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 non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-17 are currently pending, as discussed below.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/12/2023 have been considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because the “/” character should apparently be deleted from the claim.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “correspondcence” should apparently be spelled “correspondence” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a sensor system in claim 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a sensor system:
“a variety of sensors 161 mounted on the drone body for measuring different respective metrics. The sensors 161 include a set of accelerometers arranged to measure not only directional linear acceleration of the drone, but also triaxial rotation and changes in orientation of the drone 104.”, [¶148]
“The onboard sensors 161 of the drone 104 include motion sensors 502 in the example embodiment of a triaxial accelerometer array. The sensors 161 further include orientation sensors 504 that determine the current orientation of the drone 104. The sensors 161 thus provide motion data indicative of any acceleration, rotation, and/or change of orientation that may be experienced by the drone 104.” [¶176]
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 1 and 15 is unclear because “at least partially control” is indefinite. “partially” is a relative term and Examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of “partially”. Additionally, the word choice of “partially control” is contradictory because “automated flight” suggests that the user is not controlling the flight. Therefore, it is unclear how automated flight can be partially controlled.
Claim 4 is unclear “variable in scale as a factor of launch speed” since the specification does not describe any “factor”.
Claims 2-3, 5-14 and 16-17 are 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by. Kohstall; Christoph (US 20160101856 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); 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 factor 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 factor of the magnitude of the throw vector (launch metrics), see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), thus enabling users to at least partially control automated in-flight behavior of the drone via physical selection of launch behavior; 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).
Regarding claim 15, Kohstall teaches, an aerial drone comprising: 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: a sensor system (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); a flight control system comprising one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: at physical launch of an aerial drone, capturing launch metrics via onboard electronics of the drone, 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); 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 factor 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 factor of the magnitude of the throw vector (launch metrics), see at least, ¶61, 73-74, Kohstall), thus enabling users to at least partially control automated in-flight behavior of the drone via physical selection of launch behavior; 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).
Regarding Claim 2 and 16, Kohstall 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 comprise one or more of a launch vector, drone orientation at launch, and rotation experienced by a body of the drone at launch (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 teaches, 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 teaches, the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one of the flightpath attributes is variable in scale as a factor of launch speed (flight path attribute distance, varies in scale as a factor of the magnitude/acceleration of the throw which is interpreted a launch speed, see at least, ¶73-74, Kohstall).
Regarding Claim 5, Kohstall teaches, 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 teaches, the method of claim 5, wherein said flight at a constant scalar distance is selected from the group comprising: \ 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 teaches, 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 teaches, 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 teaches, 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 teaches, 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 teaches, 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 teaches, 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 factor 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 factor 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 factor 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 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.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohstall; Christoph (US 20160101856 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 teaches, the method of claim 2, wherein the launch metrics factored into the flightpath attribute determination include one or both of a rotation direction and 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 does not explicitly teach one or both of a rotation direction and a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch.
Lovette, directed to techniques are described for launching flying structures teaches, one or both of a rotation direction and a rotation speed imparted to the drone at launch (Fig.2 depicts axis of rotation 208 with an arrow pointing at the direction of rotation and 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’s swinging launch action to incorporate the teachings of Lovette which teaches one or both of a rotation direction and 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).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohstall; Christoph (US 20160101856 A1) in view of Lovette; James Michael (US 20090146002 A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Meier; Philip et al. (US 20150350614 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kohstall in view of Lovette teaches, the method of claim 11, further comprising associating a plurality of different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different directions imparted to a body of the drone at launch (Fig. 17A and 17B depict a plurality of different predefined flightpath types to TL1, TL2 and TL3 of different directions imparted onto the body of the drone velocity vectors V1, V2 and V3 see at least, ¶72-79, Kohstall).
Kohstall does not explicitly teach different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions, wherein determining of 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 correspondcence, selecting as flightpath type the 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, different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions, wherein determining of 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 correspondcence, selecting as flightpath type the 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 and Lovette swing rotation to incorporate the teachings of Meier which teaches different predefined flightpath types with a corresponding plurality of different rotation directions, wherein determining of 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 correspondcence, selecting as flightpath type the 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 Kohstall would improve videography intention of the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU 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