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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action responds to application 17/899378 filed on 4/14/26. Claims 1-15, 17-35, 37, and 39-44 are pending.
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 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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 1, 3 - 9, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27 - 31, 35, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman et al., US 2017/0055004 A1 (hereinafter Krietzman) in view of Garland, US 2017/0097645 A1 (hereinafter Garland), and further in view of Balakrishnan et al., US 2015/0151160 A1 (hereinafter Balakrishnan).
As for claim 1, Krietzman discloses a system for monitoring player performance at sporting events, comprising: a drone ([0052], e.g., drone(s) with DCA) configured to identify ([0047], e.g., identified) and track ([0037], e.g., streaming data and real time) a first player ([0043], e.g., players) on a field ([0043], e.g., defined event location 10) or court at a sporting event ([0033], e.g., competition and [0043], e.g., football), the drone configured to operate in a first operational mode ([0052], e.g., drone, note the mode when the drone is moved to the location in Fig. 1B.) and to fly to a first predefined position (Fig. 1B, e.g., element 14, note the location of the drone) in the first operational mode for observing ([0066], e.g., camera) a sporting activity performed by the first player at the sporting event, wherein the drone has at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device and [0061], e.g., sensors) for sensing movement ([0048], e.g., speed) of the first player during the sporting activity, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to provide sensor data indicative of the movement ([0048], e.g., speed), and wherein the drone is configured to observe ([0066], e.g., camera) activity of at least one participant ([0043], e.g., players, note a first player) of the sporting event; at least one processor ([0038], e.g., processors and [0064], e.g., processing module) configured to analyze the sensor data to determine a parameter indicative of a performance ([0048], e.g., speed) of the first player in performing the sporting activity; and an output device ([0048], e.g., display) configured to provide feedback ([0048], e.g., processed data) indicative of the performance of the first player based on the parameter wherein the sporting event includes a first team competing against a second team on the field ([0043], e.g., football) or court, wherein the first player is on the first team ([0043], e.g., team).
Krietzman does not explicitly disclose, but Garland teaches the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) configured to operate in a second operational mode ([0046], e.g., moves away, note the mode when the subject moved away) and to fly to a second predefined position ([0046], e.g., follow, note the position to move to follow the subject and the position is predefined before moving) in the second operational mode, wherein the drone is configured to transition from the first operational mode ([0046], e.g., moves away, note the mode before the subject moved away) to the second operational mode ([0046], e.g., moves away, note the mode when the subject moved away), thereby moving to the second predefined position ([0046], e.g., follow, note the position to move to follow the subject and the position is predefined before moving), in response to an event ([0046], e.g., moves away) detected by the drone in the observed activity of the at least one participant ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
Krietzman as modified by Garland does not explicitly teach, but Balakrishnan teaches wherein the event indicates a switch of the first team and the second team between offense and defense ([0117], e.g., determine … offense or defense).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, and Balakrishnan before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of systems and methods for monitoring athletic performances of Balakrishnan with a motivation to provide a team-based optimized view using the profiles of the team players based on the offense/defense status and/or provide athletic data relating to the physical movement of an athlete and/or generate an output by using athletic data as taught by Balakrishnan ([0032]) by using the data collection system.
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the at least one processor ([0038], e.g., processors and [0064], e.g., processing module) resides on the drone ([0052], e.g., drone(s) with DCA).
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the sporting activity includes the first player dribbling or launching a ball ([0043], e.g., football, note that a football includes launching a ball) or puck.
As for claim 5, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the drone is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) based on the sensed movement of the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 6.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) with the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) during the sporting activity based on the sensed movement of the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the first predefined position is behind the first player (Fig. 1B, e.g., element 14, note the position of the drone behind of the players).
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Krietzman further discloses a second player ([0043], e.g., players, note a second player in a second team).
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches a second predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to a second player on the field or the court at the sporting event, and wherein the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) with the second player based on sensed movement of the second player in the second operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 17, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 18, the claim recites a method of the system of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 21, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 17.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 22, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 21.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches moving ([0046], e.g., follow) the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) with the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) during the sporting activity based on the sensor data ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 27, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 28, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 27.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 29, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 28. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the drone is configured to sense movement of the first player ([0048], e.g., speed).
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) with the player during the sporting activity based on the sensed movement of the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 30, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 29. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the first predefined position is behind the first player (Fig. 1B, e.g., element 14, note the position of the drone behind of the players).
As for claim 31, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject), and wherein the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) based on the sensed movement of the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) in the first operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 35, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is constant relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) as the first player moves while the drone is operation in the first operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 37, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 35. In addition, Krietzman further discloses a second player ([0043], e.g., players, note a second player in a second team).
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the second predefined position is constant relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to a second player as the second player moves ([0046], e.g., follow) while the drone is operating in the second operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
As for claim 39, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 37. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the second player is on the second team ([0043], e.g., players, note a second player in a second team).
As for claim 40, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 35.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches wherein the second predefined position is constant relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player as the first player moves ([0046], e.g., follow) while the drone is operating in the second operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
2. Claims 2, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, and further in view of Kohstall, US 2016/0101856 A1 (hereinafter Kohstall).
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Kohstall teaches the drone is a wearable drone worn by the first player ([0099], e.g., wearing the UAV).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Kohstall before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of wearable unmanned aerial vehicles, and associated systems and methods of Kohstall with a motivation to allow the user walk and/or perform other actions without having to hold the UAV in his or her hands based on the USA’s structure that is shaped and configured to actively or passively conform to a body part of the user as taught by Kohstall ([0027]) .
As for claim 19, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 17.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Kohstall teaches wearing ([0099], e.g., wearing the UAV) the drone by the first player; and releasing the drone from the first player for flight ([0099], e.g., taking the UAV off), wherein the flying ([0099], e.g., launching the UAV) the drone in the first operational mode to the first predefined position is performed subsequent to the releasing ([0099], e.g., taking the UAV off).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Kohstall before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of wearable unmanned aerial vehicles, and associated systems and methods of Kohstall with a motivation to allow the user walk and/or perform other actions without having to hold the UAV in his or her hands based on the USA’s structure that is shaped and configured to actively or passively conform to a body part of the user as taught by Kohstall ([0027]) .
As for claim 20, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 19.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan and Kohstall does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the first predefined position is relative ([0046], e.g., constant distance) to the first player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject), and wherein the flying the drone in the first operational mode comprises moving ([0046], e.g., follow) the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter) with the first player based on the sensor data ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, Kohstall, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, and further in view of Flores et al., US 2015/0373306 A1 (hereinafter Flores).
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the at least one sensor is configured to capture ([0060], e.g., video capture device) an image of the first player, wherein the drone is configured to identify ([0047], e.g., identified) the first player based on the captured image ([0060], e.g., video capture device, note an image from the camera).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Flores teaches wherein the drone is configured to identify the first player based on a jersey ([0043], e.g., jersey) worn by the first player.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Flores before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of real-time video capture of field sports activities of Flores with a motivation to provide or increase accuracy of the player’s information who is in the field of view of a camera by using the information of the jersey to a computer system and/or viewer.
4. Claims 11, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, and further in view of Raghoebardajal et al., US 2016/0366392 A1 (hereinafter Raghoebardajal).
As for claim 11, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the at least one sensor is configured to capture an image ([0060], e.g., video capture device).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Raghoebardajal teaches the at least one processor is configured to convert ([0092], e.g., rotation and translation) the image from a viewpoint ([0092], e.g., first view matrix) relative to a location of the at least one sensor to a viewpoint ([0092], e.g., second view matrix) relative to a location of a head-mounted display, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit ([0055], e.g., HDM, N.B., transmission to HMD) the converted image to the head-mounted display ([0055], e.g., HMD).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Raghoebardajal before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of image encoding and display of Raghoebardajal with a motivation to provide a realistic image that reflects the movement of viewer head motion to have a pleasing viewing experience by using the conversion of the image.
