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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This is the initial Office Action based on the application filed on October 28, 2024. The Examiner acknowledges the following:
3. Claims 1 – 23 were filed by Applicant.
4. The specification, page 1, was amended as to include the cross reference and its foreign priority.
5. The Abstract was amended to be written as one paragraph.
6. The drawings filed on 10/28/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
7. Current claims 1 – 23 are pending and they are being considered for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The IDS document filed on filed on 10/28/2024 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Priority
9. Priority data is based on a PCT/JP patent application PCT/JP2023/017719 with date of 05/11/2023, which refers to a previous Japanese application JP2022-081883, with priority date of05/18/2022. Certified copies were filed to the office on 10/28/2024.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
1. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
2. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
3. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user input unit”, “a processing unit”, “a display unit and “a receiving unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 22:
“A computer program for causing a computer to execute the steps of: placing a virtual camera in a virtual environment space …” as recited in claim 22, is merely a set of instructions capable of being implemented by a microcomputer/ processor inside of a camera. However, by itself without being encoded onto a computer-readable medium is not realizable. Hence, claim 22 contains merely non-statutory functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2106.01 (I), last paragraph.
Applicant should notice that it is inherent to digital cameras or a device including a camera to have a computer program that dictates the operations of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. The prior/related art (Wang et al., US 2015/0142213 A1) teaches a method for remotely controlling positioning of a payload supported by a carrier on a movable object, said method comprising: receiving, at a receiver positioned on the carrier or the movable object, a signal from a sensor indicative of an attitude of a terminal, said terminal being remote relative to the payload; determining whether the attitude of the terminal falls within a predetermined angle range; and varying and/or maintaining a rotational attribute of the payload in response to the signal indicative of the attitude of the terminal, wherein the attitude of the terminal controls a first rotational attribute of the payload when the attitude of the terminal falls within the predetermined range, and wherein the attitude of the terminal controls a second rotational attribute of the payload when the attitude of the terminal falls outside the predetermined range, wherein the first rotational attribute comprises a rotational position, wherein the second rotational attribute comprises a rotational speed, wherein the terminal is a handheld device, wherein the terminal comprises a display showing a user interface with a range of angles and a visual indicator of the attitude of the terminal within the range of angles and the method, further comprising displaying, on the user interface, a subset of the range of angles in a visually discernible manner as the predetermined range, wherein the range of angles is displayed as a slider bar and the visual indicator is positioned within the slider bar and wherein the movable object is an unmanned aerial vehicle, and wherein the payload is an image capturing device. Fig 1 shows a schematic diagram of the remote-control method for controlling a position of a payload. It includes an aircraft 102, used as an example of a movable object. Fig 1 shows a handheld terminal 101, which may be used to control signal 106. It may be a smartphone, a tablet, or the like. The terminal may generate and transmit a signal, wherein the signals may be indicative of a state of the terminal or an input from the user. It may be equipped with position sensors. The aircraft 102 and/or carrier 103 also comprises a state sensor to measure the state of the aircraft 102 and/or carrier 103 and it may measure the position, orientation and movement of the aircraft/carrier. The aircraft 102 may be a multi-rotor helicopter or the like and may be equipped with a carrier and a payload such as a camera 105, which can capture images. The display device 104 may be integrated as part of the device or images may be displayed on the terminal. As an example of payload 105 with respect to the carrier can be the focal length of the camera. Accordingly, the camera’s view part zoom in and out may corresponding to the change of the camera’s digital/optical zoom. Additionally, the camera my be movable in one or more axes such as rotation in some of the axes. Screens on the terminal can serve as image-display device 104. Accordingly, feedback signals 107 from the camera can be transmitted back to the terminal.
Claims 1 – 21 and 23 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or to fairly suggest:
Regarding claim 1:
The prior art fails to teach or to fairly suggest: An information processing device comprising: “placing a virtual camera in a virtual environment space obtained by modeling a target environment in which a mobile object equipped with a shooting camera is allowed to move, the virtual camera being associated with the shooting camera; determining a virtual focus region in the virtual environment space on a basis of an image corresponding to a field range of the virtual camera, the virtual focus region corresponding to a region focused by the shooting camera in the target environment; and displaying region-specific information on a display screen, the region-specific information specifying the virtual focus region”.
Regarding claim 21:
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: An information processing device comprising: “a processing unit that places a virtual camera in a virtual environment space obtained by modeling a target environment in which a mobile object equipped with a shooting camera is allowed to move, the virtual camera being associated with the shooting camera, the processing unit determining a virtual focus region in the virtual environment space on a basis of an image corresponding to a field range of the virtual camera, the virtual focus region corresponding to a region focused by the shooting camera in the target environment; and a display unit that displays region-specific information on a display screen, the region-specific information specifying the virtual focus region”.
Regarding claim 23:
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: A communication system comprising a mobile object that is movable in a target environment and is equipped with a shooting camera; and an operating device that operates the mobile object, wherein the operating device includes: a virtual environment space obtained by modeling the target environment; a receiving unit that receives information allowing a position to be specified in the virtual environment space, the position corresponding to the position of the shooting camera; a processing unit that places a virtual camera at the position indicated by the information and determines a virtual focus region corresponding to a region focused by the shooting camera, in the virtual environment space on a basis of an image corresponding to the field range of the virtual camera; and a display unit that displays region-specific information specifying the virtual focus region.
Conclusion
13. The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure;
1. T. Wang et al., US 2022/0350330 A1 – it teaches a method of controlling a payload supported by a carrier on a vehicle, the method comprising: displaying, on a user interface of a terminal, at least one visual selector that causes a rotation control of the payload to be turned on or off, the rotation control controlling the payload to rotate with respect to at least one of a plurality of rotational axes of the payload; detecting, by a sensor of the terminal, an attitude of the terminal with respect to a plurality of rotational axes of the terminal; and displaying, on the user interface of the terminal, a plurality of attitude range indicators corresponding to the plurality of rotational axes of the payload, each of the plurality of attitude range indicators including a visual indicator indicating the detected attitude of the terminal with respect to a corresponding one of the plurality of rotational axes of the terminal, wherein the plurality of rotational axes of the terminal include at least one of a pitch axis, a yaw axis, or a roll axis of the terminal, and the plurality of rotational axes of the payload include at least one of a pitch axis, a yaw axis, or a roll axis of the payload.
2. T. Wang et al., US 2015/0142213 A1 – it teaches a remote control method and apparatus for controlling the state of a movable object and/or a load carried thereon. The remote-control method comprising: receiving, via an apparatus, a state signal that corresponds to a user's position; remote-controlling the state of the load being carried on a movable object based on the state signal; wherein the state of the load is the result of combining the movement of the load relative to the movable object and the movement of the object relative to its environment. For example, the control of the state can be achieved through the state of the apparatus itself, a user's state captured by an apparatus, a graphical interface on a screen of an apparatus, or a voice command.
Contact
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLY S.B. CAMARGO whose telephone number is (571)270-3729. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lin Ye can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MARLY S CAMARGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638