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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/566,138 filed on 12/01/2023.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 02/12/2026.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181119 A1) in view of Yoshida (JP 2017163265 A) in further view of Wan (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0186472 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee teaches:
A control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:, (See (Lee: Background – 2nd-5th paragraphs and Summary – 6th-11th paragraphs))
controlling the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly according to a flight control command, wherein the video comprises a spherical panoramic video, an annular panoramic video, or a wide-angle video., (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 64th, 71st-81st, 131st, and 171st-175th paragraphs))
Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
acquiring an attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle and displaying the attitude; acquiring a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude,, (“On the other hand, a technique is known in which a video acquired by an omnidirectional camera is processed and displayed as a planar image in a range corresponding to an arbitrary gazing point designated by a user (for example, Patent Document 1). […] Cut out image area corresponding to the field of view at will, steering assistance system that includes a steering assist image generation unit which generates the steering assist image based on the image area on the planar image obtained by projection transformation is provided.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment is a computer that executes predetermined image processing based on a captured image of the omnidirectional camera 22 transmitted in real time from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and supports remote control of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] Note that the operation signal transmission method may be either wired or wireless.” (Yoshida: Description))
displaying the video according to viewing angle display information, comprising: obtaining viewing angle display information, converting the viewing angle display information into viewing angle display information in a world coordinate system, and displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system,, (“The steering assist image generation unit 108 cuts out an image region r corresponding to the field of view specified by the field of view changing unit 302 of the steering device 30 from the spherical image generated by the spherical image generation unit 102, and the cut image region r is extracted. […] Here, the quaternion is uniquely obtained when the angular velocity and the x, y, and z axes are determined, and z is always 0 because the image is a plane.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “In the following step 202, the traveling direction specifying unit 104 acquires the latest angular velocity (three axes) from the sensor information received from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and in the subsequent step 203, the current direction of the aircraft is obtained by time angular integration. […] It can be determined whether the image corresponding to the position in the traveling direction has been cut out. In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
wherein a flight-direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle is displayed in an image of the video, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle is within the image; and, (“FIG. 8 shows a state where the user is operating the control device 30 while looking at the operation support image displayed on the display 12. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Lee in view of Yoshida does not teach but Wan teaches:
the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising two lenses arranged on upper and lower sides of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, respectively, each protruding from a surface of the fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle to capture the video;, (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee further teaches:
[…] constructing a display interface coordinate system; and […], (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 221st-224th paragraphs))
Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
The control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 1, wherein acquiring the attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle and displaying the attitude comprises: acquiring an attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle in the world coordinate system;, (“The unmanned air vehicle 20 is equipped with various sensors for realizing stable flight. […] Is obtained and transmitted as sensor information indicating the attitude of the aircraft.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “The sensor information transmission unit 204 is a means for wirelessly transmitting in real time to the information processing apparatus 10 as sensor information indicating the attitude of the airframe, the angular velocity of the three axes (x, y, z) that is at least the sensor output of the three-axis gyro sensor. […] It is a means for specifying the current traveling direction of the flying object 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
[…] converting the attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle in the world coordinate system into an attitude in the display interface coordinate system and displaying the attitude in the display interface coordinate system., (“As described above, in the initial state, the lens front direction of the camera is the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Regarding Claim 3:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Lee further teaches:
The control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 2, wherein displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information further comprises: acquiring viewing angle display information in the display interface coordinate system;, (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 221st-224th paragraphs))
Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
[…] converting the viewing angle display information in the display interface coordinate system into the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system; and […], (“As described above, in the initial state, the lens front direction of the camera is the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
[…] displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system., (“The steering assist image generation unit 108 cuts out an image region r corresponding to the field of view specified by the field of view changing unit 302 of the steering device 30 from the spherical image generated by the spherical image generation unit 102, and the cut image region r is extracted. […] Here, the quaternion is uniquely obtained when the angular velocity and the x, y, and z axes are determined, and z is always 0 because the image is a plane.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “In the following step 202, the traveling direction specifying unit 104 acquires the latest angular velocity (three axes) from the sensor information received from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and in the subsequent step 203, the current direction of the aircraft is obtained by time angular integration. […] In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Regarding Claim 5:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 1, wherein the viewing angle display information comprises a display direction, or the viewing angle display information comprises the display direction and a size of a viewing angle., (See (Lee: Summary – 6th paragraph and Detailed Description – 84th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 7:
Lee teaches:
A control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle, a display device, and a remote control device; wherein: the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises a flight control device and a photographing device configured to capture a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle,, (See (Lee: Background – 2nd-5th paragraphs and Summary – 6th-11th paragraphs))
the remote control device is configured to send a flight control command to the flight control device; and the video comprises a spherical panoramic video, an annular panoramic video, or a wide-angle video., (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 64th, 71st-81st, 131st, and 171st-175th paragraphs))
Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
the flight control device being configured to acquire attitude information of the unmanned aerial vehicle,, (“On the other hand, a technique is known in which a video acquired by an omnidirectional camera is processed and displayed as a planar image in a range corresponding to an arbitrary gazing point designated by a user (for example, Patent Document 1). […] Cut out image area corresponding to the field of view at will, steering assistance system that includes a steering assist image generation unit which generates the steering assist image based on the image area on the planar image obtained by projection transformation is provided.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment is a computer that executes predetermined image processing based on a captured image of the omnidirectional camera 22 transmitted in real time from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and supports remote control of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] Note that the operation signal transmission method may be either wired or wireless.” (Yoshida: Description))
the display device is configured to display an attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the attitude information and display the video; the control system is configured to obtain viewing angle display information, convert the viewing angle display information into viewing angle display information in a world coordinate system, and display an image of the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system,, (“The steering assist image generation unit 108 cuts out an image region r corresponding to the field of view specified by the field of view changing unit 302 of the steering device 30 from the spherical image generated by the spherical image generation unit 102, and the cut image region r is extracted. […] Here, the quaternion is uniquely obtained when the angular velocity and the x, y, and z axes are determined, and z is always 0 because the image is a plane.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “In the following step 202, the traveling direction specifying unit 104 acquires the latest angular velocity (three axes) from the sensor information received from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and in the subsequent step 203, the current direction of the aircraft is obtained by time angular integration. […] It can be determined whether the image corresponding to the position in the traveling direction has been cut out. In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
wherein a flight-direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle is displayed in the image of the video, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle is within the image;, (“FIG. 8 shows a state where the user is operating the control device 30 while looking at the operation support image displayed on the display 12. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Lee in view of Yoshida does not teach but Wan teaches:
and the photographing device comprising two lenses arranged on upper and lower sides of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, respectively, each protruding from a surface of the fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle to capture the video;, (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Lee does not teach but Wan teaches:
The control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 7, wherein fields of view of the two lenses overlap each other to form a 360-degree panoramic viewing angle around the unmanned aerial vehicle., (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 13:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
The control method according to Claim 1, wherein: the flight-direction icon is overlaid on the image, independent of whether the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a direction of a viewing angle coincide., (“On the other hand, when the position indicated by the quaternion indicating the current posture state of the unmanned air vehicle 20 is included in the current image (step 205, Yes), the process proceeds to step 206. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Regarding Claim 14:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee does not teach but Wan teaches:
The control method according to Claim 1, wherein: a size of a viewing angle in the viewing angle display information is fixed., (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 15:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee further teaches:
The control method according to Claim 1, wherein: when the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle changes, a display direction of the image remains unchanged., (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 122nd-145th paragraphs, FIG. 8A-8B))
Regarding Claim 16:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
The control method according to Claim 1, wherein: a flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a viewing angle display of the video are independent., (“As described above, according to the present embodiment, the viewpoint of the video can be freely determined independently of the movement of the unmanned air vehicle without mounting the driving mechanism that causes the power consumption and the payload to be increased on the unmanned air vehicle. […] Moreover, you may use as the control apparatus 30 what installed the application which has the function of the visual field change means 302 and the flight control means 304 in the tablet terminal or the smart phone.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Regarding Claim 17:
Lee teaches:
An unmanned aerial vehicle system, comprising: a display device; and an unmanned aerial vehicle, communicatively coupled with the display device and comprising, (See (Lee: Background – 2nd-5th paragraphs and Summary – 6th-11th paragraphs))
Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
and attitude information of the unmanned aerial vehicle; the unmanned aerial vehicle system is configured to display an image of the 360-degree panoramic video, (“On the other hand, a technique is known in which a video acquired by an omnidirectional camera is processed and displayed as a planar image in a range corresponding to an arbitrary gazing point designated by a user (for example, Patent Document 1). […] Cut out image area corresponding to the field of view at will, steering assistance system that includes a steering assist image generation unit which generates the steering assist image based on the image area on the planar image obtained by projection transformation is provided.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment is a computer that executes predetermined image processing based on a captured image of the omnidirectional camera 22 transmitted in real time from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and supports remote control of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] Note that the operation signal transmission method may be either wired or wireless.” (Yoshida: Description))
and a flight-direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the attitude information;, (“On the other hand, when the position indicated by the quaternion indicating the current posture state of the unmanned air vehicle 20 is included in the current image (step 205, Yes), the process proceeds to step 206. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
and a shape of the flight-direction icon indicates a flight-direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and the flight-direction icon is overlaid on the image, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a direction of a viewing angle coincide., (“On the other hand, when the position indicated by the quaternion indicating the current posture state of the unmanned air vehicle 20 is included in the current image (step 205, Yes), the process proceeds to step 206. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Lee in view of Yoshida does not teach but Wan teaches:
at least two lenses, the at least two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each having a field of view greater than 180 degrees, the fields of view of the at least two lenses overlapping each other to obtain a 360- degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein: at least one of the unmanned aerial vehicle or the display device, individually or collectively, is configured to acquire an image based on the 360-degree panoramic video, (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
the image comprises a portion of the 360-degree panoramic video according to a display direction and a size of a viewing angle, the size of the viewing angle being configured to define a range of the 360-degree panoramic video to be displayed in the display direction;, (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 19:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Lee does not teach but Wan teaches:
The unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 17, wherein: the size of the viewing angle is fixed., (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Lee further teaches:
The unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 17, wherein: when the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle changes, the display direction of the image remains unchanged., (See (Lee: Detailed Description – 122nd-145th paragraphs, FIG. 8A-8B))
Regarding Claim 21:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
The unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 17, wherein: a flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a viewing angle display of the image are independent., (“As described above, according to the present embodiment, the viewpoint of the video can be freely determined independently of the movement of the unmanned air vehicle without mounting the driving mechanism that causes the power consumption and the payload to be increased on the unmanned air vehicle. […] Moreover, you may use as the control apparatus 30 what installed the application which has the function of the visual field change means 302 and the flight control means 304 in the tablet terminal or the smart phone.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181119 A1) in view of Yoshida (JP 2017163265 A) in further view of Wan (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0186472 A1) in even further view of Zheng (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0004509 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan does not teach but Zheng teaches:
The control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 1, wherein the attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises at least one of the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle or spatial coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle., (See (Zheng: Detailed Description of the Embodiment(s) of the Disclosure – 71st-77th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan with these above aforementioned teachings from Zheng in order to create an advanced control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Zheng’s somatosensory remote controller, remote control flight system, and head-less control method in order to calculate spatial coordinates of an unmanned aerial vehicle and include a somatosensory remote controller in an unmanned aerial vehicle control system. Combining Lee and Zheng would thus provide a safe “somatosensory remote controller, a somatosensory remote control flight system and method, and a head-less control method.” (Zheng: Field of the Disclosure – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan does not teach but Zheng teaches:
The control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 7, wherein the remote control device is a somatosensory remote controller., (See (Zheng: Summary of the Disclosure – 7-20th paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Embodiment(s) of the Disclosure – 42nd paragraph, FIG. 1))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan with these above aforementioned teachings from Zheng in order to create an advanced control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Zheng’s somatosensory remote controller, remote control flight system, and head-less control method in order to calculate spatial coordinates of an unmanned aerial vehicle and include a somatosensory remote controller in an unmanned aerial vehicle control system. Combining Lee and Zheng would thus provide a safe “somatosensory remote controller, a somatosensory remote control flight system and method, and a head-less control method.” (Zheng: Field of the Disclosure – 2nd paragraph)
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0181119 A1) in view of Yoshida (JP 2017163265 A) in further view of Wan (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0186472 A1) in even further view of Cai (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0349526 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee in view of Yoshida does not teach but Wan teaches:
[…] and the two lenses overlap each other to form a 360-degree viewing angle around the unmanned aerial vehicle., (See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Wan in order to create a safe control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Wan’s method and apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle with a 360-degree camera system in order to include an unmanned aerial vehicle having two lenses being respectively mounted on upper and lower surfaces of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, each lens having a field of view greater than 180 degrees and overlapping each other to obtain a 360-degree panoramic video around the unmanned aerial vehicle. Combining Lee and Wan would thus create “an integrated design to incorporate the 360-degree camera into the UAV body so as to give the device a harmonious appearance for purposes of commercialization.” (Wan: Background – 3rd paragraph)
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan does not teach but Cai teaches:
The control method for an unmanned aerial vehicle system according to Claim 1, wherein: the video is a video processed by stabilizing technology;, (See (Cai: Summary of the Invention – 3rd-18th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan with these above aforementioned teachings from Cai in order to create a user-friendly control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Cai’s method, system, and portable terminal for panoramic video stabilization in order to acquire a panoramic video processed by stabilizing technology around an unmanned aerial vehicle and include a display device consisting of VR glasses in an unmanned aerial vehicle control system. Combining Lee and Cai would thus provide “a method and a system for panoramic video stabilization, and a portable terminal, which aims to solve the problem that imaging shaking accelerates VR motion sickness happing.” (Cai: Summary of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 10:
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Lee does not teach but Yoshida teaches:
[…] obtain the viewing angle display information., (“The steering assist image generation unit 108 cuts out an image region r corresponding to the field of view specified by the field of view changing unit 302 of the steering device 30 from the spherical image generated by the spherical image generation unit 102, and the cut image region r is extracted. […] Here, the quaternion is uniquely obtained when the angular velocity and the x, y, and z axes are determined, and z is always 0 because the image is a plane.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “In the following step 202, the traveling direction specifying unit 104 acquires the latest angular velocity (three axes) from the sensor information received from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and in the subsequent step 203, the current direction of the aircraft is obtained by time angular integration. […] In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshida in order to create an effective control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Yoshida’s controlling support system, information processing device, and program in order to acquire an attitude of an unmanned aerial vehicle, acquire a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, and display the video according to a viewing angle display information. Combining Lee and Yoshida would thus provide “a flying object maneuvering support system for supporting safe flight of an unmanned flying object.” (Yoshida: Description)
Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan does not teach but Cai teaches:
The control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 7, wherein the display device is virtual reality (VR) glasses, and the VR glasses are configured to, (See (Cai: Background of the Invention – 2nd paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee in view of Yoshida in further view of Wan with these above aforementioned teachings from Cai in order to create a user-friendly control method and system for an unmanned aerial vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s method and electronic device for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle with Cai’s method, system, and portable terminal for panoramic video stabilization in order to acquire a panoramic video processed by stabilizing technology around an unmanned aerial vehicle and include a display device consisting of VR glasses in an unmanned aerial vehicle control system. Combining Lee and Cai would thus provide “a method and a system for panoramic video stabilization, and a portable terminal, which aims to solve the problem that imaging shaking accelerates VR motion sickness happing.” (Cai: Summary of the Invention – 3rd paragraph)
Comment on the Closest Prior Art References
Claims 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The allowable subject matter in claim 12 includes displaying a flight-direction icon of an unmanned aerial vehicle and an image of a video on a display device, wherein a shape of the flight-direction icon indicates the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and before and after the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle changes, the flight-direction icon is overlaid at a substantially identical location of the image.
The allowable subject matter in claim 18 includes wherein before and after the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle changes, the flight- direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle remains overlaid at a substantially identical location of the image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 12th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Yoshida and Wan as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Yoshida mentions “On the other hand, a technique is known in which a video acquired by an omnidirectional camera is processed and displayed as a planar image in a range corresponding to an arbitrary gazing point designated by a user (for example, Patent Document 1). […] Cut out image area corresponding to the field of view at will, steering assistance system that includes a steering assist image generation unit which generates the steering assist image based on the image area on the planar image obtained by projection transformation is provided.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment is a computer that executes predetermined image processing based on a captured image of the omnidirectional camera 22 transmitted in real time from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and supports remote control of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] Note that the operation signal transmission method may be either wired or wireless.” (Yoshida: Description) Furthermore, Yoshida states “The steering assist image generation unit 108 cuts out an image region r corresponding to the field of view specified by the field of view changing unit 302 of the steering device 30 from the spherical image generated by the spherical image generation unit 102, and the cut image region r is extracted. […] Here, the quaternion is uniquely obtained when the angular velocity and the x, y, and z axes are determined, and z is always 0 because the image is a plane.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further mentions “In the following step 202, the traveling direction specifying unit 104 acquires the latest angular velocity (three axes) from the sensor information received from the unmanned air vehicle 20, and in the subsequent step 203, the current direction of the aircraft is obtained by time angular integration. […] It can be determined whether the image corresponding to the position in the traveling direction has been cut out. In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida further states “FIG. 8 shows a state where the user is operating the control device 30 while looking at the operation support image displayed on the display 12. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description) Yoshida mentions “As described above, in the initial state, the lens front direction of the camera is the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20. […] In accordance with this, the images are superimposed so that the traveling direction can be known.” (Yoshida: Description) Finally, Yoshida states “On the other hand, when the position indicated by the quaternion indicating the current posture state of the unmanned air vehicle 20 is included in the current image (step 205, Yes), the process proceeds to step 206. […] Thus, according to the present embodiment, the user can observe an arbitrary direction different from the traveling direction while confirming the traveling direction of the unmanned air vehicle 20.” (Yoshida: Description) In doing so, Yoshida addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “acquiring an attitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle and displaying the attitude; acquiring a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude”, “displaying the video according to viewing angle display information, comprising: obtaining viewing angle display information, converting the viewing angle display information into viewing angle display information in a world coordinate system, and displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system”, and “wherein a flight-direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle is displayed in an image of the video, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle is within the image” as set forth in claim 1, “converting the viewing angle display information in the display interface coordinate system into the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system” and “displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system” as set forth in claim 3, and “and a shape of the flight-direction icon indicates a flight-direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and the flight-direction icon is overlaid on the image, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a direction of a viewing angle coincide” as set forth in claim 17.
Moreover, Wan mentions “The present invention is directed to […] by a vertical distance H.” Furthermore, Wan states “Embodiments disclosed herein are directed to […] as well according to various embodiments of the invention.” See (Wan: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description of Example Embodiments – 18th-24th paragraphs, FIG. 2a-2b) In doing so, Wan addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising two lenses arranged on upper and lower sides of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, respectively, each protruding from a surface of the fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle to capture the video” as set forth in claim 1.
As a result, the combination of Yoshida and Wan addresses "acquiring a video around the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to the attitude, the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising two lenses arranged on upper and lower sides of a fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, respectively, each protruding from a surface of the fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle to capture the video", "displaying the video according to viewing angle display information, comprising: acquiring viewing angle display information, converting the viewing angle display information into viewing angle display information in a world coordinate system, and displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system", and "a flight-direction icon of the unmanned aerial vehicle is displayed in an image of the video, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle is within the image" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1, “converting the viewing angle display information in the display interface coordinate system into the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system” and “displaying the video according to the viewing angle display information in the world coordinate system” as set forth by the Applicant in claim 3, and "a shape of the flight- direction icon indicates a flight-direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and the flight-direction icon is overlaid on the image, independent of whether a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and a direction of a viewing angle coincide" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights