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 . Claims 1-14 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 3/13/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section 1. filed on 3/13/26, regarding Objections to Drawings have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
For example, the originally filed Figure 2 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
591
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The newly filed Figure 2, as of 3/13/26, is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
599
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the images are not clearly legible and even zooming in appears to make the images ‘fuzzier’.
Therefore the objections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section 2. filed on 3/13/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 rejections have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
Regarding applicants remarks, pages 2-3, recites the following:
These rejections are respectfully traversed on the grounds that the Lee publication fails to disclose or suggest a gyro unit mounted on a steered object, as recited in claim 1, the gyro unit including a gyro sensor and a calculation portion that performs posture control based on a steering signal and a detection signal of the gyro sensor, and in which:
* the controller is configured to perform control such that a control direction of the
posture control is switched based on the direction of movement of the object (i.e.,
"when the object moves forward and backward," as recited in claim 1).
The claimed invention involves a steered object, such as a fixed-wing model aircraft, that can move both forwards and backwards, as described in paragraph [0005] of the published version of the original specification. In the case of a fixed-wing object, the effective control direction of control surfaces such as the rudder, elevator, and aileron (i.e., the claimed "posture control") differs between forward flight and backward flight. In particular, the steering directions of control surfaces such as the rudder, elevator, and aileron become effectively reversed when switching between forward and backward flight. To account for this reversal, the controller recited in claim I switches the control direction of the posture control in the gyro unit when the control direction changes from forward to backward (and vice versa).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific details as to the aircraft physical configuration and what the intended definition of posture control such as what changes between forward and reverse posture control changes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claims are interpreted utilizing BRI to define the claim elements which are broadly recited such as posture control and what that entails. If the applicant wishes to have the claim elements interpreted to the level of specificity recited in the Remarks of 3/13/26, then those elements and definitions must be explicitly claimed.
Regarding applicants remarks, pages 3-4, recites the following:
In contrast, the Lee publication discloses a method of adjusting a photographic direction based on a user's throwing gesture. There is no suggestion of switching a posture control direction based on whether the vehicle is traveling forwards or backwards, as claimed.
More specifically, Lee relates to a method for photographic a subject using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or drone, by recognizing the user's throwing gesture based on sensor information collected from a sensor module. Based on the detected type of throwing gesture, the drone may control the drone's flight path and the direction of the photograph (for example, by switching from "selfie" mode to left or right "panoramic" modes), as explained in paragraphs [0083] and [0084] of Lee:
[0083] The unmanned aerial vehicle may determine whether the predicted camera photographing direction (e.g., direction in which the camera of the unmanned aerial vehicle is directed) at the target point coincides with the user direction (e.g., direction opposite to the motion vector direction), and if the predicted camera photographing direction at the target point does not coincide with the user direction, the unmanned aerial vehicle may change the free flight direction, the flight path, the flight rotating force, and the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle such that the user direction coincides with the predicted camera photographing direction at the target point.
[0084] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the unmanned aerial vehicle may determine the type of the user's throwing gesture, and may perform photographing with a camera function that corresponds to the type of the throwing gesture. For example, if the throwing gesture is a first type of throwing straight forward, the unmanned aerial vehicle may be set to photograph (e.g., selfie) function, and may take a self-photograph (e.g. of the user after arrival at the target point. As another example, if the throwing gesture is a second type of throwing with a rotation in the right direction, the unmanned aerial vehicle may be set to a panoramic photographing function for photographing as the unmanned aerial vehicle is rotated in the right direction, and may take panoramic images as being rotated in the right direction after the arrival at the target point. As still another example, if the throwing gesture is a third type of throwing with a rotation in the left direction, the unmanned aerial vehicle may be set to a panoramic photographing function for photographing as the unmanned aerial vehicle is rotated in the left direction, and may take panoramic images as being rotated in the left direction after the arrival at the target point.
This control of a drone in order to take photographs from desired positions and in selected directions based on sensing of a user's throwing motion before releasing the drone has nothing to do with the claimed invention, and does not anticipate the claimed switching of "a control direction of posture control...when the steered object moves forward and backward," as recited in claimed 1.
In response to the applicant’s interpretation of the prior art as reproduced above, the specific claim element in question only recites the following:
a calculation portion configured to perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on the steering signal and a detection signal of the gyro sensor; and
a controller configured to perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches when the steered object moves forward and backward.
As currently claimed, this element simply uses some processing capability to perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on a steering signal and a gyro signal and then performing control such that a control direction switches when the object moves forward and backward.
As noted in the rejection and supported by the applicant’s arguments/citations to the prior art above, Lee adjusts the flying direction and the camera direction based on the flight motion vector in a 3D space including forward/backward direction of the vehicle corresponding to the recited gyro signal and the movements to the target point corresponding to the recited steering signal to switch the movement direction and the camera direction of the UAV.
As currently claimed, Lee does disclose the BRI of all of the claim elements as recited in the Non-Final Rejection of 12/19/25 and reiterated below.
Regarding applicants remarks, pages 4-5, recites the following:
It is noted that the last paragraph on page 6 of the Official Action cites "paragraphs 86- 89 and Fig. 3 - element 370" as teaching the claimed switching of the posture control switches." This citation is misplaced. Contrary to the Official Action, step 370 in Fig. 3 of Lee merely adjusts the photographing direction of the camera so that the drone faces towards or the user upon reaching a target point (so as to take a "selfie"). The "direction" controlled in Lee is limited to the orientation of the camera relative to the photographing target. There is no suggestion of switching a control direction of posture stabilization of the aircraft itself.
reversing a control direction of rudder or other posture control surfaces, or of switching the polarity of gyro-based stabilization control in response to forward/backward movement, as claimed.
There is no need for posture control switching in connection with the steerable object of Lee because the object is symmetric with respect to the direction of movement, so that posture control is the same in either direction. This is because the steerable object described in the Lee publication is a multicopter UAV or drone, and therefore inversion of gyro-based posture stabilization control is not required to compensate for differences in posture control during forward and backward translational movement. In a multicopter drone, even if the traveling direction changes, the stabilization control algorithm itself remains unchanged.
Switching of the control direction of posture control in accordance with forward/backward movement only makes sense if there is a difference between forward movement posture control and backward movement posture control. There is no such difference in the multicopter drone of Lee, and therefore no suggestion of, or motivation to, "perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches when the steered object moves forward and backward," as recited in claim 1, and therefore the subject matter of claim 1 is neither anticipated nor obvious in view of the Lee publication.
In response to the arguments above, the applicant’s claimed definition of posture control is not as explicitly claimed as it appears the applicant intends it to be. In order to overcome the rejection, the alleged distinctions between the applicant’s intended definition of posture control must be explicitly claimed. Posture control as currently claimed is being interpreted as the posture of the UAV (flight direction) and the camera posture (camera angle/direction). Unless otherwise claimed, posture control of is interpreted utilizing BRI to be attitude control of the UAV and/or the camera itself, which includes attitude control in a forward and reverse direction.
Therefore the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section 3. filed on 3/13/26, regarding 35 USC § 103 rejections do not present any new arguments other than relying on the above arguments being persuasive.
Therefore the rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s remarks did not address the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretations, therefore they are maintained.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the quality is very blurry and the figures cannot be legibly read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim elements interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include the following:
Claim(s)
Element
Specification Support
1-14
“gyro unit”
Fig. 3 shows the gyro unit as a computer system with a controller, sensors, and communications
1, 3, and 12
“a calculation portion configured to perform calculations”
[0102] The calculation portion 53 in this example performs a PID (Proportional Integral Differential) control calculation based on a steering signal and an angular velocity detection signal for each of the roll, pitch, and yaw axes, thereby generating drive signals for each of the servo motors 8-a, 8-e, and 8-r for implementing posture stabilization control.
3
“input switching portion configured to enable switching of a non-inversion input state”
[0111] As shown in FIG. 3, each input switching portion 54 includes an inverting circuit 55 and a switch (SW) 56. In each input switching portion 54, a detection signal of the gyro sensor 52 of the corresponding axis among the gyro sensors 52-a, 52-e, and 52-r and a signal obtained by inverting the detection signal of the gyro sensor 52 of the corresponding axis by the inverting circuit 55 are input to the switch 56. In other words, a non-inverted signal and an inverted signal of the detection signal of the gyro sensor 52 of the corresponding axis are input to the switch 56. The switch 56 in each input switching portion 54 outputs either the non-inverted signal or the inverted signal input as such to the calculation portion 53 based on a switching instruction from the gyro controller 51.
8-10
“an estimation portion configured to estimate switching”
[0232] The gyro unit 5B includes an estimation portion 60 and a gyro controller 51B instead of the gyro controller 51, and thus differs from the gyro unit 5.
12-13
“transmission portion for transmitting signals”
[0290] The steering system according to an embodiment includes: the transmitter 3 that transmits a steering signal to the steered object 2 that is steered based on the steering signal; and the gyro unit 5, 5A, and 5B mounted on the steered object, wherein the transmitter includes the transmission portion 34 for transmitting signals, and the gyro unit includes: the gyro sensor 52-a, 52-e, and 52-r; the calculation portion 53 that performs calculations for posture control of the steered object based on a detection signal of the gyro sensor; and a gyro-side controller (the gyro controllers 51, 51A, and 51B) that performs control so that a control direction of the posture control is switched between when the steered object moves forward and backward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by Lee et al. (US 2018/0129212).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a UAV camera directional adjustment system including a gyro unit mounted on a steered object for performing steering based on a steering signal received from the outside, the gyro unit comprising: a gyro sensor (¶115-116 – gyro sensor corresponding to the recited gyro unit mounted on the UAV corresponding to the recited steered object which is controlled by user set direction corresponding to the recited steering signal received from the outside);
a calculation portion configured to perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on the steering signal and a detection signal of the gyro sensor (¶86 and Fig. 3 – element 350 measure motion vector corresponding to the recited perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on the steering signal and a detection signal of the gyro sensor); and
a controller configured to perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches when the steered object moves forward and backward (¶86-89 and Fig. 3 – element 370 adjust camera direction corresponding to the recited perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches direction including forward/backward direction of the aerial vehicle corresponding to the recited when the steered object moves forward and backward).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses a transmitter configured to transmit the steering signal has a plurality of channels as signal transmission channels, and transmit a switching notification signal based on forward/backward switching manipulation of the steered object using a predetermined specific channel among the plurality of channels; and the controller is configured to perform switching control of the control direction based on the switching notification signal of the specific channel (¶27-29, ¶40 and Fig. 1 –numerous different wireless communication modules as well as wired communication for communicating on different channels where communications between the movement control module 170 which controls posture and the processor 110 is a predetermined specific wired channel among the plurality of communications channels and therefore implicitly includes a transmitter to send the signals between the two to change the posture control corresponding to the recited switching control).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses further comprising an input switching portion configured to enable switching of a non-inversion input state in which a non-inverted signal of the detection signal is input to the calculation portion, and an inversion input state in which an inverted signal of the detection signal is input to the calculation portion, wherein the controller is configured to control the input switching portion as a switching control of the control direction (¶84-92 and Fig. 3 – element 370 adjust camera direction corresponding to the recited perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches direction as the motion vector changes where first motion vector is in a straight line corresponding to the recited non-inversion input state based on the motion vector being the same as the initial direction and second motion vector in an opposite direction to the motion vector direction corresponding to the recited inversion input state where the posture control changes based on the motion vector corresponding to the recited (non)inversion states).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses wherein, when a switching manipulation between the forward movement and the backward movement of the steered object is performed, the controller does not perform switching control of the control direction until a manipulation amount of thrust in the direction of progress after the switching exceeds a predetermined manipulation amount (¶68 – second motion vector calculation required for switching determination is only calculated after it detects it is in free flight time which requires the UAV to be in free flight therefore having thrust. The predetermined manipulation amount is being interpreted utilizing BRI as any thrust being applied).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses a steering system comprising (Abstract):
a transmitter configured to transmit a steering signal to a steered object to be steered based on the steering signal (¶27-29, ¶40 and Fig. 1 –numerous different wireless communication modules as well as wired communication corresponding to the recited transmitter transmitting steering signals);
and a gyro unit mounted on the steered object, wherein (¶115-116 – gyro sensor corresponding to the recited gyro unit mounted on the UAV corresponding to the recited steered object):
the transmitter comprises a transmission portion for transmitting signals (¶27-29, ¶40 and Fig. 1 –numerous different wireless communication modules as well as wired communication corresponding to the recited transmitter); and
the gyro unit comprises: a gyro sensor (¶115-116 – gyro sensor corresponding to the recited gyro unit mounted on the UAV corresponding to the recited steered object);
a calculation portion configured to perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on a detection signal of the gyro sensor (¶86 and Fig. 3 – element 350 measure motion vector corresponding to the recited perform calculations for posture control of the steered object based on the steering signal and a detection signal of the gyro sensor); and
a gyro-side controller configured to perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches when the steered object moves forward and backward (¶41 and ¶86-89 and Fig. 3 – element 370 adjust camera direction corresponding to the recited perform control such that a control direction of the posture control switches direction including forward/backward direction of the aerial vehicle corresponding to the recited when the steered object moves forward and backward including a gimbal control module corresponding to the recited gyro-side controller to control the camera direction adjustments).
Regarding claim 13, Lee further discloses wherein the transmitter comprises a transmitter-side controller that causes the transmission portion to transmit a signal instructing switching of the control direction at a timing delayed with respect to a switching manipulation timing between forward movement and backward movement for the steered object (¶54-58 and ¶158-159 – the predetermined time from the time when the unmanned aerial vehicle is separated from the user's hand corresponding to the recited delay in switching timing based on the amount of time required to determine the first motion vector at an initial direction and the user input direction based second motion vector at a target direction where each module includes hardware, software, and firmware ... for performing one or more functions of the module therefore including transmitter-side controller).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further discloses the transmitter comprises a transmitter-side controller that instructs the gyro unit to switch the control direction based on a switching manipulation of forward movement and backward movement of the steered object (¶54-58 and ¶158-159 – each module includes hardware, software, and firmware ... for performing one or more functions of the module therefore including transmitter-side controller for controlling the switching); and
the transmitter-side controller does not give an instruction to switch the control direction with respect to the switching manipulation between the forward movement and the backward movement until a manipulation amount of thrust in the direction of progress after switching exceeds a predetermined manipulation amount (¶68 – second motion vector calculation required for switching determination is only calculated after it detects it is in free flight time which requires the UAV to be in free flight therefore having thrust. The predetermined manipulation amount is being interpreted utilizing BRI as any thrust being applied).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0129212).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses further comprising a plurality of gyro sensors with different axes for detecting angular velocity, wherein the control direction during backward movement is individually set for each of the gyro sensors (¶32, ¶40-42, and ¶50-52 – gimbal module including gyro/acceleration sensors for determining posture control in pitch (Y)/roll (Z)/yaw (Z) directions corresponding to the recited detecting angular velocity in each different axis where posture control is set based on the movement direction).
While Lee does disclose utilizing gyro sensors and measuring in 3D it does not explicitly disclose utilizing multiple gyros, however the instantaneous specification lacks any explanation as to why multiple gyros or a single multi-axis gyro would have any advantage without any unexpected result. Therefore the single multi-axis gyro disclosed by Lee is functionally equivalent as the multiple gyros and cheaper to acquire/process a single sensor rather than multiple as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced per MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to utilize a single of multi-axis gyro instead of a single one, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses wherein a combination of the control directions for each of the gyro sensors during backward movement is selected from among a plurality of preset combinations (¶35-40 – movement control module controls the posture and movement of the UAV according to specific operation states corresponding to the recited plurality of preset combinations).
While Lee does disclose utilizing gyro sensors and measuring in 3D it does not explicitly disclose utilizing multiple gyros, however the instantaneous specification lacks any explanation as to why multiple gyros or a single multiaxis gyro would have any advantage without any unexpected result. Therefore the single multiaxis gyro disclosed by Lee is functionally equivalent as the multiple gyros and cheaper to acquire/process a single sensor rather than multiple as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced per MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with a reasonable expectation for success, to utilize a single of multiaxis gyro instead of a single one, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses a transmitter configured to transmit the steering signal has a plurality of channels as signal transmission channels, and transmit a signal instructing the combination through a predetermined specific channel among the plurality of channels based on user manipulation; and the controller is configured to select the combination based on a transmission signal of the specific channel (¶27-29, ¶35-40, and Fig. 1 – numerous different wireless communication modules as well as wired communication for communicating on different channels where communications between the movement control module 170. which includes controls posture and movement control, and the processor 110 is a predetermined specific wired channel among the plurality of communications channels and therefore implicitly includes a transmitter to send the signals between the two to change the steering control corresponding to the recited steering signal where the specific operating state corresponding to the recited the combination is based on user input corresponding to the recited user manipulation).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0129212), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Kawano et al. (US 2009/0302833).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses the controller is configured to delay a switching timing of the control direction with respect to a timing at which the signal form of the switching notification signal changes based on switching between the forward manipulation and the backward manipulation (¶54-58 – the predetermined time from the time when the unmanned aerial vehicle is separated from the user's hand corresponding to the recited delay in switching timing based on the amount of time required to determine the first motion vector at an initial direction and the user input direction based second motion vector at a target direction).
While Lee does disclose adjusting the posture control direction based on the movement direction, it does not explicitly disclose changing the signal form to do so based on the switching between forward and backward directions.
However, Kawano discloses a magnetic detection apparatus for a moving object including the switching notification signal transmitted by the transmitter is a signal whose signal form changes based on switching between forward manipulation and backward manipulation (¶33 and ¶48 - the case where the moving direction of the magnetic moving object 4 has changed-over from the forward direction to the reverse direction, FIG. 5 shows all the waveforms of the moving direction detections in the sensor output signal f and the comparator circuit output signals g, h and i in Embodiment 1. Pattern 1 and Pattern 2, and Pattern 3 and Pattern 4 illustrate cases where the respective waveforms have been inverted where the setting of the signal to be inverted corresponding to the recited changing signal form based on the moving direction being reversed); and
The combination of the posture control direction adjustment based on movement direction of Lee et al. (US 2018/0129212) with the moving direction based sensor signal inversion system of Kawano et al. (US 2009/0302833) fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the posture control direction adjustment based on movement direction of Lee et al. (US 2018/0129212) with the moving direction based sensor signal inversion system of Kawano et al. (US 2009/0302833) in order to prevent the detection delay of the moving direction (Kawano - ¶48).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses further comprising an estimation portion configured to estimate switching between forward movement and backward movement of the steered object, wherein the controller is configured to delay the switching timing of the control direction based on an estimation result of the estimation portion (¶54-57 – processor includes the recited estimation portion which determines a time when the unmanned aerial vehicle is separated from the user's hand as a free flight time based on the change information from gravitational acceleration for determining the motion vectors corresponding to the recited estimating switching and configuring the delay of switching timing based on the initial direction/first motion vector which requires a predetermined time in free flight time to determine corresponding to the recited delay in the switching control).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses wherein the estimation portion is configured to estimate the switching between the forward movement and the backward movement of the steered object based on a detection signal of an acceleration sensor mounted on the steered object (¶54-57 – processor includes the recited estimation portion which determines a time when the unmanned aerial vehicle is separated from the user's hand as a free flight time based on the change information from gravitational acceleration for determining the motion vectors corresponding to the recited estimating switching and configuring the delay of switching timing based on the initial direction/first motion vector which requires a predetermined time in free flight time to determine corresponding to the recited delay in the switching control).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses wherein the estimation portion is configured to estimate whether the steered object switches between the forward movement and the backward movement based on a detection result of a drive current or drive voltage of a propulsion motor of the steered object (¶50-51 – posture control corresponding to the recited switching is controlled based on motor control signals which implicitly includes detected drive current and drive voltage of a propulsion motor).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sugimura et al. (US 2020/0115048) discloses a UAV system for determining when the object enters an inverted state based on moving forward and backward and adjusts its posture information based on the state (¶33-36)..
Sinha et al. (US 2012/0286102) discloses an aircraft control system utilizing an IMU consisting of multiple accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers (¶55).
Torii et al. (US 2020/0310414) discloses a system to ensure stability of flying by an unmanned aerial vehicle, first acquisition means of an unmanned aerial vehicle control system acquires first information, which is at least one piece of information for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flying or information on a result of detecting an operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle. Second acquisition means acquires second information for operating the unmanned aerial vehicle after switching of control of the unmanned aerial vehicle. Flight control means restricts, in accordance with the first information and the second information, switching to control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the second information. (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights