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
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/28/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/28/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Specification Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the amendments to the specification have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Objections: The objections are withdrawn, as the amendments to the claims have properly addressed the informalities recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b): The rejections of claims for being indefinite are withdrawn, as the amended claim 12 has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant alleges that the features of amended claims improve “the functioning of a drone display system by enabling a drone to dynamically adjust a pre-planned flight path in real time based on movement of a moving platform, thereby maintaining a coordinated visual display relative to the moving platform” (See Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/28/2026 at pg. 13, ln. 1-9). However, the alleged improvement requires the drones to be controlled based on the adjusted flight path. Examiner notes that the claims do not provide a nexus between the adjusted flight path and the drone control, and thus do not provide the alleged improvement of the functioning of the drone display system.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite monitoring a position of a drone and a moving platform position and adjusting a flight path.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claims 1 and 13 falls into at least one of the enumerated categories of apparatuses. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 pass step 1.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, the claimed invention of claims 1 and 13 is directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of an abstract idea. The claimed invention of claims 1 and 13 is directed to apparatuses that obtain position information and adjust the flight path (i.e., flight path planning) based on the position information which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper with visual observation. For example, a human mind can “monitor a position of the drone and a moving platform position” with visual inspection. The mere nominal recitation of processors, a position monitor, or a position monitoring system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 13 recite “one or more processors configured to control the vehicle drive component to fly the drone on a pre-planned flight path” in claim 1 and “each of the plurality of drones is configured to dynamically adjust its respective pre-planned drone flight path” and “the plurality of drones are configured to launch from the moving platform” in claim 13. The limitations are recited at a high-level of generality which do not specify how the obtained information is used to control the drone(s). Further, the limitations of claims 1 and 13 do not require the drones to fly along the flight path. Rather, the limitations may include adjusting the flight path as data. Accordingly, this limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations of claims 1 and 13 merely provide the capability of drone flight control. Examiner notes that the claims do not provide a nexus between the adjusted flight path and the drone control. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biriuk et al. (US 2023/0373655 A1, hereinafter “Biriuk”) in view of Mei et al. (US 2022/0011785 A1, hereinafter “Mei”) further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2025/0336318 A1, hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 13, Biriuk discloses a system for a visual drone display, comprising:
a plurality of drones configured to collectively form a coordinated visual display (Biriuk at para. [0029]: “the system 100 employs a plurality of UAVs 102 for conducting the omnidirectional light show”);
a flight system that provides a pre-planned drone flight path to each drone of the plurality of drones for forming the coordinated visual display (Biriuk at para. [0031]: “The system 100 further comprises a Ground Control Station (GCS) 106 that is communicatively coupled to the UAV 102 and is configured to transmit at least one flight program and at least one light program”); and
a position monitoring system (Biriuk at para. [0033]: “the observer (airplane, helicopter, floor of a skyscraper)”; para. [0034]: “the data associated with the varying position of the observer is fed to the LED light control unit 108 by the GCS 106 in real time”), wherein each the plurality of drones is configured to (Biriuk at para. [0034]: “the LED light control unit 108 to control the intensity and direction of glow of the LEDs 104A to ensure that the moving observer has the best possible view of the required indication or light show”; para. [0046]: “when the light program and flight program are in synchrony, this brightness can be reduced as the distance between the observer and the UAVs 102 is reduced. For such synchronization, the real time tracking of the geopositions of the UAVs 102 and the observer is required”).
However, Biriuk does not explicitly state:
a position monitoring system located on a moving platform,
dynamically adjust its respective pre-planned drone flight path based on the periodic position updates,
wherein the plurality of drones are configured to launch from the moving platform while at a first location and to land on the moving platform while at a second location that is different than the first location and is unknown prior to the launch from the moving platform.
Nevertheless, Biriuk at least suggests the idea of dynamically adjusting the light program, which is synchronized with the flight program, based on the observer position (Biriuk at para. [0034], [0046]).
In the same field of endeavor, Mei teaches:
a position monitoring system located on a moving platform (Mei at para. [0016]: “a moving base following mode, in which the moving base station sends inertial navigation velocity and inertial navigation position of the moving base platform to the UAV through a data transmission channel”),
wherein the plurality of drones are configured to launch from the moving platform while at a first location (Mei at para. [0010]: “the UAV control method based on a moving base provided by the present disclosure includes a takeoff process, a following process, and a landing process, wherein the takeoff process includes the following steps: unlocking the UAV, and detecting the current horizontal position of the UAV in the horizontal direction and the current altitude of the UAV in the vertical direction; determining whether the current horizontal position and the current altitude meet takeoff criteria, and controlling the UAV to bounce off and enter into a takeoff state if the determination result is positive; in the following process, the movement state of the moving base platform is collected by a moving base station, data is transmitted transparently with the UAV, and the UAV performs coordinated flight control of position and velocity loops after receiving the movement state of the moving base platform”) and to land on the moving platform while at a second location that is different than the first location and is unknown prior to the launch from the moving platform (Mei at para. [0010]: “in the landing process, the UAV carries out positioning and detection of the moving base platform, a return route is planned according to the real-time position of the moving base platform, the UAV is guided to return to a position above the moving base platform and fly synchronously, and the relative position of the UAV is controlled in the descending stage so that the UAV accurately lands on the moving base platform”; The real-time position (i.e., “second location”) of the moving base platform is unknown at the launch of the UAV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Biriuk by adding the position monitoring system of Mei with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Biriuk in view of Mei is to provide stable takeoff and accurate landing of a UAV on a moving platform.
However, Biriuk in view of Mei does not explicitly state:
dynamically adjust its respective pre-planned drone flight path based on the periodic position updates.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches:
dynamically adjust its respective pre-planned drone flight path based on the periodic position updates (Matsumoto at para. [0094]: “The drone control unit 110 may specify a target person using a camera or the like, and control the drone formation DF so as to follow the target person while changing the angle of the display surface”; para. [0098]: “the control apparatus 100 (the drone control unit 110) transmits, to the drone formation DF, the specified position to which the drone formation DF moves (S1). Each of the drones is configured so that it can position itself based on the altitude of the drone D11 (the reference drone)”; para. [0099]: “when the drone formation DF arrives at the specified position, the drones D in the drone formation DF are orderly arranged so that they form a display formation (S3)”; para. [0111]: “in the control system 200, each of the drones can specify a target person by using a camera, an infrared sensor, or the like, and then can change the angle of the display surface and follow the target person, so that information can be continuously displayed to the target person”; The initial specified drone formation position (i.e., “pre-planned drone flight path”) is dynamically adjusted based on the target location to follow the target).
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 Briuk in view of Mei by adding dynamically adjusting its respective pre-planned drone flight path of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Biriuk in view of Mei further in view of Matsumoto is to provide targeted display of an image to a target person by a plurality of drones.
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2019/0041872 A1, hereinafter “Lang”) in view of Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 14, Lang discloses a method for adjusting a flight path at a drone, comprising:
launching the drone from a first location in accordance with an initial flight path that provides for movement of the drone relative to a viewing area as part of a coordinated visual display formed with a plurality of other drones (Lang at para. [0061]: “processors 102p may be configured, for example, to provide a flight path based at least on an actual position of the UAV 206 and a desired target position ( e.g., the position of the at least one stationary sensor 204) for the UAV 206”; para. [0074]: “the landing sequence may be configured to return the UAV 206 to a predefined position (also referred as to return-home configuration). The predefined position may be, for example, any position within the geo-fenced region, e.g., within the geolocation-based geo-fence, as described later. Additionally or alternatively, the predefined position may be a position in fixed relation to the radiation source 204”; para. [0085]: “the one or more than one UAV 206 may be configured to perform a light show sequence, e.g., synchronized to each other”; para. [0086]: “Illustratively, the protected region 606 may include fragile living objects, for example, an audience”; para. [0108]: “the protected region 606 may be disposed between at least two beams 202 and/or at least two radiation sources 204 of the plurality of radiation sources 204”);
monitoring a current location of the drone relative to the initial flight path while following the initial flight path by controlling a vehicle drive component of the drone to provide a portion of the coordinated visual display formed with the plurality of other drones (Lang at para. [0064]: “The UAV 206 may further include a position detection system 102g. The position detection system 102g may be based, for example, on Global Positioning System (GPS) or any other available positioning system. Therefore, the one or more processors 102p may be further configured to modify the flight path of the UAV 206 based on data obtained from the position detection system 102g”).
However, Biriuk does not explicitly state:
receiving an update to a real-time location of one or more of the viewing area or the first location;
modifying the initial flight path based at least in part on a positional offset from the initial flight path that is based on the current location of the drone and the update to the real-time location to generate a modified flight path; and
following the modified flight path by controlling the vehicle drive component of the drone while continuing to provide the portion of the coordinated visual display.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches:
receiving an update to a real-time location of one or more of the viewing area or the first location (Matsumoto at para. [0076]: “The information acquisition unit 101 may acquire position information of a target person from each of the drones”; The position of the target person corresponds to the “viewing area” since the target person is the audience of the display);
modifying the initial flight path based at least in part on a positional offset from the initial flight path that is based on the current location of the drone and the update to the real-time location to generate a modified flight path (Matsumoto at para. [0077]: “a position shifted by a predetermined distance from the current position of the drone may be calculated as the corrected position”; para. [0094]: “The drone control unit 110 may specify a target person using a camera or the like, and control the drone formation DF so as to follow the target person while changing the angle of the display surface”; para. [0098]: “the control apparatus 100 (the drone control unit 110) transmits, to the drone formation DF, the specified position to which the drone formation DF moves (S1). Each of the drones is configured so that it can position itself based on the altitude of the drone D11 (the reference drone)”; para. [0099]: “when the drone formation DF arrives at the specified position, the drones D in the drone formation DF are orderly arranged so that they form a display formation (S3)”; para. [0111]: “in the control system 200, each of the drones can specify a target person by using a camera, an infrared sensor, or the like, and then can change the angle of the display surface and follow the target person, so that information can be continuously displayed to the target person”; The initial specified drone formation position (i.e., “the initial flight path”) is modified based at least in part on the position shifted by the predetermined distance from the current position (i.e., “positional offset from the initial flight path that is based on the current location of the drone”) and the target person position (i.e., “the update to the real-time location”)); and
following the modified flight path by controlling the vehicle drive component of the drone while continuing to provide the portion of the coordinated visual display (Matsumoto at para. [0111]: “in the control system 200, each of the drones can specify a target person by using a camera, an infrared sensor, or the like, and then can change the angle of the display surface and follow the target person, so that information can be continuously displayed to the target person”).
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 method of Lang by adding receiving the update of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto is to provide targeted display of an image to a target person by a plurality of drones.
Regarding claim 15, Lang in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 14.
Lang further discloses further comprising:
determining a landing location based at least in part on the modified flight path and one or more additional updates to the real-time location of one or more of the viewing area or the first location; and landing at the landing location (Lang at para. [0074]: “the landing sequence may be configured to return the UAV 206 to a predefined position (also referred as to return-home configuration). The predefined position may be, for example, any position within the geo-fenced region, e.g., within the geolocation-based geo-fence, as described later. Additionally or alternatively, the predefined position may be a position in fixed relation to the radiation source 204”; Since the UAV is returning to the predefined position, the UAV is returning to the predefined position where it is launched from).
Regarding claim 17, Lang in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 14.
Matsumoto further teaches wherein:
the first location is on a moving platform, the viewing area is a moving viewing area, a landing location is on the moving platform, or any combinations thereof (Matsumoto at para. [0069]: “The flight control unit 12 may control the flight of the drone D so as to follow a target person extracted by the image processing unit 11”; para. [0072]: “The display direction control unit 14 may control the direction in which the display panel 20 performs display so that the display panel 20 faces in the direction of a target person specified by the image processing unit 11”; Since the drones with display panels follows the target person who views the display panels, the viewing area (i.e., “moving viewing area”) moves to follow the target person).
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 method of Lang by adding the moving viewing area of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto is to provide targeted display of an image to a target person by a plurality of drones.
Regarding claim 20, Lang in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 14.
Lang further discloses wherein:
the first location is a stationary location away from the viewing area, and an initial position of the viewing area corresponds to a position of the viewing area when the drone launches, and a landing location of the drone is at a second location away from the viewing area (Lang at para. [0074]: “the landing sequence may be configured to return the UAV 206 to a predefined position (also referred as to return-home configuration). The predefined position may be, for example, any position within the geo-fenced region, e.g., within the geolocation-based geo-fence, as described later. Additionally or alternatively, the predefined position may be a position in fixed relation to the radiation source 204”; Since the UAV is returning to the predefined position, which may be any position within the geo-fenced region, the UAV launches from the predefined position (i.e., “stationary location away from the viewing area”) and lands onto any location within the geo-fenced region (i.e., “second location away from the viewing area”)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Qian et al. (US 2019/0096069 A1, hereinafter “Qian”).
Regarding claim 16, Lang in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 14.
However, Lang in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly state wherein the modifying the initial flight path comprises:
providing the update to the real-time location of one or more of the viewing area or the first location to a Kalman filter;
obtaining, from the Kalman filter, an estimated current position of the one or more of the viewing area or the first location; and
determining a difference between the estimated current position and a corresponding planned position from the initial flight path; and
modifying the initial flight path to provide an offset to remaining planned positions from the initial flight path to generate the modified flight path.
In the same field of endeavor, Qian teaches wherein the modifying the initial flight path comprises:
providing the update to the real-time location of one or more of the viewing area or the first location to a Kalman filter (Qian at para. [0006]: “A target object may also be defined based on predetermined features (e.g., color, structure, salient features, etc.) and/or by modeling (e.g., object class). After a target object has been defined, movement of the features and/or model may be detected and calculated in real-time as the target object moves”; para. [0217]: “the feedback control systems of FIGS. 9, 12, 14, and 18, and 20 may comprise one or more filters for filtering the image data” “the filters may include a Kalman filter”);
obtaining, from the Kalman filter, an estimated current position of the one or more of the viewing area or the first location (Qian at para. [0217]: “the feedback control systems of FIGS. 9, 12, 14, and 18, and 20 may comprise one or more filters for filtering the image data” “the filters may include a Kalman filter”); and
determining a difference between the estimated current position and a corresponding planned position from the initial flight path (Qian at para. [0217]: “The one or more filters may be applied to compensate for the offset between the first bounding box and an image of the target object in the first image frame, and/or the offset between the second bounding box and an image of the target object in the second image frame”); and
modifying the initial flight path to provide an offset to remaining planned positions from the initial flight path to generate the modified flight path (Qian at para. [0136]: “The image analyzer may provide the change in position ( offset distance) of the bounding box to the motion controller 550. As previously mentioned, the change in position ( offset distance) of the bounding box may be generated due to: (1) relative translational motion between the tracking device and the target object along a direction orthogonal to an optical axis, and/or (2) relative rotational motion between the tracking device and the target object about a yaw, roll, and/or pitch axis of the tracking device. The motion controller may be configured to control relative movement between the tracking device and the target object based on the offset distance”).
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 method of Lang in view of Matsumoto by adding the Kalman filter of Qian with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Qian is to provide automated tracking of a moving object by UAVs.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Mei.
Regarding claim 18, Lang in view of Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 14.
However, Lang in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly state wherein:
the initial flight path includes a landing location that is associated with the first location or the viewing area, and wherein a modified landing location is unknown at the launch of the drone from the first location.
In the same field of endeavor, Mei teaches wherein:
the initial flight path includes a landing location that is associated with the first location or the viewing area, and wherein a modified landing location is unknown at the launch of the drone from the first location. (Mei at para. [0010]: “in the landing process, the UAV carries out positioning and detection of the moving base platform, a return route is planned according to the real-time position of the moving base platform, the UAV is guided to return to a position above the moving base platform and fly synchronously, and the relative position of the UAV is controlled in the descending stage so that the UAV accurately lands on the moving base platform”; The real-time position (i.e., “modified landing location”) of the moving base platform is unknown at the launch of the UAV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto by adding the modified landing location of Mei with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Mei is to provide accurate landing of a UAV on a moving platform.
Regarding claim 19, Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Mei teaches the method of claim 18.
Mei further teaches wherein: the first location and the landing location are a same area on a moving platform (Mei at para. [0077]: “An infrared indicator is installed at the UAV landing spot on the moving base platform 8, an infrared visual sensor is installed at the onboard terminal of the UAV, the orientations α and β of the infrared indicator are acquired by the infrared visual sensor, and a ranging radar at the onboard terminal of the UAV is coaxial with the infrared camera for measuring the distance L between the infrared camera and the moving base platform 8 and calculating the relative position X, Y of the landing spot of the UAV”; The infrared indicator provide the same area on the moving platform for the UAV to take off and land).
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 method of Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Mei by adding the same area on the moving platform of Mei with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Lang in view of Matsumoto further in view of Mei is to provide stable takeoff and accurate landing of a UAV on a moving platform.
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights