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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on October 16, 2024, and the IDS submitted on January 10, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Provisional Application
The instant application claims continuity to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/514,855. When evaluating prior art in relation to the instant application, please consider the dates that relevant 35 U.S.C. 112(a) support has been introduced.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjustable damper of claim 8, the sensor of claim 10, and the feedback mechanism of claim 11, the structure establishing or constituting the AI model of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be re-numbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 17-20, independent claim 17, from which claims 18-20 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, recites “a remote control system” in line 13 and recites “providing a remote control system” in line 15. The claim also recites “the remote control system” in line 16, in line 17, and once again in line 18. It is unclear from the claim as currently written if the second introduction providing “a remote control system” is intended to be the same “remote control system” or a new, separate and distinct “remote control system”. Further, it is unclear which ““the remote control system” is being referenced; the first instance, the second instance, or other. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on full and fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claims are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0109178 to Butler.
Regarding claim 1, Butler teaches a mobile filming apparatus comprising a mobile base (e.g., fig. 5A, element 310; [0107]) including an omnidirectional platform (e.g., fig. 5A, element 522) configured for omnidirectional movement (e.g., fig. 5A; [0107]), a support base (e.g., fig. 3A, element 350; [0094]) coupled to the mobile base (e.g., figs. 3A and 5A) and extending upwardly from the mobile base (e.g., fig 5A), the support base having an upper end and a lower end (e.g., fig. 3A), a linear base having a first end and a second end (e.g., fig. 3A, portion of element 300 above superstructure 350, including elements 360), the first end coupled to the upper end of the support base (e.g., fig. 3A, portion directly associated with element 350), and the second end having a mount configured to receive an image capture device (e.g., 3B, element 380; [0112]; [0127], camera must have a structural connection to support for use at a level for facetime interaction), and at least one controller (e.g., fig. 3B, element 390; [0104]) in communication with and configured to operate at least one of the mobile base (e.g., [0104], [0107]), the support base, the linear base, and the image capture device.
Regarding claim 2, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the mobile base includes an activated wheel (e.g., fig. 5A, element 512; [0132], [0107]), a swerve hub (e.g., fig. 5A; [0107]), and a suspension system coupled thereto (e.g., fig. 5A, element 539; [0132]).
Regarding claim 3, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the activated wheel includes a mecanum wheel (e.g., [0107]).
Regarding claim 4, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching wherein the mecanum wheel is configured to engage the swerve hub and the omnidirectional platform to provide omnidirectional mobility to the mobile base (e.g., [0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the suspension system is configured to engage the activated wheel and the mobile base to absorb vibration (e.g., fig. 5A; [0132]).
Regarding claim 8, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the suspension system includes an adjustable damper configured to optimize stabilization based on an operational speed of the mobile base (e.g., fig. 5A, element 539; [0132]).
Regarding claim 9, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the at least one controller is further configured to synchronize operation with least one other mobile filming apparatus for a coordinated filming operation (e.g., [0049-50], [0079-81], [0106], [0110]; the Examiner notes the broad language employed, including but not limited to, coordinated filming operation, which is open to broad interpretation without specific tying structure).
Regarding claim 10, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the mobile base further includes at least one sensor configured to detect an obstacle (e.g., [0017], [0112], [0117], [0136]; claim 16).
Regarding claim 11, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the at least one controller has a feedback mechanism to provide automated and real-time steering adjustments for the mobile base based on terrain analysis (e.g., [0122]; [0017], [0112], [0117], [0136]; claim 16).
Regarding claim 12, Butler teaches a mobile filming system, comprising a mobile filming apparatus including a mobile base (e.g., fig. 5A, element 310; [0107]) including an omnidirectional platform (e.g., fig. 5A, element 522) configured for omnidirectional movement (e.g., fig. 5A; [0107]), a support base (e.g., fig. 3A, element 350; [0094]) coupled to the mobile base (e.g., figs. 3A and 5A) and extending upwardly from the mobile base (e.g., fig 5A), the support base having an upper end and a lower end (e.g., fig. 3A), a linear base having a first end and a second end (e.g., fig. 3A, portion of element 300 above superstructure 350, including elements 360), the first end coupled to the upper end of the support base (e.g., fig. 3A, portion directly associated with element 350), and the second end configured to receive an image capture device (e.g., 3B, element 380; [0112]; [0127], camera must have a structural connection to support for use at a level for facetime interaction), and at least one controller (e.g., fig. 3B, element 390; [0104]) in communication with and configured to operate at least one of the mobile base (e.g., [0104], [0107]), the support base, the linear base, and the image capture device, and a remote control system in communication with the at least one controller (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), the remote control system permitting for a remote operation of the mobile filming apparatus by a user of the remote control system (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]).
Regarding claim 13, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 12, supra) including teaching wherein the at least one controller includes a wireless transceiver in communication with a remote control system for a remote operation of the mobile filming apparatus system (e.g., figs. 3B, element 357; [0106]; fig. 4; [0122]).
Regarding claim 14, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 12, supra) including teaching wherein the mobile filming apparatus includes a user interface accessible via a remotely located mobile application (e.g., [0039], [0042], [0070], [0098]).
Regarding claim 15, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 12, supra) including teaching wherein the remote control system is configured to cause the at least one controller to execute a pre-programmed motion path of the mobile base (e.g., [0105]; [0110], dances).
Regarding claim 17, Butler teaches a method for operating a mobile filming apparatus, the method comprising providing a mobile filming apparatus having a mobile base (e.g., fig. 5A, element 310; [0107]) including an omnidirectional platform (e.g., fig. 5A, element 522) configured for omnidirectional movement (e.g., fig. 5A; [0107]), a support base (e.g., fig. 3A, element 350; [0094]) coupled to the mobile base (e.g., figs. 3A and 5A) and extending upwardly from the mobile base (e.g., fig 5A), the support base having an upper end and a lower end (e.g., fig. 3A), a linear base having a first end and a second end (e.g., fig. 3A, portion of element 300 above superstructure 350, including elements 360), the first end coupled to the upper end of the support base (e.g., fig. 3A, portion directly associated with element 350), and the second end configured to receive an image capture device (e.g., 3B, element 380; [0112]; [0127], camera must have a structural connection to support for use at a level for facetime interaction), and at least one controller (e.g., fig. 3B, element 390; [0104]) in communication with and configured to operate at least one of the mobile base (e.g., [0104], [0107]), the support base, the linear base, and the image capture device, and a remote control system in communication with the controller (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), the remote control system permitting for remote operation of the mobile filming apparatus (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), providing a remote control system in communication with the at least controller of the mobile filming apparatus (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), the remote control system permitting for a remote operation of the mobile filming apparatus by a user of the remote control system (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), remotely controlling the mobile filming apparatus using the remote control system (e.g., fig. 4; [0122]), and moving the mobile base of the mobile filming apparatus in an omnidirectional manner using the omnidirectional platform of the mobile filming apparatus (e.g., fig. 5A; [0122], [0110]).
Regarding claim 18, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17, supra) including teaching wherein moving the mobile base includes activating a wheel (e.g., fig. 5A, element 512; [0132], [0107]), engaging a swerve hub (e.g., fig. 5A; [0107]), and utilizing a suspension system of the mobile filming apparatus (e.g., fig. 5A, element 539; [0132]).
Regarding claim 19, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17, supra) including teaching wherein the remote control system includes using a wireless communication module for the remote operation (e.g., figs. 3B, element 357; [0106]; fig. 4; [0122]).
Regarding claim 20, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17, supra) including teaching wherein the remote control system executes a pre-programmed motion path (e.g., [0105]; [0110], dances).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0237264 to Altaras et al. (hereinafter “Altaras”).
Regarding claim 6, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mobile filming apparatus includes a gimbal stabilizer configured to the image capture device, the gimbal stabilizer detachably coupled to the mount at the second end of the linear base. However, Butler does teach the use of camera devices (e.g., [0112-113], e.g., security operations; [0119-121], e.g., position determination; [0126]; [0128]), as well as expressly provides that the “robot 300 may include more components than as illustrated in FIG. 3B…” (e.g., [0103]).
Nevertheless, Altaras teaches a similar mobile apparatus that includes a gimbal stabilizer configured to an image capture device (e.g., figs. 1, 2 and 13, at least element 110; [0052]; [0054], [0059], [0069]), the gimbal stabilizer detachably coupled to a mount (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 115; [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Altaras with the apparatus as taught by Butler in a manner resulting in a mounting at the second end of the linear base, in order to capture more stable images from a higher position, resulting in images that are stable and have a greater possible c capture distance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler and Altaras, in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 7, Butler and Altaras teach all of the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching where the gimbal stabilizer is height adjustable (e.g., fig. 2, [0051], telescoping) as well as tiltable (e.g., [0069]). However, neither Butler not Altaras have been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the gimbal stabilizer has at least 4 degrees of freedom.
Nevertheless, Official Notice is taken regarding gimbal stabilizers having at least degrees of freedom; a concept that is well-known and accepted in the camera art. In light of the above, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the a gimbal stabilizer with at least 4 degrees of freedom as the gimbal stabilizer of the apparatus as taught by Butler and Altaras, in order to minimize system rigidity and allow for a more stabilized, jitter-free image regardless of conditions and external factors. The Examiner notes to Applicant that, when formulating a response or reply in relation to the use of Official Notice, "to adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art" (emphasis added). See MPEP §2144.03. Further, if applicant does not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the Examiner will indicate in the next Office Action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice or that the traverse was inadequate.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0011745 to Navaratnam.
Regarding claim 16, Butler teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 15, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the pre-programmed motion path of the mobile base is generated by an AI model in at least one of the controller and the remote control system.
Nevertheless, Navaratnam teaches a mobile unit that can travel through a venue on a wheeled chasis, configured to follow a pre-programmed path or based on an artificial intelligence system (e.g., [0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the artificial intelligence system and pre-programmed path creation ability as taught by Navaratnam into either the controller and the remote control system as taught by Butler, in order to a centralized system able to generate an intelligent and adaptive path through the venue without requiring too much human intervention in the design, thus saving human energy and labor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327383 to Becker teaches a similar apparatus, including the use of mecanum wheels.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0065062 to Leblanc teaches a similar apparatus, including the use of a gimbal stabilizer.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638