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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 2, 12, 13, and 19 are cancelled.
The amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been accepted and entered.
New claims 21-28 are accepted and entered.
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-18 and 20-28 are pending regarding this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, with respect to the 112(a) rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/31/2026, regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 14-18 and 20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yang fails to teach receiving navigational control commands over the communication channel from the user device of the respective end user and deliver control signals based on the navigational control commands to the communication hub for controlling navigation of the selected drone for the respective flight in claim 1, as Yang fails to teach an application server that both streams video data to, and receives navigational control commands from, user devices. However, examiner believes that Yang teaches the above limitation, wherein the server both streams data to and receives navigation control commands from, user devices. Yang teaches that “various input and output functions can be implemented via a user interface, wherein the user can control functions such as camera controls and flight parameters” in para. [0054]. Additionally, Yang teaches that control may be transferred from the operational subsystem to the user (i.e. user device of the respective end user) in para. [0061]. See also para. [0080]-[0081]. Yang teaches that “a sightseeing request is transmitted from the terminal subsystem 400 to the operational subsystem 300 at 902” in para. [0071], wherein “the operational subsystem 300 can perform, for example, functions relating to routine control and guidance 330 of the UAVs 201. These functions can include, for example, 331 directing the UAVs to the region of interest in response to the user sightseeing request” in para. [0061]. Yang then teaches that control may be transferred from the operational subsystem to the user (see para. [0061]), wherein the user can “visualize and interact with a simulated three-dimensional environment that is reproduced from the UAV's data feed” (see para. [0055]) and adjust different navigational functions as further shown in para. [0054] and FIG. 6A.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, 3-11, 14-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the inclusion of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1) in the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 14-18 and 20 below regarding this matter.
Regarding new claims 21-28, see the 103 Rejection of these claims below regarding this matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “a location of the selected drone navigated the respective end user” in lines 2-3. This does not make sense grammatically. As such, please amend to recite “a location of the selected drone navigated by the respective end user”.
As a result, the claims will be analyzed below assuming these changes were made. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “a location of a drone” in line 2. However, a selected drone is already defined in claim 1, upon which claim 20 is dependent. As such, it is unclear whether the drone as claimed in claim 20 is equivalent to or distinct from the selected drone as claimed in claim 1. Applicant references the drone in the above context(s) throughout the specification. However, nowhere in the specification does the applicant clarify whether the drone as claimed in claim 20 is equivalent to or distinct from the selected drone as claimed in claim 1. As such, applicant fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Similarly, claims 21 and 22 recite “the drone” in lines 2-3 and line 4, respectively. However, a selected drone is already defined in claim 1, upon which claims 21 and 22 are dependent. As such, it is unclear whether the drone as claimed in claims 21 and 22 is equivalent to or distinct from the selected drone as claimed in claim 1. Applicant references the drone in the above context(s) throughout the specification. However, nowhere in the specification does the applicant clarify whether the drone as claimed in claims 21 and 22 is equivalent to or distinct from the selected drone as claimed in claim 1. As such, applicant fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the access point" in line 2 and line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for both of these limitations in the claim. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 17, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a data processing system, comprising:
a communication hub including one or more communication links for communication with a set of drones with cameras (Yang teaches that “the UAV 201 can establish data uplink and/or downlink channels with the operational and/or terminal subsystems for navigation, localization, data transmission, and the like” in para. [0029]; see the data communication subsystem in FIG. 2 which is interpreted as the communication hub; see paragraph 0027 where the drones are equipped with cameras; see also FIGS. 1 and 2),
wherein each drone includes a navigation control system and one or more sensors including at least a camera (Yang teaches that “the UAVs 201 of the virtual sightseeing system 100 and methods 800 (shown in FIG. 8), 900 (shown in FIG. 9) can be equipped with various control systems and sensors (not shown) for controlling flight operations” in para. [0026]; see also paragraph 0027 where the drones are equipped with cameras );
an application server system coupled with the communication hub via a first computer network, and further comprising a connection for connecting to a second computer network for connecting to user devices (Yang teaches an operational subsystem in FIG. 1 and 2 #300 (which is interpreted as the server) coupled to the communication subsystem #500 (communication hub), wherein “the terminal subsystem 400 includes the hardware and software infrastructure that is needed to provide a virtual sightseeing user interface” (see para. [0036]); here the terminal subsystem is interpreted as the user device; additionally, Yang teaches that “operational subsystem 300 and terminal subsystem 400 can be discrete subsystems each implemented on independent hardware platforms that can communicate with one another, e.g., over a communication network” in para. [0037]);
wherein the application server system further comprises:
data storage (Yang, see paragraphs 0035-0037 where each of the subsystems is described as being a computer and having hardware and software; inherently a computer would have to have a data storage for storing the instructions and implementing the instructions in the manner as described); and
a processor coupled to the data storage (Yang, operation subsystem, 300, and terminal subsystem, 400; see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0035-0037 where each of the subsystems is described as being a computer for controlling the operation of the system; a computer would inherently have to have some type of processor for carrying out the operations of the system which is coupled to data storage in order to carry out instructions), wherein the processor is configured to
control the set of drones through commands transmitted through the communication hub (Yang, “the operational subsystem 300 can perform, for example, functions relating to routine control and guidance 330 of the UAVs 201” as shown in para. [0061]; see paragraph 0027 where the drones are equipped with cameras);
and to enable an end user to log onto one or more of the drones to capture video using one or more of the cameras (Yang, see paragraphs 0060 and 0063 where the operational system performs functions such as verifying a user login and authentication credentials, etc; and allocates and deallocates user’s sightseeing requests; this is interpreted as enabling a user to log onto the drones. The user here is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed “end user”, as the user as claimed by Yang is a user who engages with the invention as taught by Yang “for virtual sightseeing purposes” as shown in para. [0048]), by:
receiving requests from the user devices (Yang teaches the operational subsystem receiving sightseeing requests from users in para. [0060]; see also the teaching of the user device in para. [0036]), wherein a request includes one or more messages identifying a respective end user and a respective flight specified by the respective end user using a selected drone from the plurality of drones (Yang teaches that the operational subsystem can identify the user and allocate UAVs to adhere to the user’s request in para. [0063] and [0060], respectively; see also para. [0049] which describes the content of the request further. Yang additionally teaches selecting UAV 201 as shown in para. [0028]);
for each request, after authenticating the respective end user:
establish a communication channel between the application server system and the user device of the respective end user (Yang teaches “at 901, the virtual sightseeing method 900 is initiated via the receipt of a sightseeing request, e.g. a sightseeing request entered into a terminal subsystem 400” in para. [0068]; as shown above, the operational subsystem #300 is interpreted as equivalent to the application server system; “The terminal subsystem 400 includes the hardware and software infrastructure that is needed to provide a virtual sightseeing user interface” as shown in para. [0036]; the terminal subsystem is interpreted as the user device of the respective end user; see FIG. 2 which shows the communication channel between the operational subsystem and the terminal subsystem);
receive navigational control commands over the communication channel from the user device of the respective end user (Yang teaches that various input and output functions can be implemented via a user interface, wherein the user can control functions such as camera controls and flight parameters” in para. [0054]. Additionally, Yang teaches that control may be transferred from the operational subsystem to the user (i.e. user device of the respective end user) in para. [0061]; See also para. [0080]-[0081]) and deliver control signals based on the navigational control commands to the communication hub for controlling navigation of the selected drone for the respective flight (Yang teaches that “a sightseeing request is transmitted from the terminal subsystem 400 to the operational subsystem 300 at 902.” In para. [0071]; additionally, Yang teaches “the operational subsystem 300 can perform, for example, functions relating to routine control and guidance 330 of the UAVs 201. These functions can include, for example, 331 directing the UAVs to the region of interest in response to the user sightseeing request” in para. [0061]. Yang then teaches that control may be transferred from the operational subsystem to the user (see para. [0061]), wherein the user can “visualize and interact with a simulated three-dimensional environment that is reproduced from the UAV's data feed” (see para. [0055]) and adjust different navigational functions as further shown in para. [0054] and FIG. 6A);
receive a video request command over the communication channel from the user device for requesting transmission of one or more images captured using the camera of the selected drone (Yang teaches selected UAV 201 as shown in para. [0028]) for the respective flight (Yang teaches that the user can submit a sightseeing request through the terminal subsystem in para. [0049], wherein “the virtual sightseeing method 800 proceeds by acquiring data regarding the region of interest from the one or more allocated UAVs 201, which may be equipped with various instruments as needed to acquire particular kinds of data specified in the sightseeing request” in para. [0066]; here, “the sightseeing settings can include a variety of other settings. Such settings can include, for example, flight settings for the UAV 201, UAV camera settings, settings of which instruments/sensors the UAV engages during the tour (e.g., settings of whether to collect data for one or more of image, video)” in para. [0070]; these requests come from the user device as shown in para. [0049]);
in response to the video request command, (Yang teaches selected UAV 201 as shown in para. [0028]) through the communication hub and (Yang teaches “the terminal subsystem 400 can perform a variety of output functions 430 relating to the presentation of visual and/or non-visual data collected by the UAVs, thereby allowing a user to experience the collected data as an integrated experience. Such output functions 430 include, for example, displaying visual data collected from the region of interest in the form of photographs, time-delayed videos, and/or live videos 431” in para. [0050]; “the operational subsystem 300 can filter the UAV data feed and/or buffer the UAV data feed” as shown in para. [0082]; see also the “selected UAV 201” as defined in para. [0028]-[0029]), and
provide the (Yang teaches that the terminal subsystem provides settings which can control the camera “(e.g. camera angle, camera mode, photo/video size/resolution, photo/video format, and exposure settings)” in para. [0050]; these settings are broadly interpreted as the instructions provided to the user device); and
stream the video captured using the camera of the selected drone (Yang, see Figures 6A-6C; and paragraphs 0054-0057; where the captured video are displayed on a user device.).
Yang fails to specifically teach providing the link to the user device to enable the user device to access the video stream from the data storage of the application server; generating a link to access for a video stream from the camera of the selected drone through the communication hub and stored in the data storage of the application server; providing the link to the user, and streaming the video captured using the camera of the selected drone from the data storage of the application server to the user device for display on the user device in response to the user device accessing the provided link.
However, Beining teaches generating a link to access for a video stream from the camera of the selected drone through the communication hub and stored in the data storage of the application server (Beining teaches a process of “sending a URL to a client” for accessing a highlight stream (video) in para. [0037], wherein the highlight stream (video) is stored in the content server 120 of the application as further shown in para. [0038]. Yang additionally teaches access for a video stream from the camera of the selected drone through the communication hub as shown in the above claim mapping);
providing the link to the user device to enable the user device to access the video stream from the data storage of the application server (Beining teaches sending a URL (link) to a client, wherein “the client 130 comprises an electronic device such as a personal computer, a laptop, mobile phone or smartphone, a tablet computer personal digital assistant (PDA) a television set-top box, etc” as shown in para. [0020], and the URL link provides access to a highlight stream stored on the content server 120 as shown in para. [0037]-[0038]);
streaming the video captured using the camera of the selected drone from the data storage of the application server to the user device for display on the user device in response to the user device accessing the provided link (Beining teaches that “the content server 120 processes media to enable HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) of the content” in para. [0018] and para. [0021], wherein the content is sent via a URL to a client (user device as shown in para. [0020]) as further shown in para. [0037]-[0038], wherein the client (user device) can subsequently display the received highlight stream as shown in para. [0042]).
Yang and Beining are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of storing videos in a server to display to users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Beining and include “providing the link to the user device to enable the user device to access the video stream from the data storage of the application server; generating a link to access for a video stream from the camera of the selected drone through the communication hub and stored in the data storage of the application server; providing the link to the user, and streaming the video captured using the camera of the selected drone from the data storage of the application server to the user device for display on the user device in response to the user device accessing the provided link”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “allow the user to quickly and conveniently view important or exciting portions of the broadcast” and “provide[] a custom highlight stream for a particular user that contains only highlights of a requested media item (e.g., a video) that will be particularly relevant to that user based on his/her user profile”, as suggested by Beining in para. [0004] and para. [0015], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang with Beining to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to enable the user to log onto the one or more of the drones for a predetermined time (Yang teaches a system that can set the total duration of the tour (para. [0070]),
verify the login of a user (Yang, para. [0063]), de-allocate a UAV to a user’s sightseeing request (Yang, para. [0060]), and allocate a new UAV to the end user if the UAV’s battery runs out before the user’s request is completed (Yang, para. [0062])).
Regarding claim 7, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to monitor power of the drones (Yang, the operational subsystem can determine which UAV to utilize in part based on the power status of the UAV. See para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to monitor an allotted flight time of the drones (Yang teaches a maximum flight time in para. [0039], a tour duration in para. [0049] and keeping track of user time spent per session in para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to receive information identifying the end user (Yang teaches verifying the user login and authentication credentials in para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
generate a user interface to provide viewing of the video on the user device (Yang teaches “the terminal subsystem 400 can perform many of the input and output functions for a user interface, including functions related to tour initiation, UAV flight control, data output/presentation, and support” para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 23, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1, wherein receiving navigational control commands comprises:
receiving messages from the user device indicating a desired state of the selected drone (Yang teaches “a selected UAV 201 equipped in a particular manner can be selected for deployment based upon a criterion of the sightseeing request, a characteristic of the region of interest, or other sightseeing variables” in para. [0028]. Here, the region of interest is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed desired state);
translating the desired state of the selected drone into the navigational control commands (Yang teaches “once a UAV deployment request is received by recipient UAV 201, the UAV can be deployed, at 905, to the region of interest in response to the UAV deployment request. In one embodiment, the operational subsystem 300 can send additional navigational information to the UAV 201 that allows the UAV 201 to navigate to the region of interest without being controlled by the user. Such navigational information can include a pre-planned flight path or a flight path that is calculated by the operational system on the spot, and preferably avoids obstacles” as shown in para. [0076]); and
delivering the navigational control commands to the selected drone through the communication hub (Yang teaches delivering control commands by made by the user through the terminal subsystem (400) to the data communication subsystem (500) in order to deliver commands to the selected drone in FIG. 2 and para. [0037] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 24, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 23,
wherein the receiving navigational control commands further comprises ensuring that the desired state of the selected drone is safe (Yang teaches that “exemplary guidance function 333 enables the operational subsystem 300 can take control when the UAV encounters unexpected conditions, flies out of range, enters forbidden air space (such as air space in the vicinity of airports), becomes subject to abusive guidance by the user, or other conditions arise warranting the operational subsystem 300 to take control of the UAV” as shown in para. [0061]. Here, when the system receives navigational control commands by the user that abuse the guidelines of drone safety, actions are taken to ensure the safety of the drone and its surrounding environment).
Regarding claim 25, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 24, wherein the receiving navigational control commands further comprises,
in response to a determination the desired state of the selected drone is unsafe, modifying the desired state into a safe drone state (Yang teaches that “exemplary guidance function 333 enables the operational subsystem 300 can take control when the UAV encounters unexpected conditions, flies out of range, enters forbidden air space (such as air space in the vicinity of airports), becomes subject to abusive guidance by the user, or other conditions arise warranting the operational subsystem 300 to take control of the UAV” as shown in para. [0061]. Here, when the system receives navigational control commands by the user that abuse the guidelines of drone safety, actions are taken to ensure the safety of the drone and its surrounding environment).
Regarding claim 26, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 23, wherein the desired state includes data describing one or more setpoints for aspects of drone operation to be controlled (Yang teaches that “exemplary guidance function 333 enables the operational subsystem 300 can take control when the UAV encounters unexpected conditions, flies out of range, enters forbidden air space (such as air space in the vicinity of airports), becomes subject to abusive guidance by the user, or other conditions arise warranting the operational subsystem 300 to take control of the UAV” as shown in para. [0061]. Here, sense Yang teaches that this abusive guidance may be enacted by the user’s navigational location request, and the determined action is based on an improper location, it is interpreted that Yang teaches a desired state wherein the desired state is a desired location that the user wishes to navigate the drone towards, involving setpoints for the drone).
Regarding claim 27, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 26, wherein the one or more setpoints include one or more of
a vertical-velocity setpoint, a forward-velocity setpoint, a horizontal-velocity setpoint (Yang teaches “sightseeing function 420 include, for example, controlling the navigation of the UAV such as the UAV's direction, speed, altitude and attitude controls 421” in para. [0050]. Here, the ability to control both the speed and direction is interpreted as equivalent to at least the claimed vertical-velocity setpoint, forward-velocity setpoint, and horizontal-velocity setpoint), or
a yaw-angular-velocity setpoint.
Regarding claim 28, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 23,
wherein the processor is further configured to ensure that the selected drone is actively controlled by ensuring that the messages indicating the desired state of the selected drone are regularly received from the user device (Yang teaches that the user’s request regarding control of the UAV are continuously taken into account in para. [0080]. Yang additionally teaches receiving user requests for a desired state of the UAV and continuously processing them to ensure no abusive guidance by the user takes place as shown in para. [0061]).
Claims 3, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Gordon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0238505 A1), hereinafter Gordon ‘505.
Regarding claim 3, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to identify an object based on the video using a neural network technique.
However, Gordon ‘505 teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify an object based on the video using a neural network technique (Gordon ‘505 “the camera 110 and/or processor may employ deep neural networks (DNNs), including a three-layer perception neural network with high accuracy, to identify different animals such that any exclusion zones and/or deterrence actions are “smart”, namely that the exclusion zones and/or deterrence actions are based on animal type, specific animal characteristics, and/or animal histories.” para. [0041]; here, the animal is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed object).
Yang, Beining and Gordon ‘505 are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon ‘505 and include wherein the processor is configured to identify a wildlife organism based on the one or more wildlife images using a neural network technique. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately identify animals as suggested by Gordon ‘505 in para. [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon ’505 to obtain the invention specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to generate a map indicating at least one of a location of the end user, a location of other users and a location at which the one or more wildlife images are captured.
However, Gordon ‘505 teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate a map indicating at least one of
a location of the selected drone navigated the respective end user,
a location of other end users and
a location at which the one or more wildlife images are captured (Gordon ‘505 “the camera 110 may provide coordinate information associated with the captured images” para. [0040]).
Yang, Beining, and Gordon ‘505 are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon ‘505 and include wherein the processor is configured to generate a map indicating at least one of a location of the end user, a location of other end users and a location at which the one or more wildlife images are captured. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to track animal migration routes which may be of benefit to the user through recreation or educational purposes as suggested by Gordon ‘505 in para. [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon ’505 to obtain the invention specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to generate a map including a movement pattern of an object in an area based on data from the end user.
However, Gordon ‘505 teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate a map including a movement pattern of an object in an area based on data from the end user (Gordon ‘505, “the virtual map displayed on the display device 262 may be used to further track animal migration routes” para. [0060]; “, the monitoring device 306 may identify the location of a particular animal population and/or location of a migration route of an animal and/or animal population. In an embodiment, the monitoring device 306 may provide the geolocation information, including map coordinates associated with the captured image, to the mapping device 316 to generate exclusion zones, which will be described in further detail below” para. [0071]; “the camera 110 may obtain at least one image and the monitoring device 306 may employ various imaging processing techniques to extract information” para. [0040]; “the user input devices 252, 254, and 256 can be any type of input device, including but not limited to, a keyboard, a mouse, a keypad, an image capture device” para. [0061]. Here, the animal is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed object).
Yang, Beining, and Gordon ‘505 are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon ‘505 and include “wherein the processor is configured to generate a map including a movement pattern of an object in an area based on data from the end user”. The motivation for doing so would have been to inform the user of information regarding the identity of the animal, a migration route associated with the animal, and/or a nesting site associated with the animal, along with “whether the animal is an endangered species, likelihood of the animal to attack, anatomical characteristics of the animal, successful avoidance responses associated with the animal, etc”. This information is used to make decisions regarding fencing off certain areas or highlighting certain relevant patterns as suggested by Gordon ‘505 in para. [0071]-[0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon ’505 to obtain the invention specified in claim 15.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Ding et al. (CN 111131261 A, see translation of description for citations), hereinafter Ding.
Regarding claim 5, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to assign a score to the end user based on the video.
However, Ding teaches calculating a score for a drone end user based on the quality of their completion of drone specific training (Ding teaches calculating a score for a drone user based on a completion of drone training as shown in para. [0026] and [0032]).
Yang, Beining, and Ding are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Ding and include generating a score for the end user of the drone. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve a user’s skills regarding drone flight controlling, as suggested by Ding in para. [0009]. When used in combination with Yang and Beining, which teach a user’s operation of a drone for imaging purposes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Yang to assign a score to a user of the drone based on the images captured by the drone.
Claims 6, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Gordon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0027772 A1), hereinafter Gordon.
Regarding claim 6, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to control locations of the drones using a geo-fencing technique.
However, Gordon teaches wherein the processor is configured to control locations of the drones using a geo-fencing technique (Gordon, FIG. 5, 6; “a plurality of automated drone devices coordinating together to create virtual fences around a defined region of a defined coordinate space” para. [0038]).
Yang, Beining, and Gordon are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon and include “wherein the processor is configured to control locations of the drones using a geo-fencing technique”. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the system to monitor and designate defined regions in order to monitor the animals within the region, as suggested by Gordon in para. [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to receive an image from the video from the end user to prevent an illegal activity.
However, Gordon teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive an image from the video from the end user to prevent an illegal activity (Gordon “monitoring component 604 can determine a violation that includes an animal or object that is outside of a defined region and is to be maintained outside of a defined distance of the defined region, where the animal or object is within the defined distance from a virtual boundary of the defined region. For example, a predator (e.g., predator animal, hunter, poacher) that is outside a defined region and is stalking towards a virtual boundary of a defined region, where the predator has come within a defined distance of the virtual boundary can be determined by monitoring component 604 to be a violation” para. [0048]; here, poaching is being interpreted as equivalent to an illegal activity).
Yang, Beining, and Gordon are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon and include “wherein the processor is configured to receive an image from the video from the end user to prevent an illegal activity”. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the system to monitor and designate defined regions in order to monitor the animals within the region, and keep undesired animals out of the region, as suggested by Gordon in para. [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon to obtain the invention specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: cause the one or more sensors to scan a geographical area navigated by the drone to capture image data (see “images” in para. [0079], [0070], and [0054], wherein the images are taken by the drone of a region of interest (geographical area)), Yang and Beining fail to teach to identify a suspicious or illegal person or activity from the image data; and generate a notification regarding the suspicious or illegal person or activity.
However, Gordon teaches to identify a suspicious or illegal person or activity from the image data (Gordon teaches a “monitoring component 604 can determine a violation that includes an animal or object that is within a defined region and is to be maintained within the defined region, where the animal or object is within a defined distance from a virtual boundary of the defined region” in para. [0073]. See the above citation(s) of Yang and para. [0089] of Gordon regarding the image data)); and
generate a notification regarding the suspicious or illegal person or activity (Gordon teaches that “server devices 520 can include monitoring component 604 and can provide information to drone devices 502, 524 regarding violations” in para. [0072]. Here, this provided information can be broadly interpreted as equivalent to the claimed notification).
Yang, Beining, and Gordon are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Gordon and include to “identify a suspicious or illegal person or activity from the image data; and generate a notification regarding the suspicious or illegal person or activity”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “improving the accuracy in which the processing systems maintain virtual boundaries around a defined region and managing violations related to the virtual boundaries around the defined region”, as suggested by Gordon in para. [0099]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Gordon to obtain the invention specified in claim 21.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Trapero Esteban et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0253092 A1), hereinafter Trapero Esteban.
Regarding claim 14, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
While Yang teaches that “the UAV can send periodic location and/or operational status updates to the operational subsystem so that the operational subsystem 300 can extrapolate an estimated time of arrival at the region of interest” as shown in para. [0078], Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to send data including at least one of a location and a status of the one or more drones to an entity.
However, Trapero Esteban teaches sending data including at least one of a location and a status to a regulatory body (entity) (Trapero Esteban “The UAV interacts with all elements that collect flight information (sensors, GPS navigation module, mobile communications module, etc.) to detect certain navigation events and then send them to CCSU that will compare and register the information in the ASA. The UAV (e.g. using GPS) can determine its geo-location at all times and report said geo-location to CCSU. In addition, it can send to the CCSU events related to the limits of aerial flight zones (the UAV can for example, compare its location with the Geo-Fence map stored in it and notify the CCSU if it is in a restricted area, or if it is near restricted zones) or other events (sudden changes in speed and/or direction . . . )” para. [0134]).
Yang, Beining, and Trapero Esteban are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Trapero Esteban and include wherein the processor is configured to send data including at least one of a location and a status of the one or more drones to an entity. The motivation for doing so would have been to continuously provide information to the appropriate bodies regarding the location/status of the drone as suggested by Trapero Esteban in para. [0128]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Trapero Esteban to obtain the invention specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate a map indicating a location of a drone assigned to the end user relative to a geo-fenced area.
However, Trapero Esteban teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate a map indicating a location of a drone assigned to the end user relative to a geo-fenced area (Trapero Esteban, “the UAV compares its location with the Geo-Fence map and when the UAV, detects that it has left the authorized zone (pre-loaded) it warns the ASA (the CCSU) and the latter may deny it flight authorization” para. [0128]).
Yang, Beining, and Trapero Esteban are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Trapero Esteban and include wherein the processor is further configured to generate a map indicating a location of a drone assigned to the end user relative to a geo-fenced area. The motivation for doing so would have been to continuously provide information to the appropriate bodies regarding the location/status of the drone as suggested by Trapero Esteban in para. [0128]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Trapero Esteban to obtain the invention specified in claim 20.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Lopez et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0306824 A1), hereinafter Lopez.
Regarding claim 16, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a request to book a flight at a predetermined time (Yang teaches virtual tours occurring at a specific time in para. [0049]);
receive a selection of a location (Yang teaches selecting a region of interest in para. [0049]; Gordon teaches the location being related to conservation in para. [0075]; Together, Yang and Gordon teach the limitation, similar motivations as applied to claim 1 can be applied here.);
receive a payment for the flight (Yang teaches processing user payments in para. [0063]); and
However, Yang and Beining fail to teach “generate a notification about the flight to send to the end user”.
However, Lopez teaches generating a notification about the flight to send to the end user (Lopez “The image video take notification is sent to the OMS, for example to alert the users that their data has been acquired and is ready for downloading” para. [0220]; “The OMS sends a product notification to the user's computing device (e.g. via email, text, instant messaging, social network, or by a message on the Web platform) 5108” para. [0350]).
Yang, Beining, and Lopez are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Lopez and include generating a notification about the flight to send to the end user. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to save the data they view during their flight tours for later viewing, as suggested by Lopez in para. [0220]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Lopez to obtain the invention specified in claim 16.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Yoshichika et al. (WO 2018/18185806 A1, see attached English translation of the description for citations), hereinafter Yoshichika.
Regarding claim 18, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate a flight tutorial video on the user device.
However, Yoshichika teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a flight tutorial video on the user device (Yoshichika, “the display control unit may explain an example of a tutorial on a basic operation method of the tutorial (S4). Throughout the tutorial, pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles can learn basic skills.” para. [0122]).
Yang, Beining, and Yoshichika are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Yoshichika and include wherein the processor is further configured to generate a flight tutorial video on the user device. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve flight technique of the user as suggested by Yoshichika in para. [0113]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Yoshichika to obtain the invention specified in claim 18.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0035224 A1), hereinafter Yang, in view of Beining et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0226983 A1), hereinafter Beining and Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0265694 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 22, Yang and Beining teach the data processing system of claim 1.
While Yang teaches sharing the live data stream of the drone with other users as shown in para. [0053], Yang and Beining fail to teach wherein the user device is enabled to share the link to the access point with another user device, and wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to a request to access the link from the other user device, stream the video from the camera of the drone through the access point to the other user device for display on the other user device.
However, Chen teaches wherein the user device is enabled to share the link to the access point with another user device, and wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to a request to access the link from the other user device, stream the video from the camera of the drone through the access point to the other user device for display on the other user device (Chen teaches “a first user may provide a link to a video feed of drone operation underway to second user, The second user may follow the link to launch a live-broadcast interface showing a live view from the associated drone” in para. [0058]. Here, it is inherent that the first user providing the link to the second user involves sending the link from the first user’s device and the second user’s device).
Yang, Beining, and Chen are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capturing/generating videos to convey information to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang (as modified by Beining) to incorporate the teachings of Chen and include “wherein the user device is enabled to share the link to the access point with another user device, and wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to a request to access the link from the other user device, stream the video from the camera of the drone through the access point to the other user device for display on the other user device”. The motivation for doing so would have been such that “users may be granted permission to view one or more live video feeds and operational statistics associated with the drones owned or operated by other users”, as suggested by Chen in para. [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yang and Beining with Chen to obtain the invention specified in claim 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights