operation corresponding to the swaying action of the target object. In some embodiments, when the recognized action is a swaying action of the target object, subsequent operations may be performed, such as photographing, moving away, moving closer, suspension, etc. In some embodiments, the UAV may move away from the target object in a slantly upward direction, then capture images of the target object. In some embodiments, after capturing images, the UAV may return to the starting point (Tang, [0191]).
Tang discloses the system controlling the uncrewed vehicle (i.e., “the UAV”) along a preset trajectory (e.g., “subsequent operations may be performed, such as photographing, moving away, moving closer, suspension, etc.”). However, the currently disclosed claims do not recite a system actively guiding and eliciting a user’s body reaction. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715