Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/903,302

CONTROL DEVICE, IMAGING DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, IMAGING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 01, 2024
Examiner
LANG, MICHAEL DEAN
Art Unit
3667
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 752 resolved
+35.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
764
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§102
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 752 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. 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(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderhirn et al. (2014/0168420) in view of Arbeit et al. (2015/0066248). Regarding claim 1: Naderhirn discloses a method performed by a controller, the method comprising: determining flight information for a flying imaging device including a flight path including at least altitude information and setting information for a camera, based on a specified area including a flight start position and a flight end position for map data including an inspection target (Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0017-0019, Wherein GPS includes map data); controlling flight of the flying imaging device based on the flight path (Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0017-0019, 0026); and controlling stoppage of a flight and transitions to a hovering state, or controlling return to a base station (Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0017-0019, 0026, Hovering state). Naderhirn fails to explicitly disclose controlling presentation of the flight path on the map data based on the flight information. However, Arbeit discloses a similar method performed by a controller and further discloses controlling presentation of the flight path on the map data based on the flight information (Paragraph 0049. Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the method of Naderhirn in view oof Arbeit in order to improve the ease the difficulty of controlling the UAV. Regarding claim 2: Naderhirn further discloses wherein the setting information for the camera is an imaging direction of the camera (Paragraph 0018). Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, Naderhirn in view of Arbeit discloses the claimed invention and Arbeit further discloses displaying the flight path of the flying imaging device on a display (Paragraph 0049). See claim 1 above for obviousness and motivation to combine. Regarding claims 4 and 5: Naderhirn discloses wherein the inspection target is a structure (Paragraph 0002). Regarding claim 6: Naderhirn discloses determining position information of the flying imaging device based on information from at least one of a vision sensor or GPS information (Paragraph 0019). Regarding claim 7: Naderhirn discloses controlling a display of information on a general condition of the structure based on position information related to the structure (Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0017). Regarding claim 8: Naderhirn discloses wherein the altitude information is a relative height from a reference location (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9: Naderhirn discloses wherein the reference location is the base station (Fig. 2, wherein the earth is shown as the base station). Regarding claims 11-20: these claims contain the same features and limitations as claims 1-9 above and are therefore rejected under the same basis and rationale. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naderhirn in view of Arbeit in further view of Rix. (2013/0168498) Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, Naderhirn in view of Arbeit discloses the claimed invention except controlling the flying imaging device to use a flash when capturing an image. However, Rix discloses a similar flying imaging device and further discloses controlling the flying imaging device to use a flash when capturing an image (Paragraph 0361). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the flying imaging device of Naderhirn in view of Arbeit further in view of Rix in order to improve image quality. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm. 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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 D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 01, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597295
PROVIDING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582027
Vegetation Monitoring Device, Vegetation Monitoring System and Vegetation Monitoring Method for Monitoring Vegetation Health in a Garden
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577757
CONSTRUCTION MACHINE, CONSTRUCTION MACHINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND MACHINE LEARNING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565102
IMAGE ADJUSTING METHOD FOR A VEHICLE AND A VEHICLE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552369
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, MOVABLE APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+5.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 752 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month