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 reply filed on 8/25/25 regarding application 17/899378 that was initially filed on 8/30/22. Claims 1-15, 17-35, 37, and 39-41 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 occurs when the first team and the second team switch 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 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 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 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 player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) during the sporting activity based on the sensed movement of the 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 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 the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 player ([0033], e.g., athlete and [0046], e.g., subject) as the 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 player as the 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 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 player; and releasing the drone from the 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 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 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 player, wherein the drone is configured to identify ([0047], e.g., identified) the 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 player based on a jersey ([0043], e.g., jersey) worn by the 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 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 's arguments filed 8/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that Balakrishnan makes no suggestion to use the detection of an event that occurs when teams switch between offense and defense in order to transition a drone to a second mode, thus, the rejection is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP states that even though Applicant may argue that the combination of two or more references is "hindsight" because "express" motivation to combine the references is lacking, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." MPEP 2145 X A. In this case, Applicant fails to show any evidence that knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure is used. In fact, the knowledge is not gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure. As there is no requirement that the motivation must come from the references, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that even if the references are combined, the combination is insufficient to suggest the combination of features in the Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear why Applicant believes that the combination is not sufficient to suggest the features in the Claim 1 because Applicant fails to point out particularly the alleged deficient feature not addressed by the combination. Mere conclusory statement is not an argument. Rather, as the Office Action mailed on 4/24/25 for the claim 16 and the rejection above for claim 1 clearly list all features and provide corresponding references and citations.
Applicant further makes a further counter argument that even if it would be obvious to modify, the motivation is grouping the collected statistics into offensive and defensive categories. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as Applicant offers another motivation to combine the references, Applicant admits that the references can be combined with a valid motivation. Second, regardless whether the motivation that Applicant offers is valid or not, the motivation to combine reference is not limited to only one. The motivation in the Office Action is still valid to combine the references and Applicant does not provide any argument or evidence that the provided motivation is not valid.
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill with creativity is not the proper standard for obviousness. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant argues that the hypothetical person is not one who undertakes to innovate, the Office Action does not use a person who undertakes to innovate. Instead, the hypothetical person is a person with a creativity which has a support from MPEP 2141.03 (“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”) which in turn cites KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Applicant further argues that considering that the references fail to provide any reason or motivation and Garland teaches that the drone should maintain relative position to the object, the rejection is based on hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant recites the drone’s maintaining a constant relative position to an object, the description is in the context of the Garland’s application. Obviously, as the reference is modified using another reference, relevant features of the references may need to be modified for a new purpose. The constant relative position may be used after the movement to a new location or not depending on the new purpose after the combination. There is no requirement that all features and restrictions must be maintained in exactly the same way as before even after modification which by definition permits change. Thus, the feature mentioned by Applicant is not evidence that the rejection is using a hindsight. The motivation not from the references is not evidence of hindsight as well because a motivation not from references is permitted as explained above. Even considering both of them as a whole does not make the rejection as a hindsight rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
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 extension fee 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 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