As for claim 12, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 11.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Raghoebardajal teaches a first location sensor ([0087], e.g., information defining a view matrix of the camera is also captured) positioned on the drone for determining the location of the at least one sensor; and a second location sensor ([0094], e.g., detected position and/or orientation of the HMD) positioned on the head-mounted display for determining the location of the head-mounted display, wherein the at least one processor is configured to convert ([0092], e.g., rotation and translation) the image from the viewpoint ([0092], e.g., first view matrix) relative to the location of the at least one sensor to the viewpoint ([0092], e.g., second view matrix) relative to the location of the head-mounted display based on the first location sensor and the second location sensor.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Raghoebardajal before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of image encoding and display of Raghoebardajal with a motivation to provide a realistic image that reflects the movement of viewer head motion to have a pleasing viewing experience by using the conversion of the image.
As for claim 23, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 17. In addition, Krietzman further discloses capturing an image with the at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Raghoebardajal teaches converting ([0092], e.g., rotation and translation) the image from a viewpoint ([0092], e.g., first view matrix) relative to a location of the at least one sensor to a viewpoint ([0092], e.g., second view matrix) relative to a location of a head-mounted display; and transmitting ([0055], e.g., HDM, N.B., transmission to HMD) the converted image to the head-mounted display ([0055], e.g., HMD) .
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Raghoebardajal before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of image encoding and display of Raghoebardajal with a motivation to provide a realistic image that reflects the movement of viewer head motion to have a pleasing viewing experience by using the conversion of the image.
5. Claims 13, 14, and 24 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, and further in view of Lablans, US 2010/0097443 A1 (hereinafter Lablans).
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the at least one sensor is configured to capture a first image ([0060], e.g., video capture device), wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the first image and a second image captured by at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device) of a second drone ([0052], e.g., drone(s) with DCA).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Lablans teaches the at least one processor is configured to stitch the first image and the second image to form a composite image ([0177], e.g., stitched image).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Lablans before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of controller in camera for creating a panoramic image of Lablans with a motivation to provide a novel and improved methods and apparatus for recording, processing storing, and concurrent displaying of a plurality of images which may be video programs into a panoramic image as taught by Lablans ([0007]) that allows an immersive experience to a viewer by using the stitching of images.
As for claim 14, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Krietzman further discloses a camera ([0033], e.g., players have DCA mounted to them and [0035], e.g., DCA acquires data such as video) positioned on the first player.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Lablans teaches a multi-lens camera ([0177], e.g., multi-lens cameras) positioned on the player, the multi-lens camera having a plurality of lenses ([0177], e.g., multi-lens), wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive images captured by the multi-lens camera ([0177], e.g., multi-lens cameras) and to stitch the images, thereby providing a composite image ([0177], e.g., stitched image).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Lablans before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of controller in camera for creating a panoramic image of Lablans with a motivation to provide a novel and improved methods and apparatus for recording, processing storing, and concurrent displaying of a plurality of images which may be video programs into a panoramic image as taught by Lablans ([0007]) that allows an immersive experience to a viewer by using the stitching of images.
As for claim 24, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 17. In addition, Krietzman further discloses capturing a first image with the at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device); capturing a second image with at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device) of a second drone ([0052], e.g., drone(s) with DCA).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Lablans teaches stitching the first image and the second image to form a composite image ([0177], e.g., stitched image).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Lablans before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of controller in camera for creating a panoramic image of Lablans with a motivation to provide a novel and improved methods and apparatus for recording, processing storing, and concurrent displaying of a plurality of images which may be video programs into a panoramic image as taught by Lablans ([0007]) that allows an immersive experience to a viewer by using the stitching of images.
As for claim 25, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 17. In addition, Krietzman further discloses capturing a plurality of images using a camera ([0033], e.g., players have DCA mounted to them and [0035], e.g., DCA acquires data such as video) positioned on the first player or the drone ([0052], e.g., drone(s) with DCA).
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Lablans teaches capturing a plurality of images using a multi-lens camera ([0177], e.g., multi-lens cameras) positioned on the player or the drone; and stitching the plurality of images, thereby defining a composite image ([0177], e.g., stitched image).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Lablans before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of controller in camera for creating a panoramic image of Lablans with a motivation to provide a novel and improved methods and apparatus for recording, processing storing, and concurrent displaying of a plurality of images which may be video programs into a panoramic image as taught by Lablans ([0007]) that allows an immersive experience to a viewer by using the stitching of images.
As for claim 26, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 25. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the sporting event is a football sporting event ([0043], e.g., football), soccer sporting event, or a basketball sporting event.
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, Lablans, and further in view of Petrany et al., US 2017/0061689 A1 (hereinafter Petrany).
As for claim 15, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 14.
Krietzman as modified by Garland, Balakrishnan, and Lablans does not explicitly teach, but Petrany teaches the composite image defines a 360 degree view around the first player ([0032], e.g., 360-degree).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, Lablans, and Petrany before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of system for improving operator visibility of machine surroundings of Petrany with a motivation to enhance a surround view provided to a person from the cameras by displaying a 3-D image of objects or personnel hidden from direct view and superimposing that 3-D image of on the portion of a window as taught by Petrany ([0038]).
7. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, Cuban et al., US 2017/0053169 A1 (hereinafter Cuban), and further in view of Soll et al., US 2016/0054737 A1 (hereinafter Soll).
As for claim 32, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 31.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Cuban teaches the drone is configured to identify a second player ([0053], e.g., objects of interest can be identified) on the field or court at the sporting event.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Cuban before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of object detection and analysis via unmanned areal vehicle of Cuban with a motivation to process multiple objects in an image from a drone to provide a comprehensive information for objects in an image by using the identification technology.
Krietzman as modified by Garland, Balakrishnan, and Cuban does not explicitly teach, but Soll teaches the second predefined position is relative ([0042], e.g., user crosses one of these barriers) to the second player.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, Cuban, and Soll before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of methods and apparatus for unmanned aerial vehicle autonomous aviation of Soll with a motivation to automatically track users while avoiding obstacles when filmmaking sporting activities as taught by Soll ([0004]) and/or obtain images of players from best predefined positions relative to the player’s location.
As for claim 33, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 32. In addition, Krietzman further discloses the at least one sensor ([0060], e.g., video capture device and [0061], e.g., sensors) is configured to sense movement ([0048], e.g., speed) of the second player ([0043], e.g., players, note a second player in a second team) in the second operational mode.
Krietzman as modified by Balakrishnan, Cuban, and Soll does not explicitly teach, but Garland teaches the drone ([0046], e.g., quad copter), in response to the detected event, is configured to move ([0046], e.g., follow) based on the sensed movement of the second player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) in the second operational mode.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Balakrishnan, Cuban, Soll, and Garland before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of Subject tracking system for autonomous vehicles of Garland with a motivation to follow the subject maintaining a desired constant distance and overhead angle so that the camera can keep the subject in the field of view as taught by Garland ([0008, 0046]) by using the drone’s movement.
8. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, Cuban, Soll, and further in view of Flores.
As for claim 34, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 33.
Krietzman as modified by Garland, Balakrishnan, and Soll does not explicitly teach, but Cuban teaches the drone is configured to identify the second player ([0053], e.g., objects of interest can be identified).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, Soll, and Cuban before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of object detection and analysis via unmanned areal vehicle of Cuban with a motivation to process multiple objects in an image from a drone to provide a comprehensive information for objects in an image by using the identification technology.
Krietzman as modified by Garland, Balakrishnan, Cuban, and Soll does not explicitly teach, but Flores teaches identify the second player in the second operational mode based on a jersey ([0043], e.g., jersey) worn by the second player.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, Cuban, Soll, and Flores before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of real-time video capture of field sports activities of Flores with a motivation to provide or increase accuracy of the player’s information who is in the field of view of a camera by using the information of the jersey to a computer system and/or viewer.
9. Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Garland, Balakrishnan, and further in view of Coza et al., US 2015/0328516 A1 (hereinafter Coza).
As for claim 43, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 9.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Coza teaches the at least one processor is configured to detect, based on the sensor data, a launch ([0147], e.g., launch) of an object by the first player along a first trajectory ([0147], e.g., trajectory), evaluate the first trajectory ([0147], e.g., trajectory), and provide feedback ([0149], e.g., conveys the activity metric to the individual) associated with the first player based evaluation of the first trajectory by the at least one processor.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Coza before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of sports ball athletic activity monitoring methods and systems of Coza with a motivation to provide an athletic monitoring devices that are capable of recording information about an individual’s performance during an athletic activity using sensors, and in some cases providing feedback about the individual’s performance as taught by Coza ([0003]).
As for claim 44, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 43.
Krietzman as modified by Garland and Balakrishnan does not explicitly teach, but Coza teaches the at least one processor is configured to detect, based on the sensor data, a launch ([0147], e.g., launch) of an object by the second player along a second trajectory ([0147], e.g., trajectory), evaluate the second trajectory ([0147], e.g., trajectory), and provide feedback ([0149], e.g., conveys the activity metric to the individual) associated with the second player based on evaluation of the second trajectory by the at least one processor.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Krietzman, Garland, Balakrishnan, and Coza before him/her to modify the multi-point capture of video and data processing and distribution of Krietzman with the teaching of sports ball athletic activity monitoring methods and systems of Coza with a motivation to provide an athletic monitoring devices that are capable of recording information about an individual’s performance during an athletic activity using sensors, and in some cases providing feedback about the individual’s performance as taught by Coza ([0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 42 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Balakrishnan does not makes no suggestion to use the detection of an event in order to transition a drone to a second operational mode and a motivation is grouping the statistics, thus the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Applicant further clarifies arguments in response to the Examiner’s response mailed on 10/6/26 that the combination of the references fails to provide any motivation to use the detection of the switch for the purpose of causing the drone to change modes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that “[c]ommon sense teaches ... that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 420 (2007). In this case, the use of the detection of the event may be used for the purposes described in the references as Applicant argues, but it has additional uses beyond the primary purposes. One of them is the controlling the drone based on the detection of the event as in this case. Thus, the asserted lack of the description of the purpose in the references cannot not be a reason that the detection cannot be used for the determination. In addition, it seems that Applicant misunderstand the requirement of the motivation for the purpose of 103. The motivation requirement is not to find a motivation to use a particular feature in a prior art for a specific use. Instead, the motivation requirement is to combine references to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.III states that “motivation … that would have led one of ordinary skill … to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.” Motivation is used to combine references. Once references are combined, motivation is not a factor to consider. Thus, when Applicant states that “motivation … is for grouping …,” Applicant assumes that there is at least one motivation to combine the references. Once they are combined, no more motivation needs to be found. The references can be combined with multiple reasons, and Applicant provided one reason. Arguing that the references cannot be combined because of a specific reason is not found in a reference is not a proper reason why the references cannot be combined while Applicant provides a valid reason to combine. In an analogy, if a bell is combined to a bicycle with a motivation to provide a warning to a pedestrian, arguing that they cannot be combined because the described purpose of the bell in the reference is notifying hour marks and using the bell for the purpose of warning a pedestrian is not found in the reference is not a persuasive. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2001/0054989 discloses color sequential display panels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights