DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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: “the input and output interface configured to” in claim 14.
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.
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 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20170010623 A1) in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2016119627 A) and Kamiyama et al. (JP 2018055362 A).
Concerning claims 2 and 8, Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang) teaches a server machine (¶0112: processors being separated from the movable object (UAV) (e.g., at a ground station, communicating with the movable object); fig. 12: terminal 1212, ¶0176), comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions (¶0177: a memory is implicit the various computing devices (e.g., computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or other mobile device)); and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to (¶0177: a processor is implicit the various computing devices (e.g., computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or other mobile device)):
receive environmental information, the environmental information including information regarding an obstacle (fig. 5: step 502, ¶¶0112-0113);
receive condition information, the condition information including a range corresponding to an area in which an unmanned aerial vehicle can fly (¶¶0068-0076: possible ranges based on the location of the UAV), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises a camera (¶0112: The imaging device may be arranged on the movable object.);
receive a movement status of a target object (fig. 5: step 502, ¶¶0112-0113; ¶0147 – the obstacles may be mobile or components of the obstacles may move); and
send a control signal to the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the environmental information and the condition information (fig. 5: step 504, ¶0115 – initiating an obstacle avoidance program, ¶0005 – the movable object is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)). Not explicitly taught is wherein: in the process for sending the control signal, the computer causes a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to be changed to track the target object in accordance with the movement status of the target object when there is a change in the movement status of the target object.
Aoki et al. (hereinafter Aoki), in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: in the process for sending the control signal, the computer causes a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to be changed to track the target object in accordance with the movement status of the target object when there is a change in the movement status of the target object (¶¶0082-0086: tracking the position of the target object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Aoki into the Tang invention in order to track a moving target object in a monitoring area (Aoki, ¶0001). Tang and Aoki fail to explicitly teach the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle is determined in accordance with a candidate selected by a user from a plurality of candidates that are generated based on the environmental information and the condition information and displayed on a display, and the plurality of candidates includes a first candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, based on a position of the obstacle, and a second candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a position different from the first candidate.
Kamiyama et al. (hereinafter Kamiyama), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle is determined in accordance with a candidate selected by a user from a plurality of candidates that are generated based on the environmental information and the condition information and displayed on a display (¶0152: selecting a flight path candidate), and the plurality of candidates includes a first candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, based on a position of the obstacle, and a second candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a position different from the first candidate (¶0152: selecting a different flight path candidate based on environmental conditions (e.g., avoiding trees)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Kamiyama into the Tang in view of Aoki invention in order update the flight path of the UAV when it is determined the first flight path candidate is unsatisfactory (Kamiyama, ¶0152).
Concerning claim 14, Tang teaches a system comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a camera (¶0112: The imaging device may be arranged on the movable object (UAV).);
an input and output interface comprising a display, the input and output interface is configured to receive input by a user and to display an image captured by the camera on a display (¶¶0167-0169); and
a server machine which is connected to the input and output interface via wireless connection (¶0168, ¶¶0175-0177), the server machine comprising at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute instructions (¶0177: a memory and processor are implicit in various computing devices (e.g., computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, or other mobile device)) to:
receive environmental information, the environmental information including information regarding an obstacle (fig. 5: step 502, ¶¶0112-0113);
receive environmental information, the environmental information including information regarding an obstacle (fig. 5: step 502, ¶¶0112-0113);
receive condition information, the condition information including a range corresponding to an area in which an unmanned aerial vehicle can fly (¶¶0068-0076: possible ranges based on the location of the UAV), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises a camera (fig. 5: step 504, ¶¶0113-0114; ¶0112: The imaging device may be arranged on the movable object.);
receive a movement status of a target object (fig. 5: step 502, ¶¶0112-0113; ¶0147 – the obstacles may be mobile or components of the obstacles may move); and
send a control signal to the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the environmental information and the condition information (fig. 5: step 504, ¶0115 – initiating an obstacle avoidance program, ¶0005 – the movable object is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)). Not explicitly taught is wherein: in the process for sending the control signal, the computer causes a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to be changed to track the target object in accordance with the movement status of the target object when there is a change in the movement status of the target object.
Aoki et al. (hereinafter Aoki), in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: in the process for sending the control signal, the computer causes a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to be changed to track the target object in accordance with the movement status of the target object when there is a change in the movement status of the target object (¶¶0082-0086: tracking the position of the target object). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Aoki into the Tang invention in order to track a moving target object in a monitoring area (Aoki, ¶0001). Tang and Aoki fail to explicitly teach the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle is determined in accordance with a candidate selected by a user from a plurality of candidates that are generated based on the environmental information and the condition information and displayed on a display, and the plurality of candidates includes a first candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, based on a position of the obstacle, and a second candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a position different from the first candidate.
Kamiyama et al. (hereinafter Kamiyama), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle is determined in accordance with a candidate selected by a user from a plurality of candidates that are generated based on the environmental information and the condition information and displayed on a display (¶0152: selecting a flight path candidate), and the plurality of candidates includes a first candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle, based on a position of the obstacle, and a second candidate for changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a position different from the first candidate (¶0152: selecting a different flight path candidate based on environmental conditions (e.g., avoiding trees)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Kamiyama into the Tang in view of Aoki invention in order update the flight path of the UAV when it is determined the first flight path candidate is unsatisfactory (Kamiyama, ¶0152).
Claims 3-7, 9-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20170010623 A1) in view of in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2016119627 A) and Kamiyama et al. (JP 2018055362 A) and Martirosyan et al. (US 20180046187 A1).
Concerning claims 3 and 9, Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama teaches the corresponding method and server machine of claims 2 and 8. Not explicitly taught is receiving an image captured by the camera, the image showing the target object; and adjusting an orientation of the camera to capture the target object after the image is captured.
Martirosyan et al. (hereinafter Martirosyan) teaches unmanned aerial image capture, configured to:
receive an image captured by the camera, the image showing an object (¶0056: capturing image of a human subject); and
an orientation of the camera to capture the target object after the image is captured (¶0056: adjusting the orientation of image capturing devices such that the human subject remains centered in the field of view of the image captured devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama invention to receive an image of an object captured by the camera and adjust the angle to capture the object after the image is captured, as taught by Martirosyan, in order to dynamically adjust image capture of a subject to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture (Martirosyan, ¶0057).
Concerning claims 4 and 10, Martirosyan further teaches adjusting the orientation of the camera to capture the target object is executed in response to receiving a request by an input device (¶0079: user inputs control commands via device 104).
Concerning claims 5 and 11, Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama teaches the corresponding method and server machine of claims 2 and 8. Not explicitly taught is wherein the range indicates that the unmanned aerial vehicle can perform a task in an area.
Martirosyan teaches maintaining a maximum separation distance to an observed target if the target remains in view (¶0074). That is to say, the system determines that the observed target can be seen at the maintained distance of the UAV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama with the teachings of Martirosyan in order to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture.
Concerning claims 6 and 12, Martirosyan further teaches wherein the task includes surveillance (¶0074: maintaining view of a human subject while tracking them).
Concerning claims 7 and 13, Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama teaches the corresponding method and server machine of claims 2 and 8. Not explicitly taught is wherein the range indicates that the unmanned aerial vehicle cannot perform a task in an area.
Martirosyan teaches determining that the maximum separation distance will result in an obstructed view of the observed target (¶0074). That is to say, the system determines that an unobstructed view of the observed target cannot be achieved at the maintained distance of the UAV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama with the teachings of Martirosyan in order to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture.
Concerning claim 15, Tang teaches the system of claim 14. Not explicitly taught is receiving an image captured by the camera, the image showing the target object; and adjusting an orientation of the camera to capture the target object after the image is captured.
Martirosyan et al. (hereinafter Martirosyan) teaches unmanned aerial image capture, configured to:
receive an image captured by the camera, the image showing an object (¶0056: capturing image of a human subject); and
an orientation of the camera to capture the target object after the image is captured (¶0056: adjusting the orientation of image capturing devices such that the human subject remains centered in the field of view of the image captured devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama invention to receive an image of an object captured by the camera and adjust the angle to capture the object after the image is captured, as taught by Martirosyan, in order to dynamically adjust image capture of a subject to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture (Martirosyan, ¶0057).
Concerning claim 16, Martirosyan further teaches adjusting the orientation of the camera to capture the target object is executed in response to receiving a request by an input device (¶0079: user inputs control commands via device 104).
Concerning claim 17, Tang teaches the system of claim 14. Not explicitly taught is wherein the range indicates that the unmanned aerial vehicle can perform a task in an area.
Martirosyan teaches maintaining a maximum separation distance to an observed target if the target remains in view (¶0074). That is to say, the system determines that the observed target can be seen at the maintained distance of the UAV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama with the teachings of Martirosyan in order to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture.
Concerning claim 18, Martirosyan further teaches wherein the task includes surveillance (¶0074: maintaining view of a human subject while tracking them).
Concerning claim 19, Tang teaches the system of claim 14. Not explicitly taught is wherein the range indicates that the unmanned aerial vehicle cannot perform a task in an area.
Martirosyan teaches determining that the maximum separation distance will result in an obstructed view of the observed target (¶0074). That is to say, the system determines that an unobstructed view of the observed target cannot be achieved at the maintained distance of the UAV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama with the teachings of Martirosyan in order to satisfy a specified criterion related to a quality of image capture.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20170010623 A1) in view of in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2016119627 A) and Kamiyama et al. (JP 2018055362 A) and Baba et al. (JP 2016197980 A).
Concerning claim 22, Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama teaches the method according to claim 2. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the second candidate changes the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a position different from the first candidate while constraining a change in an attitude of the camera.
Baba et al. (hereinafter Baba), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches adjusting a current flight plan for a flying body, wherein the attitude of the camera is constrained (¶0054: the viewing angle of the imaging unit 220 is constant while the altitude of the flying body is changed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama with the teachings of Baba in order to maintain a viewing angle of the camera while the altitude of the UAV is changed (Baba, ¶0054).
Concerning claim 23, Tang in view of Aoki and Kamiyama teaches the method according to claim 22. Baba further teaches wherein the changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle while constraining the change in the attitude of the camera includes changing the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to satisfy a constraint on at least one of an angular range of orientations that the camera can take (¶0054: the viewing angle of the imaging unit 220 is constant), a range of fields of view that the camera can take (¶0054: the viewing angle of the imaging unit 220 is constant), and an angular range of orientations that the camera cannot take (¶0054: the viewing angle of the imaging unit 220 is constant).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the remarks, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to objection to claims 2, 8, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 of the remarks, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds or rejection.
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 JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425