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 .
This is a final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 12 is canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendments to claim 6 has been fully considered and objection to claim 6 is withdrawn. Claim 12 is canceled therefore claim objection to claim 12 is withdrawn. Amendments to claim 15 has been fully considered and is persuasive so 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn. Arguments and amendments to claims 1, 4 and 15 Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and is persuasive and rejections have been withdrawn. Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on claim 4 has not been addressed or amended therefore 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claim 5 is sustained. Arguments and amendments to U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Amendments to claim 15 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection for claims 1-10 and 13-17 and reformulates rejection as a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of applicant’s amendment.
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 1-17 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 5 is unclear “scalar distance being variable in size as a factor of launch speed” since the specification does not describe any “factor”.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohstall; Christoph (US 20160101856 A1) in view of Meier; Philip et al. (US 20150350614 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohstall teaches, at physical launch of an aerial drone, capturing launch metrics via onboard electronics of the drone (Fig. 8 depicts sensors 864, see at least, ¶40, Kohstall) (UAV is launched by hand and motion of the launch is measured, see at least, ¶61, Kohstall), the launch metrics comprising one or more kinematic parameters with which the drone is launched (motion of the launch is measured in terms of launch vectors V1, V2 and V3 of Fig. 17A and used to pre-program UAV trajectory, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch (if the user spins the UAV, the UAV can take the plane upon which it is to project its flight path, see at least, ¶76, Kohstall); associating a plurality of different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different throws rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch (Fig. 17 A and B depict different flightpath corresponding to a plurality of different launch magnitude and vector imparted on the UAV by the user’s throw, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall); in an automated operation that is performed by the onboard electronics and that is based at least in part on the captured launch metrics, determining attributes of a flightpath for the drone (Fig. 17 A and B depict automated trajectories TR1 TR2 and TR3 attributes of a flight path are based on the launch vectors V1, V3 and V3, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), one or more of the flightpath attributes being determined as a function of the captured launch metrics (Fig. 17 A depicts a very hard throw of captured launch metrics V2 causes the UAV to travel a much greater flightpath attribute: distance or D2 than a lighter throw of captured launch metrics V1 which causes the UAV to travel a shorter distance D1. In other words the flightpath attribute distance is a function of the magnitude of the throw vector (launch metrics), see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), thus enabling users to at least partially determine automated in-flight behavior of the drone via physical selection of launch behavior, wherein determining the flightpath attributes comprises: identifying correspondence between a value for the rotation direction indicated by the launch metrics and a specific one of said plurality of different rotation directions; and based at least in part on the identified correspondence, selecting as flightpath type a particular pre-defined flightpath type associated with said specific rotation direction; and controlling in-flight behavior of the drone according to the determined flightpath attributes (Fig. 17 A and B depict user 190 having partial control of the drone behavior via physical selection by launch magnitude and vector imparted on the UAV by the user’s throw, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall).
Kohstall does not explicitly teach, the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch, associating a plurality of different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch, and identifying correspondence between a value for the rotation direction indicated by the launch metrics and a specific one of said plurality of different rotation directions; and based at least in part on the identified correspondence, selecting as flightpath type a particular pre-defined flightpath type associated with said specific rotation direction.
Meier, directed to tracking human subjects, and/or other moving and/or static objects using aerial video data teaches, the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch, associating a plurality of different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch, and identifying correspondence between a value for the rotation direction indicated by the launch metrics and a specific one of said plurality of different rotation directions; and based at least in part on the identified correspondence, selecting as flightpath type a particular pre-defined flightpath type associated with said specific rotation direction (user may configure flight trajectory parameters of the UAV and parameters of rotation clockwise, counter clock, and select the flightpath type with the specific rotation direction, see at least, ¶77, Meier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kohstall to incorporate the teachings of Meier which teaches the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch, associating a plurality of different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch, and identifying correspondence between a value for the rotation direction indicated by the launch metrics and a specific one of said plurality of different rotation directions; and based at least in part on the identified correspondence, selecting as flightpath type a particular pre-defined flightpath type associated with said specific rotation direction since they are both related to utilizing drones in photography by a user and incorporation of the teachings of Meier would improve videography intention of the user.
Regarding Claim 15, Kohstall teaches, an aerial drone comprising: a drone body carrying flight systems for enabling controlled flight of the drone (Fig. 1 depicts system 100 that includes a wearable UAV 110 carrying central portion 121 housing payload including a flight controller, see at least, ¶29, Kohstall); onboard electronics carried by the drone body (Fig. 8 depicts flight controller 160, see at least, ¶40, Kohstall), the onboard electronics comprising: an array of sensors (Fig. 8 depicts sensors 864, see at least, ¶40, Kohstall) configured to capture launch metrics experienced by the drone at physical launch (UAV is launched by hand and motion of the launch is measured, see at least, ¶61, Kohstall), the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch (if the user spins the UAV, the UAV can take the plane upon which it is to project its flight path, see at least, ¶76, Kohstall); and a flight control system comprising: memory having stored thereon predefined flightpath data that identifies a plurality of predefined flightpath types and that indicates, for each predefined flightpath, an associated one of a plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch; and one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: at physical launch of the aerial drone, capturing launch metrics via the array of sensors, the launch metrics comprising one or more kinematic parameters with which the drone is launched (motion of the launch is measured in terms of launch vectors V1, V2 and V3 of Fig. 17A and used to pre-program UAV trajectory, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall); and in an automated operation that is performed by the onboard electronics and that is based at least in part on the captured launch metrics, determining attributes of a flightpath for the drone (Fig. 17 A and B depict automated trajectories TR1 TR2 and TR3 attributes of a flight path are based on the launch vectors V1, V3 and V3, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), one or more of the flightpath attributes being determined as a function of the captured launch metrics (Fig. 17 A depicts a very hard throw of captured launch metrics V2 causes the UAV to travel a much greater flightpath attribute: distance or D2 than a lighter throw of captured launch metrics V1 which causes the UAV to travel a shorter distance D1. In other words the flightpath attribute distance is a function of the magnitude of the throw vector (launch metrics), see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), thus enabling users to at least partially determine automated in-flight behavior of the drone via physical selection of launch behavior, wherein determining the flightpath attributes comprises: identifying based on the launch metrics a rotation direction experienced by the drone body at launch; and based at least in part on the flightpath data and the identified rotation direction, selecting as flightpath type for automated in-flight pursuant to the launch that one of the plurality of predefined flightpath types which is associated with the identified rotation direction; and, controlling in-flight behavior of the drone according to the selected flightpath attributes (Fig. 17 A and B depict user 190 having partial control of the drone behavior via physical selection by launch magnitude and vector imparted on the UAV by the user’s throw selection, see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall).
Kohstall does not explicitly teach, the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch; and a flight control system comprising: memory having stored thereon predefined flightpath data that identifies a plurality of predefined flightpath types and that indicates, for each predefined flightpath, an associated one of a plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch;, wherein determining the flightpath attributes comprises: identifying based on the launch metrics a rotation direction experienced by the drone body at launch; and based at least in part on the flightpath data and the identified rotation direction, selecting as flightpath type for automated in-flight pursuant to the launch that one of the plurality of predefined flightpath types which is associated with the identified rotation direction
Meier, directed to tracking human subjects, and/or other moving and/or static objects using aerial video data teaches, the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch; and a flight control system comprising: memory having stored thereon predefined flightpath data that identifies a plurality of predefined flightpath types and that indicates, for each predefined flightpath, an associated one of a plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch;, wherein determining the flightpath attributes comprises: identifying based on the launch metrics a rotation direction experienced by the drone body at launch; and based at least in part on the flightpath data and the identified rotation direction, selecting as flightpath type for automated in-flight pursuant to the launch that one of the plurality of predefined flightpath types which is associated with the identified rotation direction (user may configure flight trajectory parameters of the UAV and parameters of rotation clockwise, counter clock, and select the flightpath type with the specific rotation direction, see at least, ¶77, Meier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kohstall to incorporate the teachings of Meier which teaches the launch metrics including a rotation direction imparted to a body of the drone at launch; and a flight control system comprising: memory having stored thereon predefined flightpath data that identifies a plurality of predefined flightpath types and that indicates, for each predefined flightpath, an associated one of a plurality of different rotation directions imparted to the body of the drone at launch;, wherein determining the flightpath attributes comprises: identifying based on the launch metrics a rotation direction experienced by the drone body at launch; and based at least in part on the flightpath data and the identified rotation direction, selecting as flightpath type for automated in-flight pursuant to the launch that one of the plurality of predefined flightpath types which is associated with the identified rotation direction since they are both related to utilizing drones in photography by a user and incorporation of the teachings of Meier would improve videography intention of the user.
Regarding Claim 2 and 16, Kohstall and Meir teaches, the method of claim 1 (re-claim 2), and the aerial drone of claim 15 (re-claim 16), wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination further comprise a launch vector (Fig. 17 A and B depict launch vectors V1, V2 and V3 which are metrics factored into the flight path attributes D1, D2 and D3 determination, see at least, ¶73-73, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 3, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 2, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination comprises a launch speed experienced by the drone during launch (acceleration during launch resulting in a launch velocity shortly after launch can be used to set the length of the trajectory or flight path attribute determination, see at least, ¶61, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 4 Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one of the flightpath attributes is variable in scale as a function of launch speed (flight path attribute distance, varies in scale as a function of the magnitude/acceleration of the throw which is interpreted a launch speed, see at least, ¶73-74, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 5, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 4, wherein the flightpath comprises, for at least part thereof, flight at a constant scalar distance from an operator, the scalar distance being variable in size as a factor of launch speed (flight path flying in a circle around the user requires a flying at constant scalar distance from the operator, the scalar distance is variable as a factor of the launch speed, see at least, 73-81, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 6, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 5, wherein said flight at a constant scalar distance is selected from the group consisting of:
following the operator at the constant scalar distance; and following a circular path centered on the operator at a radius equal to said constant scalar distance (other pre-defined maneuvers such as circling the user or following the user, see at least, ¶64 and 73-81, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 7, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 1, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination comprise an azimuth angle of a launch vector provided by, in combination, a launch speed and a rectilinear launch direction in three-dimensional space (Launch Vector V1 includes direction of the throw and acceleration or a lunch speed of the throw determines distance of the linear trajectory (rectilinear launch direction) in three dimensions, see at least, ¶61 and 71, Kohstall); and wherein the flightpath includes travel to a target location for a predefined drone action (Fig. 15E depicts the UAV performing a “mission” of taking a picture which directs the UAV to fly from a user to a pre-determined location to take a picture, see at least, ¶64, 99, Kohstall), a horizontal direction of the target location relative to an operator being determined at least in part by the azimuth angle of the launch vector (Fig. 16 depicts block 1630 determine velocity vector V1 which must include an azimuth angle of the launch vector in a horizontal direction relative to the user frame of reference, see at least, ¶69, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 8, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 2, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination include an elevation angle between a launch vector experienced by the drone and the horizontal at launch (two angles must include an azimuth and elevation of the throw vector in determining the direction of travel for the UAV, see at least, ¶71, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 9, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 8, wherein an elevation angle of the drone relative to an operator for a particular portion of the flightpath is variable as a factor of the launch vector elevation angle (two angles must be the azimuth and elevation of the throw velocity vector are a factor of azimuth and elevation of flight path of the UAV in three dimensions, see at least, ¶71, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 10, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 1, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination include an orientation of the drone at launch (user may incorporate a throwing gesture to include the desired pose, orientation and/or maneuver to be taken by the UAV by pointing the camera towards the user at launch, see at least, ¶63, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 13 and 17, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 2 (re-claim 13) and the aerial drone of claim 15 (re-claim 17), wherein the flightpath attributes include autonomous positioning of the drone at a vantage point for capturing an image of an operator, the vantage point being variable based at least in part on the captured launch metrics (the user can instruct the UAV to turn and photograph the user at a target location variable based on the captured throw vector, see at least, ¶28, 64, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 14, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 13, wherein determination of attributes for the vantage point comprises one or both of: determining a spacing between the vantage point and the operator as a function of launch speed, so that relative vantage point distance is variable with variation in launch speed (spacing between the target location and the user is variable in launching speed of the UAV, see at least, 28, 61, and 71-81, Kohstall); and determining a vantage point elevation angle as a function of a launch angle, being that angle described between the launch vector relative to the horizontal, the vantage point elevation angle being defined by angular spacing in a vertical plane between the vantage point and the operator, so that the elevation angle of the vantage point and therefore is variable with variation in launch angle (the target location where the UAV stops and turns to take a photo elevation is a function of a launch vector which must include two angles, azimuth and elevation with reference to the user’s frame of reference , see at least, ¶68-71, Kohstall).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohstall; Christoph (US 20160101856 A1) in view of Meier; Philip et al. (US 20150350614 A1) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13-7 and further in view of Lovette; James Michael (US 20090146002 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kohstall and Meir teach, the method of claim 2 wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination further include a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch (swinging gesture can be programmed to interpret this movement as a directive to fly in a circle around the user, see at least, ¶81, Kohstall).
Kohstall and Meir do not explicitly teach wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination further include a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch.
Lovette, directed to techniques are described for launching flying structures teaches, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination further include a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch (Fig. 3 depicts the tangential velocity 312 imparted on the drone, see at least, ¶33-38, Lovette).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kohstall and Meir to incorporate the teachings of Lovette which teaches wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination further include a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch since they are both related to launching drones and incorporation of the teachings of Lovette would improve the flying structure’s ability to climb to a higher altitude (¶38, Lovette).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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.Khuu, Irene
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights