DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15-16, 18-22 allowed.
Claims 4-5, 9-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecocke et al. US 12,087,051 hereinafter referred to as Lecocke in view of Venkatesh et al. US 2025/0223036 hereinafter referred to as Venkatesh in view of Nakamura et al. US 2022/0108468 hereinafter referred to as Nakamura in view of Kim et al. US 2023/0343088 hereinafter referred to as Kim.
In regards to claim 1, Lecocke teaches:
“A method comprising: instructing, by wirelessly transmitting a first instruction, a [first] drone in a drone swarm to move to a first position; instructing, by wirelessly transmitting a second instruction, a [second] drone in the drone swarm to move to a second position;
Lecocke column 7 lines 28-30 and Figure 1 teaches three such drones, including a first drone 175, a second drone 180, and a third drone 185. Lecocke column 7 lines 47-60 teaches in some cases, controller 105 or another controller associated with the conditions monitoring center may communicate with the drones to control their operation and/or to receive the images taken by the drones. In some embodiments, a global positioning system (GPS) navigation system may be utilized to fly the drones to the desired location for taking photographs and back. For example, in some embodiments, the user may either input a location to which they would like the drone to fly. Alternatively, controller 105 may obtain location information recorded and transmitted by the user's personal electronic device. Controller 105 may be configured to dispatch and command the drones to complete reconnaissance flights to take images of a disaster area. Lecocke claim 16 teaches the features “wherein the aerial image of the selected unphotographed location is received using a selected one of a direct wireless transmission, a wireless transmission relayed through the personal device of the registered user, and a physical connection, based on the registration information.” Therefore, the location is provided wirelessly.
“instructing, by ... a third instruction, a first camera of the [first] drone to record, while the [first] drone is in the first position, a first video of an object; instructing, by ... a fourth instruction, a second camera of the [second] drone to record, while the [second] drone is in the second position, a second video of the object;”
Lecocke column 19 line 64 through column 20 line 3 teaches as shown in FIG. 24, system 2400 may include a mobile control center in the form of vehicle 2405. In addition, system 2400 may be configured to include and/or be operable in association with a plurality of drones configured to collect information, such as photographic images, of a disaster area. In some cases, the drones may be configured to obtain video recordings. The Examiner interprets that if the drones collect images they must be operating under an instruction to perform this function. These instructions are equivalent to a third and fourth instruction.
“wirelessly receiving the first video from the [first] drone; wirelessly receiving the second video from the [second] drone”
Lecocke column 7 lines 33-43 teaches One or more of the drones may include photography equipment, such as a camera 190, as shown in FIG. 1. It will be understood that the drones disclosed herein may be capable of taking still images and/or video recordings. In some embodiments, the imaging may be more sophisticated. For example, in some cases the drones may be capable of infrared and/or night vision capabilities. As further shown in FIG. 1, controller 105 may be configured to receive images 195 from drone fleet 170. Accordingly, controller 105 may be configured to receive the various types of imagery that the drones are capable of obtaining. The Examiner interprets that the transmission must be wireless because the drones are not wired devices.
Lecocke does not explicitly teach:
“leader [drone]” and “first follower [drone]”
Venkatesh paragraph [0329] teaches leader drone D1 1730 and follower drone D2 1735 are deployed in connection with initiation of the operation or one or more tasks associated with the operation. In some embodiments, leader drone D1 1730 instructs follower drone D2 1740 to travel to location 1745 to observe/surveil an area on the opposite side of 1720 (e.g., to identify targets, etc.). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke in view of Venkatesh to have included the features of “leader [drone]” and “first follower [drone]” because coordination of multiple assets, including one or more drones, is complicated and generally requires a user in a control center to control and coordinate the assets in connection with performance of an operation (Venkatesh [0001]).
Lecocke/Venkatesh do not explicitly teach:
“stitching together, using one or more processors, the first video and the second video to obtain a master video; and performing, using the one of more processors, motion capture on the master video to obtain motion data of the object”
Nakamura paragraph [0138] teaches when performing motion capture using a large number of cameras in a wide field, cameras which are expected to capture a subject are selected by pre-processing, and motion capture is performed using input images of the selected cameras, instead of performing motion capture and motion analysis using information from all the cameras. Further, as a preprocessing, stitching of the input image may be performed. Stitching refers to stitching each camera image using acquired camera parameters when there is an overlapping area at each angle of view, and synthesizing them into one seamless image. Nakamura Figure 2 and paragraph [0063] teaches the hardware configuration of a motion capture system. From Figure 2 it is apparent the system is comprised of a computer with a processor. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh in view of Nakamura to have included the features “stitching together, using one or more processors, the first video and the second video to obtain a master video; and performing, using the one of more processors, motion capture on the master video to obtain motion data of the object” because motion capture is an indispensable technology for acquiring and analyzing human motion, and is widely used in fields such as sports, medical, robotics, computer graphics, and computer animation (Nakamura [0002]).
Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura do not explicitly teach:
“by wirelessly transmitting [drones to record images]”
While not explicitly taught by Lecocke it would be well-understood that the instructions for recording video may be wireless. Drones are naturally a wireless device and transmitting this command via a wireless instruction does not provide for any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
Kim paragraph [0004] teaches drones are connected to a control device or a pilot's terminal in a wired or wireless manner and capture an image or video of a desired area by flying according to a command transmitted from the control device or the pilot's terminal. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura in view of Kim to have included the features of “by wirelessly transmitting [drones to record images]” because when an image is captured by a drone, it is necessary to manage the image so that personal information is not infringed by analyzing whether personal information is included in the captured image (Kim [0007]).
In regards to claim 6, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the object is an animal or a human, and wherein the motion data are of at least one joint of the animal or the human”
Nakamura paragraph [0075] teaches a heatmap generating unit for obtaining heatmap information presenting the degree of likelihood of a position for each feature point (keypoint) including joints with a color intensity based on the images obtained by the video obtaining unit, a heatmap generating unit for obtaining heatmap information presenting the degree of likelihood of a position for each feature point (keypoint) including joints with a color intensity based on the images obtained by the video obtaining unit. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh in view of Nakamura to have included the features “wherein the object is an animal or a human, and wherein the motion data are of at least one joint of the animal or the human” because motion capture is an indispensable technology for acquiring and analyzing human motion, and is widely used in fields such as sports, medical, robotics, computer graphics, and computer animation (Nakamura [0002]).
In regards to claim 7, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising: further instructing the first camera to record the first video beginning at a first moment; and further instructing the second camera to record the second video beginning at the first moment”
Nakamura paragraph [0078] teaches The video obtaining unit comprises a plurality of cameras which are synchronized by using an external synchronized signal generator for example. A method for synchronizing camera images is not limited. The multiple cameras are located to surround the subject and a multiview video of the subject can be obtained by capturing the subject by all or part of the cameras at the same time. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh in view of Nakamura to have included the features “further comprising: further instructing the first camera to record the first video beginning at a first moment; and further instructing the second camera to record the second video beginning at the first moment” because motion capture is an indispensable technology for acquiring and analyzing human motion, and is widely used in fields such as sports, medical, robotics, computer graphics, and computer animation (Nakamura [0002]).
Nakamura des not explicitly teach a point in time before the first moment however, synchronization of the cameras to work at the same time implies a moment in time at which the cameras are known to be operating at the same time. Therefore, the explicit claiming of a first moment does not provide any unpredictable results and appears to be nothing more than a combination of familiar elements (cameras) using known methods (synchronizing to record at the same time) and results in synchronous recording of video which is the result of the prior art. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 8, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising instructing the first camera and the second camera to synchronize with each other before the first moment”
Nakamura paragraph [0078] teaches The video obtaining unit comprises a plurality of cameras which are synchronized by using an external synchronized signal generator for example. A method for synchronizing camera images is not limited. The multiple cameras are located to surround the subject and a multiview video of the subject can be obtained by capturing the subject by all or part of the cameras at the same time. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh in view of Nakamura to have included the features “further comprising instructing the first camera and the second camera to synchronize with each other before the first moment” because motion capture is an indispensable technology for acquiring and analyzing human motion, and is widely used in fields such as sports, medical, robotics, computer graphics, and computer animation (Nakamura [0002]).
Nakamura des not explicitly teach a point in time before the first moment however, synchronization of the cameras to work at the same time implies a moment in time at which the cameras are known to be operating at the same time. Therefore, the explicit claiming of a synchronizing before a first moment does not provide any unpredictable results and appears to be nothing more than a combination of familiar elements (cameras) using known methods (synchronizing to record at the same time) and results in synchronous recording of video which is the result of the prior art. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 13, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“further comprising further performing the motion capture independent of markers on the object”
Nakamura paragraph [0026] teaches an object of the present invention is to provide markerless motion measurement with high accuracy regardless of indoors, outdoors, or clothing. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh in view of Nakamura to have included the features “further comprising further performing the motion capture independent of markers on the object” because motion capture is an indispensable technology for acquiring and analyzing human motion, and is widely used in fields such as sports, medical, robotics, computer graphics, and computer animation (Nakamura [0002]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecocke in view of Venkatesh in view of Nakamura Kim in view of Yang US 2023/0008482 hereinafter referred to as Yang.
In regards to claim 2, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the first position is relative to the object, and wherein the second position is relative to the leader drone”
Yang paragraph [0098] and Figure 7 teaches According to the present embodiment, as illustrated in FIG. 7, the first robot 30 follows the object 10, and the second robot 50 equipped with the third UWB communication module 52 and the third odometry measurement device 54 may follow the first robot. Yang paragraph [0045] teaches a robot includes any movable mechanical device that automatically adjusts movement thereof according to a movement of an object in order to follow the object. The robot may include a drone. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim in view of Yang to have included the features of “wherein the first position is relative to the object, and wherein the second position is relative to the leader drone” because there is a need for a method in which robots may effectively follow an object while overcoming the disadvantages of the existing UWB anchor and tag-based user-following robots (Yang [0007]).
In regards to claim 3, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the second position is relative to the leader drone based on a distance of the first follower drone from the leader drone or based on an angle between the first follower drone and the leader drone”
Yang Figure 7. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim in view of Yang to have included the features of “wherein the second position is relative to the leader drone based on a distance of the first follower drone from the leader drone or based on an angle between the first follower drone and the leader drone” because there is a need for a method in which robots may effectively follow an object while overcoming the disadvantages of the existing UWB anchor and tag-based user-following robots (Yang [0007]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecocke in view of Venkatesh in view of Nakamura in view of Kim in view of Brusilovsky et al. US 10,013,763 hereinafter referred to as Bialosky.
In regards to claim 12, Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach:
“further comprising further stitching together the first video and the second video based on first timestamps in the first video and second timestamps in the second video”
Brusilovsky column 9 lines 45-48 teach The server 112 may determine if timestamps associated with the first video data overlap timestamps associated with the second video data prior to association or during the stitching process. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Lecocke/Venkatesh/Nakamura/Kim in view of Brusilovsky to have included the features of “further comprising further stitching together the first video and the second video based on first timestamps in the first video and second timestamps in the second video” because to improve a vertical field of view, devices, systems and methods are disclosed that generate output video data by stitching video data from multiple image capture devices (Brusilovsky column 2 lines 7-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, the Applicant’s amendment includes the majority of the same wording as original claim 14, however, the placement of the wording and not requiring “further instructing” steps significantly change the scope of the originally claimed invention. For example, claim 14 as originally filed never required wirelessly transmitting a first instruction for a leader drone in a drone swarm to move to a first position. Claim 14 originally required “further instructing the leader drone…” The Examiner interprets that because of the term “further” claim 14 would require a different additional instructing step beyond the instructing step “to move to a first position.” However, claim 1 as currently written does not require a step of further instructing, it merely requires a specific way of transmitting the same instruction. As further evidence, claim 14 requires this “further” step of instructing to be a first instruction. However, claim 14 as originally filed never ties together that the first instruction is “instructing … to move to a first position”. The antecedent basis of “a first position” means that this is the first time the element is being introduced. Therefore, “a first instruction” must be a new instruction in this “further instructing” step. However, claim 1 as written does not require a new instructing step, it only requires the original step of instructing … to move to a first position. Therefore, since no “further instructing” steps are required by claim 1 as were required by original claim 14, the newly submitted amendments significantly change the scope of original claim 14 and are not merely the result of adding claim 14 into claim 1. If Applicant is of a different opinion and feels they are of equivalent scope, the Examiner will require claim 14 to be written into claim 1 by adding the exact same language of claim 14 at the end of originally filed claim 1 without parsing claim 14 into different portions of original claim 1.
Similar arguments can be made for the second, third and fourth instructions.
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 MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422