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 .
Response to Arguments
The title objection is withdrawn. Applicant amended the title in the reply.
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 07 July 2026, and to the applicant-initiated interview of 15 June 2026. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claims 1, 2, 16 and 17 are amended and claims 18-21 are added.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because of the amendments.
Applicant's argument that KISHIDA determines its destination directly from the viewer state rather than re-deriving it through an updated projection target position is correct as to KISHIDA but is not persuasive as to the rejection. OMRON supplies that derivation. Specifically, OMRON teaches that “the aircraft control unit 12 refers to the correction amount supplied from the correction amount calculation unit 17 and controls the motors 4 a to 4 d so as to change the projection position to the target projection position” (¶ 63).
Applicant's argument that modifying KISHIDA would delay the approach to the viewer and weaken KISHIDA's function is not persuasive. The combination does not remove KISHIDA's approach to the viewer; OMRON's correction loop operates on the projection position while the body is being positioned. OMRON states its object is “to suitably project an image to a target position” (¶ 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the “easiness of observation” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “easiness of observation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Spec ¶93 states, “determines the projection candidate position of which the calculated overall evaluation value is the highest as the projection target position.” Spec ¶85 states, “the control device 14 calculates an evaluation value of easiness of observation from the plurality of persons for each of the projection candidate positions to which the projection can be performed and determines a projection candidate position having the highest calculated evaluation value as the projection target position.” Comparing evaluation values does not cure the defect. Claim 18 does not recite comparing candidate positions or selecting a highest value. What qualifies as an evaluation value of the easiness of observation remains unknown because the specification provides no measure for the degree represented by the value. The claim’s scope is not reasonably certain. Claims 19-20 are rejected by dependence.
Claim 21 recites “the updated target moving object position for projection is determined among (based on) moving candidate positions to which the moving object can move” (claim 21). The parenthetical sets forth alternative requirements: determination “among” candidate positions and determination “based on” candidate positions. Because “among” and “based on” impose different relationships between the updated target moving object position and the moving candidate positions, the claim does not clearly set forth which relationship is required. The metes and bounds of claim 21 therefore cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1- 3, 9, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida et al., JP 2021-175042 A (hereinafter "KISHIDA") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0135450 A1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., May 9, 2019) (hereinafter "DJI") and in further view of Takatsuka et al., JP 2019-008676 A (hereinafter "OMRON").
Claim 1.
KISHIDA and DJI disclose a control device that controls a moving object on which a projection apparatus is mounted (KISHIDA: "the image projection device 100 includes a projector 101,
a drone 102, a camera 103 ... [and] a control circuit 202" (¶¶ [0016], [0031], Fig. 1). This
teaches a control device (control circuit 202) that controls a drone (drone 102) on which a
projector (projector 101) is mounted.), the control device comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (KISHIDA: "the control circuit 202 is composed of a CPU, a memory, and the like, and drives and controls each part included in the image projection device 100" (¶[0035]). This teaches a processor.):
acquire first target information related to a state of a first target (KISHIDA: "the visual person detection unit 305 may detect a visual person based on, for example, an image taken by the camera 103" (¶¶ [0066], [0068]). This teaches acquiring first target information, specifically the position state of a viewer (first target), via an imaging apparatus.);
determine a projection target position and a target moving object position based on the first target information (KISHIDA: "when the visual person detection unit 305 detects a visual person, the control unit 301 controls the moving unit 307 so as to approach the visual person and project an image around the visual person" (¶[0089]). This teaches determining both the projection target position (around the viewer) and the target moving object position (approach the viewer) from the acquired first target information.);
move the moving object towards the target moving object position (KISHIDA: "the moving unit 307 approaches the visual person"; step S602: "moving to the periphery of the detected visual person 501" (¶¶ [0081], [0090], [0111]). This teaches moving the moving object to the determined target moving object position.);
before the moving object reaches the target moving object position, acquire second target information related to a state of the first target (KISHIDA: "when the visual person detection unit 305 detects the movement of the visual person"; "the position of the viewer 501 is detected at all times or at regular intervals" (¶¶ [0090], [0111], [0171). This teaches acquiring second target information, the changed movement state of the viewer.);
determine, based on the acquired second target information, whether the projection target position has changed (KISHIDA: step S603: "the image 502 is projected forward in the moving direction of the visual person 501");
update the projection target position in a case where it is determined that the projection target position has changed (KISHIDA "adjusting the projection position of the image according to the movement of the viewer 501" (¶¶ [0090], [0111], [0117]). This teaches updating the projection target position from the second target information.);
(see the teaching of OMRON set forth below; KISHIDA alone determines its destination from the detected viewer state rather than from the updated projection target position.); and
after the moving object reaches the target moving object position or the updated target moving object position, perform projection from the projection apparatus to the projection target position or the updated projection target position (KISHIDA: step S602: "moving to the periphery of the detected visual person 501," followed by step S603 "the image 502 is the image 502 is projected around the visual person 501" (¶¶ 81, 90, 111, 117); "adjusting the projection position of the image according to the movement of the viewer 501" (¶¶ [0090], [0111], [0117]). This teaches projecting after arrival at the target moving object position.).
KISHIDA does not explicitly teach performing the acquisition of second target information and the update of both the projection target position and the target moving object position during moving of the moving object to the target moving object position (i.e., while the drone is still in transit toward its initial target position, before it has arrived). However, DJI, in the same field of endeavor of UAV-based projection and target tracking, teaches continuous in-flight acquisition and position updating during movement. Specifically, DJI discloses that a UAV equipped with a camera and a light projector continuously tracks a target person in real time and updates both the projected signal position and the UAV's own position while the UAV is in flight: (DJI: "Target tracking may be useful for many purposes ... Once a target is acquired (e.g., identified), tracking can be further implemented when the target moves (or when the sensor moves)" (¶ [0021]). This teaches that the UA V sensor continues to acquire updated target information and revise tracking parameters while the UAV itself is moving, directly
teaching the in-flight update of both the projection target position and the drone's own
position.) DJI further discloses that the UA V projects a light signal onto the ground near the
target person (establishing a projection target position derived from the target's location) and, as the target person's state changes, the UA V detects the change via its camera and updates both where it projects and where it flies: (DJI: "the UAV transmits a light signal onto the ground near the person, which light is projected as an arrow on the ground ... the person moves in the direction shown by the arrow, which movement can be recognized by the camera as an action in response to the solicitation signal" (¶ [0033], Fig. 1A). This teaches
the UAV updating the projection target position (arrow location on ground) and its own
flight position based on continuously acquired target state information during flight.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine KISHIDA and DJI before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination would have been to overcome the limitation of KISHIDA's scene-update approach (in which viewer movement might not be detected until the drone has already reached its
initial destination, requiring a complete re-computation and second flight leg) by incorporating
DJI's demonstrated technique of continuous in-flight target acquisition and real-time position
revision. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that both KISHIDA and
DJI address the identical problem of coordinating a projection apparatus on an autonomous
flying platform with real-time person detection, and that replacing KISHIDA's post-arrival
update architecture with DJI's in-flight continuous tracking would produce the predictable result of reducing unnecessary drone repositioning maneuvers and improving projection accuracy by using the most current viewer state data at each moment during the flight.
KISHIDA does not explicitly teach “determine an updated target moving object position for projection to the updated projection target position, and move the moving object toward the updated target moving object position.” However, OMRON teaches controlling the moving body position with reference to the captured image: "projection control unit for controlling at least one of a position of the moving body, an attitude of the moving body, and a direction of the projection unit with reference to the captured image” (¶ 6). OMRON projects so that the projection position projected by the moving body becomes the target projection position: “projection control unit for controlling at least one of a position of the moving body, an attitude of the moving body, and a direction of the projection unit with reference to the captured image” (¶ 8); “a control device that projects an image so that the projection position projected by the moving object becomes the target projection position” (¶ 9). For that control, “calculates the correction amount of the projection position so as to minimize the difference between the current projection position and the target projection position” (¶ 61), “the correction amount calculation unit 17 supplies the correction amount obtained in Step S undefined 06 to the aircraft control unit 12 and the projector control unit 25” (¶ 62), and “the aircraft control unit 12 refers to the correction amount supplied from the correction amount calculation unit 17 and controls the motors 4 a to 4 d so as to change the projection position to the target projection position” (¶ 63). Thus OMRON determines the flying object
position control from the target projection position through the correction amount.
OMRON states its objective, "According to the above configuration, it is possible to realize a control device that suitably projects an image to a target position” (OMRON ¶ 7). OMRON achieves that object through the closed-loop correction quoted above, in which a correction amount computed from the difference between the current projection position and the target projection position is supplied to the flying object control unit to drive the motors toward the target projection position. Applying that correction to the KISHIDA and DJI system would yield the recited re-derivation of the target moving object position from the target projection position. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because OMRON provides that “The number of times of repeating the processing in steps S undefined 004 to S undefined 204 is not particularly limited, and can be performed until the difference between the current projection position and the target projection position is within a certain value" (OMRON ¶ 65).
Claim 2.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 1, wherein the first target information is information obtained by imaging the first target by the imaging apparatus (KISHIDA: "the visual person detection unit 305 may detect a visual person based on, for example, an image taken by the camera 103" (¶¶[0066], [0068]). This teaches first target information obtained by imaging the first target with the imaging apparatus mounted on the drone.).
Claim 3.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 2, wherein the imaging apparatus is mounted on the moving object (KISHIDA: "the camera 103 is fixed to the drone 102" (¶¶ [0016], [0024], Fig. 1). This teaches an imaging apparatus mounted on the moving object.).
Claim 9.
KISHIDA and DJI disclose the base control device and processor steps as addressed in the
rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 9 further specifies that the processor is configured to stop the
updating of at least one of the projection target position or the target moving object position in a case where the moving object has entered a predetermined region including the target moving object position.
KISHIDA and DJI disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching "stop[ping] the updating of at least one of the projection target position or the target moving object position when the moving object enters a predetermined region." However, OMRON, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a convergence criterion in which the iterative projection correction process ceases when the correction error falls within a threshold
(OMRON: "steps S004 to S 020 may be repeated a plurality of times until the difference between the target projection position and the current projection position is within a certain range" (¶[0090]). This teaches the concept of stopping position-correction updates when a convergence condition defined by a predetermined threshold is satisfied.) OMRON further teaches the two distinct control modes (position control and direction control) discussed in the rejection of claim 14 below, including the concept that projection positioning updates can be decoupled from mobile body repositioning.
Therefore, 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 system of KISHIDA and DJI to stop updating at least one of the projection target position or the target moving object position when the drone enters a predetermined region including the target moving object position. OMRON demonstrates that projection correction processes should cease when positional error is within a threshold, establishing the principle of threshold-based update stopping criteria. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying this same convergence principle to the drone's spatial proximity to its target position is a straightforward extension: just as OMRON's correction loop stops when the projection error is sufficiently small, the dual-position update loop (projection target position and target moving object position) should stop when the drone has entered a sufficiently close region around its target position. The motivation for this combination would have been to prevent oscillatory behavior, in which the drone repeatedly makes small positional adjustments in response to minor changes in the target's state, causing both the drone and the projected image to exhibit visible instability. Once the drone has substantially reached its intended operating position, stopping the position updates within this convergence zone produces the predictable result of stabilizing both the drone's flight path and the projected image in the critical final phase of approach.
Claim 13.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, after the moving object moves to the target moving object position, acquire the second target information, update the projection target position based on the second target information and update the target moving object position based on the updated projection target position (KISHIDA: "when the visual person detection unit 305 detects the movement of the visual person, the moving unit 307 approaches the visual person and projects an image on the front side in the moving direction"; "the position of the viewer 501 is detected at all times or at regular intervals, and the image 502 is projected in a range that the viewer 501 can see" (¶¶[0089]-[0090], [0111], [0117], Fig. 6). This teaches a post-arrival update cycle: the flowchart of Fig. 6 loops continuously, so upon arriving at the target moving object position the drone continues to monitor viewer state and re-executes the same acquisition-determination update procedure.).
Claim 14.
KISHIDA and DJI disclose the base control device and processor steps as addressed in the
rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 14 further specifies that the processor is configured to
maintain the target moving object position in a case where the moving object is positioned in a
predetermined region including the target moving object position and the projection target
position is updated.
KISHIDA and DJI disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching "maintain[ing] the target moving object position in a predetermined region while the projection target position is updated." However, OMRON, in the same field of endeavor of control devices for flying bodies equipped with projection units, teaches two distinct and complementary control modes for adjusting projection positioning: (a) controlling the position or posture of the moving body (OMRON claim 6: "controlled by controlling a position or an attitude of the moving body." This teaches a first control mode in which the mobile body itself is repositioned to correct the projection position.), and (b) controlling only the projection direction of the projection unit without repositioning the mobile body (OMRON:
claim 7: " controlled by controlling a projection direction of the projection unit." This
teaches a second control mode in which projection positioning is achieved solely by
adjusting the projector's aim direction while the mobile body remains in place.) OMRON
further teaches that both control modes serve the same functional goal of projecting an image
suitably to a target position (OMRON: claim 1: "a projection control unit that controls at least one of a position, a posture of the moving body, and a direction of the projection unit ". This teaches that position control and direction control are alternative means for achieving the same projection positioning objective.)
Therefore, 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 system of KISHIDA and DJI to incorporate OMRON's projection-direction-only control mode as an alternative operating mode for use when the drone has arrived at its target position. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that OMRON's two control modes are naturally complementary: the position/posture control mode (OMRON claim 6) is best suited for coarse positioning (moving the drone toward the target position) while the projection-direction control mode (OMRON claim 7) is best suited for fine adjustment once the drone has substantially arrived. The motivation for maintaining the target moving object position (i.e., locking the drone's position) once the drone enters a predetermined region near the target position, while continuing to update the projection target position by adjusting the projector direction alone, would have been to (1) eliminate unnecessary drone repositioning maneuvers that introduce projection instability and motion blur, (2) reduce energy consumption by avoiding small corrective flights when the projector's angular range is sufficient to reach the updated projection target, and (3) decrease the overall time required before stable projection begins, since adjusting the projector direction is faster than repositioning the entire drone. The concept of a predetermined arrival region (within which the drone transitions from position-control mode to direction-control mode) is a well-known engineering practice in autonomous vehicle navigation, where "waypoint acceptance radii" or "arrival zones" routinely define the spatial threshold at which a vehicle considers a target position reached and transitions to its next behavioral mode.
Claims 15.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where instruction information for providing an instruction for at least one of the projection target position or the target moving object position is received, update the projection target position based on the instruction information and update the target moving object position based on the updated projection target position (KISHIDA: "an input/output device for inputting instructions into a projection device 100" (¶[0053]). This teaches receiving instruction information for providing an instruction, and that such instruction may specify the projection target position and the target moving object position.).
Claims 16 and 17.
Claims 16 (method) and 17 (non-transitory computer readable medium) recite the same
operational steps as independent claim 1 in method and program form, respectively KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON disclose a control method performed by a processor and a control program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (KISHIDA: the CPU in the control circuit 202 executes a control program implementing the described acquisition, determination,
movement, projection, and update steps (1[0016], [0031], [0035], [0066], [0068], [0081],
[0089]-[0090], [0111], [0117]). This teaches both the method and computer-readable
medium implementations of claim 1 's functional steps.) Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the
same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of Suzuki et al., WO 2019/244644 A1 (Sony Corporation, December 26, 2019) (U.S. family member: U.S. 2021/0255630 A1 used as a translation) (hereinafter "SUZUKI").
Claim 4.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 3, wherein the imaging apparatus includes a first imaging apparatus mounted on the moving object (KISHIDA: camera 103 installed on drone 102 (¶[0016], Fig. 1).) and
KISHIDA does not specifically teach a second imaging apparatus that is not mounted on the moving object. However, SUZUKI, in the same field of endeavor of mobile body control with
imaging-based guidance, teaches that it is well known to use detected results from a camera that is not installed in a mobile body to control the mobile body (SUZUKI: "a degree of relation
with an individual in the vicinity of a mobile object is decided, and a travel mode that is
associated with a process performed by ... an output section that outputs a representation or presenting a travel route of the mobile object is set on the basis of the degree of relation"; "the sensor module [14] is fixedly provided in the environment where the autonomous mobile robot is used" (¶¶ [0010], [0058]). This teaches a system architecture in which sensing and control apparatus external to the moving object (fixedly provided in the environment) are used to determine the degree of relation with nearby individuals and to control the mobile body's movement and output – directly teaching the use of a second sensing apparatus not mounted on the moving object for mobile body guidance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON to include an external imaging apparatus as taught by SUZUKI. The motivation for this combination would have been to extend the target detection range and viewing angle beyond what is achievable with a single camera mounted on the drone, enabling more reliable acquisition of viewer position and state information when the drone is distant from the target or when the drone's own camera view is obstructed, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of both the projection target position and the target moving object position determinations.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of Sako et al., JP 2016-208255 A (Mica Latta Inc., December 8, 2016) (hereinafter "SAKO").
Claim 5 and 6.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON disclose that the first target includes a person and that the first target information indicates the position state of that person, as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, claim 5 further specifies that the first target information indicates at least one of
KISHIDA does not specifically teach using eye position, body direction, or viewer count as explicit parameters of the first target information. However, SAKO, in the same field of endeavor of aerial projection devices with viewer detection, teaches that a camera installed in a mobile aerial projection device detects the number of viewers and that the position of projection and the position of the mobile projection device are determined on the basis of the detected number of viewers (SAKO: "cameras CM1 to CM5 ... detect the number of persons of the viewer"; "the control unit 101 determines an appropriate projection location and position
according to the number of people" and "moves its own device to the determined ... position" (¶¶ [0013), [0014), [0017], [0059]-[0061], [0068]-[0069], Fig. 1). This teaches that
the first target information includes the number of viewers (persons) and that position
determinations - both the projection target position and the mobile device's own position – are based on that count, directly teaching both the "number" aspect of claim 5 and the
multi-person positional relationship computation of claim 6.) Furthermore, it is well known
in the art of drone-mounted projection and computer vision that optimal projection targeting
requires analysis of a person's body orientation and eye/gaze direction to ensure the projected
image is properly aligned with the viewer's line of sight. Determining body direction and eye
position as parameters of target information represents the routine application of standard pose estimation and gaze-detection techniques to the projector-targeting problem taught by KISHIDA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON to incorporate SAKO's viewer-count detection as well as routine body direction and eye-position parameters as components of the first target information. The motivation for this combination would have been to improve projection quality for multiple viewers by computing a single optimal projection target position and drone position that accounts for the spatial distribution, body orientations, and gaze directions of all viewers simultaneously, thereby enabling a single projected image to be positioned such that all viewers can comfortably see it without requiring repositioning.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of Hamaguchi et al., JP 2018-125816 A (Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd., August 9, 2018) (hereinafter "HAMAGUCHI").
Claim 7 and 8.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON disclose the base control device and processor steps as addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 7 further specifies that the first target includes a
KISHIDA does not specifically disclose the scenario in which the "first target" is a projection destination surface or object (rather than a person/viewer). However, HAMAGUCHI, in the same field of endeavor of mobile projection systems with environmental detection, teaches a video display system in which a detection part detects the state of a target area for projecting images in the projection plane, and the mobile body moves based on the acquired state of that projection area (HAMAGUCHI: "the detection unit 3 detects a target area A1 on which the image Im 1 is projected on the projection surface … the movement control unit 41 confirms the state of the target area A" (Abstract, ¶¶ [0007], [0040], [0043]). This teaches that the first target is a projection destination object (the target area A being a candidate projection surface) and that the first target information includes projection surface state information, directly teaching the limitations of both claims 7 and 8.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON to incorporate HAMAGUCHI's projection-surface detection as an additional or alternative mode for the first target. The motivation for this combination would have been to enable the drone-mounted projector system to select and evaluate candidate projection surfaces (walls, floors, screens) for projection quality before committing to a target position, thereby avoiding projecting onto unsuitable surfaces (e.g., non-planar, obstructed, or low-reflectance areas) and improving overall projection image quality.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of Fujiune, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0191868 A1 (Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd., June 30, 2016) (hereinafter "FUJIUNE").
Claim 10.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON disclose all of the subject matter as described above in the rejection of claims 1 and 9. Claim 10 further specifies that the processor is configured to update the projection target position in a range corresponding to a distance between the moving object and the target moving object position, and update the target moving object position based on the updated projection target position.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON disclose the base system including, but do not specifically teach that the update range for the projection target position corresponds to (i.e., scales with) the distance between the moving object and the target moving object position. However, FUJIUNE, in the same field of endeavor of mobile projection devices that follow detected persons, teaches distance-dependent scaling of projection parameters (FUJIUNE: "the size of the object in the video signal is set such that, the longer the distance to the projection position becomes, the smaller the size of the object becomes" (¶[0070)). This teaches that projection parameters are scaled as a function of distance in a mobile projection system.) FUJIUNE further teaches a predetermined-region-based behavior modification mechanism in which the projection control changes when the projection position is within a predetermined range of a specified location (FUJIUNE: "corrected distance setting unit 53 determines whether the current projection position of the projection image is within a predetermined range from the specified shop or not … the 'predetermined range' here means a range by which a person is determined to be close to a shop, and it is set within radius of 2 m to 3 m" (¶[0101]). This teaches a mobile projection system that modifies its control parameters based on proximity to a specified location, with the degree of modification dependent on whether the system is within or outside a distance-defined region.)
Therefore, 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 system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON to update the projection target position within a range that corresponds to the distance between the drone and its target moving object position, as taught by FUJIUNE. FUJIUNE demonstrates the principle that mobile projection systems should scale their operational parameters based on distance to target locations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that constraining the allowable update range for the projection target position in proportion to the drone's current distance from its target moving object position is a natural application of FUJIUNE's distance-dependent parameter scaling: when the drone is far from the target position, a wider update range permits appropriate large-scale redirections; as the drone approaches, the narrowing update range prevents being sent to a drastically different destination when the drone has nearly arrived. The motivation for this combination would have been to improve projection continuity and drone path efficiency by providing a graduated, distance-proportional constraint on how far the projection target can be updated at any given point during the approach.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of Banerjee et al., U.S. 2018/0101173 A1 (Qualcomm Incorporated, April 12, 2018) (hereinafter "BANERJEE").
Claim 11.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON do not specifically teach changing the method of determining the projection target position based on distance. However, BANERJEE, in the field of autonomous drone navigation, teaches controlling a computer vision tracking algorithm based on the distance between the drone and a moving target (BANERJEE: "a processor configured to control a computer vision tracking algorithm based on the distance" (Abstract, claim 1); "the processor 112 (e.g., the computer vision tracker 110) … may control the computer vision tracking algorithm based on the distance. In some configurations, the processor 112 (e.g., the computer vision tracker 110) may increase tracking when the distance is within a distance threshold" (¶[0079]); "as the drone approaches the landing pad 334, the apparatus may increase tracking when the drone 330 is within a distance threshold of the landing pad 334" (¶[0125]). This teaches a processor that changes the method of determining the target's
position – switching from a first (baseline) tracking mode to a second (enhanced, higher-frequency) tracking mode – triggered by whether the drone is within a threshold distance of the moving target, thereby changing how the target position is determined based on distance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON, as taught by BANERJEE, to change the method of determining the projection target position (viewer position) based on the drone's distance to the target moving object position. The motivation for this combination would have been to improve the accuracy of projection target position determination during close range approach. A POSITA would have recognized that viewer detection at long range suffers from lower sensor resolution and wider positional uncertainty, and would have been motivated to apply BANERJEE's distance-threshold switching technique - transitioning from a baseline detection method to a higher-frequency, higher-precision method upon entering a distance threshold – to obtain a more precise projection target position as the drone nears the viewer, thereby improving projection accuracy and reducing projector misalignment in the final approach phase.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON and in further view of lmai, JP 2019-148654 A (Canon Inc., September 5, 2019) (hereinafter "IMAI").
Claim 12.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON further disclose that the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the projection target position by
KISHIDA does not specifically teach filtering out or excluding changes in the detected target information that arise from the drone's own movement rather than from actual changes in the target's state. However, IMAI, in the same field of endeavor of image projection control onto moving targets, teaches a controller that determines the position of projection while excluding changes in the projection target that are caused by the mobile body itself (IMAI: in a system that has a mobile body and a projection device, it is well known to determine the position of projection by the projection device while excluding changes in the projection target that are caused by the mobile body ¶¶ [0014], [0020], [0026), [0027)). This teaches the
limitation of claim 12: determining the projection target position by excluding changes in
the first target information that are attributable to the moving object's own motion rather
than to true target state changes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON to incorporate IMAI's self-motion exclusion technique when computing the projection target position. The motivation for this combination would have been to prevent the drone's own repositioning maneuvers from being erroneously interpreted as changes in the viewer's state. For example, as the drone moves toward the target, parallax and camera motion create apparent shifts in the detected viewer position that do not reflect actual viewer movement and thereby stabilize the projection target position computation against spurious updates driven by the drone's own kinematics, improving projection stability and reducing unnecessary drone repositioning.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KISHIDA in view of
DJI and in further view of OMRON, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Secom Co., Ltd. , JP 2014-119901 A (hereinafter “SECOM”).
Claim 21.
KISHIDA, DJI, and OMRON The control device according to claim 1, except for teaching wherein the updated target moving object position for projection is determined among (based on) moving candidate positions to which the moving object can move.
However, SECOM teaches determining the updated target moving object position among candidate positions. SECOM discloses “Movement candidate position setting means for setting a candidate position, evaluating each of the movement candidate positions and setting one of the movement candidate positions as a movement target position” (¶ 5). The set movement target position is the updated target moving object position for projection and is determined among the movement candidate positions. SECOM further discloses “The movement path calculation means calculates a movement path from the self position (the current position of the autonomous flight robot) to the movement target position, and the movement control means controls to move along the movement path” (¶ 6).
It would have been obvious to apply SECOM's movement candidate position setting to the projection system because SECOM provides a known advantage. SECOM teaches that “the autonomous mobile robot can easily set a position in a direction in which the moving object is not imaged as a movement target position, and as a result, it becomes easy to move toward the position, and thus the moving object is imaged from various directions” (¶ 6). An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine the updated target moving object position the same way, by setting candidate positions around the target and evaluating each against the projection criterion already required by claim 1, because doing so limits the destination to positions the moving object can reach and yields a predictable movement route to the position selected.
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 Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights