DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. This communication is a Final Office Action, in response to the communication received on 07/02/2026. The amendments of claims 21-24, 26, 35 and 36 are acknowledged. Therefore, Claims 21-40 are pending and have been considered below.
Specification
3. The amendment filed 07-02-2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C.132 (a) and MPEP 608.04(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. The 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraphs ([0076]-[0081]).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments bridging Page 1, 4th paragraph to Page 3, 4th paragraph, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position in that “Applicant respectfully submits, however, that the combination of Soll, Miller, and Weng has not been shown to suggest the claimed subject matter as a whole as presented herein. In the Office Action, while it is acknowledged that Soil fails to disclose the
"recognizing," "interpreting," or "correlating" elements of the "method" recited in independent claim 21, Miller and Weng are relied upon for disclosure of that concept” It is still the Examiner’s position that Soll has teachings of “recognizing element ” ([0018]) and Miller and Weng teachings of : “interpreting," or "correlating" elements of the "method" ,See (Miller : [0029], [0030]), and Weng : ([0027], [0039], [0045], [0050]).
For at least the above reasons, the rejection of claims is believed to be proper and is hereby maintained and repeated as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 21-24, and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soll et al. (USP 2016/0054737) in view of Miller et al. ( USP 2011/0279384) in view of Weng et al. (USP 2012/0105613).
As Per claim 21, Soll et al. (Soll) teaches, a method (via performed by a drone enabled video recording system Fig.1, [0018]) for controlling an aerial vehicle (via 103, Fig.1), the method comprising: capturing an image of a user ( via 101, Fig.1) using an image sensor ( via camera , object tracker 850, Fig.8) through recording the user, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]); in the aerial vehicle (via103); recognizing a visual gesture from the user based on the image; ( via recognizing the visual gesture of the moving object 101 through video being recorded by the drone attached camera, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity.”, [0018], Fig.1).
However, Soll does not explicitly teach, interpreting the visual gesture from the user; and correlating the visual gesture to an action to be performed by the aerial vehicle.
In an analogous art, Miller et al. (Miller) teaches, a mobile device 200 for automatically deriving touch gestures for related action, the mobile device 200 being equipped with a touch gesture receiver 202, a gesture definition module 210, a gesture database 212 and a gesture interpretation module 214, [0029].“a user may define a touch gesture associated with an action in mobile application modules 216 using gesture definition module 210…Once the user-defined gesture is created, a user may input a variation of the gesture, having a different direction, size, or position, on touch receiver 202. Gesture interpretation module 214 may recognize that the user has input a variation of the user-defined gesture by comparing the inputted gesture data with the data stored in gesture database 212”, [0030], Fig.2).
In a related field of Art, Weng et al. (Weng) teaches, an in-car hand gesture recognition system , comprising a gesture capturing module 16 (camera), gesture recognition module 18, gesture confirmation module 20, communication module 22 etc. Fig.1, [0037]). An in-car video acquisition system being mounted of the vehicle capturing video sequences of hand gesture [0039] and applying real-time algorithm to interprets the gesture and using the gesture interpretation as an input for the in-car command system ([0039][0045])…”gesturing capturing module 16 interpreting the user's gestures until confirmation module 20 receives confirmation that it recognized the gesture correctly (i.e., as the user intended). After receiving confirmation of correct recognition of the user's gesture, confirmation module 20 may then forward the recognized gesture to a vehicle system, such as navigation system 30”,[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll, Miller and Weng before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings (the mobile modules: the gesture definition module 210, the gesture database 212, and the gesture interpretation module 214 etc.) of Miller and in-car hand gesture recognition teachings (gesture recognition module 18, gesture confirmation module 20, communication module 22 etc.) of Weng and configure with the controller of the drone of Soll in order to when UAV is hovering and video recording the visual gesture of the user, recognizing the visual gestures from the video (images), interpreting the images; using gesture interpretation module (of Miller), and using gesture recognition module 18, gesture confirmation module 20, communication module 22 (of Weng) for interpreting the gesture and forwarding the recognized gesture to drone controller to control drone operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control aerial vehicle navigation based on user gesture interpretation( i.e., user recovery) .
As per Claim 22, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein recognizing the visual gesture from the user ( Soll : from video recording [0018], Fig.1) includes capturing depth information including the user. ( Miller : [0029], [0030]), Weng : “confirmation module 20 may use other modalities (visual, pushbutton, gesture, etc.) for seeking user confirmation as well.”, [0050], also see [0037], [0039]). ( See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 23, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein recognizing the visual gesture from the user ( Soll : [0018], Fig.1) includes analyzing patterns, a position of the user, movements of the user, or parts of a body of the user. ( Weng : “movement of a human hand”, [0061]). Weng : “confirmation module 20 may use other modalities (visual, pushbutton, gesture, etc.) for seeking user confirmation as well.”, [0050],(See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 24, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein correlating the visual gesture ( Soll : being obtained from video recording of drone camera [0018], Fig.1) to the action includes altering one or more aspects of the image sensor. ( Miller : [0029], [0030], Weng : “confirmation module 20 may use other modalities (visual, pushbutton, gesture, etc.) for seeking user confirmation as well.”, [0050], also see [0037], [0039]). ( See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 26, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein correlating the visual gesture ( Soll : being obtained from video recording of drone camera [0018], Fig.1) to the action includes repositioning the aerial vehicle .(Weng :via ”gesturing capturing module 16 interpreting the user's gestures until confirmation module 20 receives confirmation that it recognized the gesture correctly (i.e., as the user intended). After receiving confirmation of correct recognition of the user's gesture, confirmation module 20 may then forward the recognized gesture to a vehicle system, such as navigation system 30”,..“confirmation module 20 may use other modalities (visual, pushbutton, gesture, etc.) for seeking user confirmation as well.”, [0050]), ( See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 27, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein repositioning the aerial vehicle includes altering an altitude of the aerial vehicle. (Weng : ”gesturing capturing module 16 interpreting the user's gestures until confirmation module 20 receives confirmation that it recognized the gesture correctly (i.e., as the user intended). After receiving confirmation of correct recognition of the user's gesture, confirmation module 20 may then forward the recognized gesture to a vehicle system, such as navigation system 30”,[0050]). ( See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 28, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein repositioning the aerial vehicle includes adjusting distance between the aerial vehicle and the user. (Weng : ”gesturing capturing module 16 interpreting the user's gestures until confirmation module 20 receives confirmation that it recognized the gesture correctly (i.e., as the user intended). After receiving confirmation of correct recognition of the user's gesture, confirmation module 20 may then forward the recognized gesture to a vehicle system, such as navigation system 30”,[0050]). ( See rationale supporting obviousness and motivation to combine, of claim 1 above).
As per Claim 29, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 26. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, wherein repositioning the aerial vehicle includes tracking an object or a person identified by the user. (Soll : via camera , object tracker 850, Fig.8) through recording the user, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]).
As per Claim 30, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 29. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, capturing an image of the object or the person using the aerial vehicle; and creating multimedia content based on the image captured using the aerial vehicle. ( Soll : [0041], [0033], [0037]).
As per Claim 31, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, communicating an auditory command to the aerial vehicle; and repositioning the aerial vehicle based upon the auditory command. (Soll : “The wearable device 102 can also include a microphone (not shown in FIG. 2) which can record audio clips of the moving object. The audio clips can be used later in the process for automatic video editing.”;[0020]).. “the wearable device 102 can be configured to give a user insight into system status via audio output,”, [0022]).
As per Claim 32, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 21. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng teaches, repositioning the aerial vehicle based upon input from a user interface on a remote controller in communication with the aerial vehicle ( Soll : via “The wearable device 102 can also be configured to control the drone. For example, the wearable device can control the launch/land, flight route, and/or video recording of the drone”, [0018]). ..”the wearable device 102 can be configured to give a user the ability to control the drone via buttons”. [0022]).
7. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Soll et al. (USP 2016/0054737) in view of Miller et al. ( USP 2011/0279384) in view of Weng et al. (USP 2012/0105613), in view of Belsarkar (USP2014/0218612).
As per Claim 25, Soll as modified by Miller and Weng teaches the limitation of Claim 24. However, Soll in view of Miller and Weng does not teach, wherein altering the one or more aspects of the image sensor includes altering a field-of-view of the image sensor.
In a related field of Art, Belsarkar teaches, a systema and method for providing multiple field of view video streaming, wherein altering the one or more aspects of the image sensor includes altering a field-of-view of the image sensor (via system 10 includes, computing device 12 and image sensor 14 providing changing field of view (FOV), [0020], Figs. 1a-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll, Miller and Weng and Belsarkar before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings (system 10, image sensor 14) of Belsarkar and configure with the controller of Soll in order to image sensor monitors one or more areas of the user. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to have wider area surveillance around user (i.e., user recovery) .
8. Claims 33-36, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soll et al. (USP 2016/0054737) in view of Tran (USP 2013/0233916).
As Per claim 33, Soll et al. (Soll) teaches, a method (via performed by a drone enabled video recording system Fig.1, [0018] )for controlling an aerial vehicle ( via 103, Fig.1), the method comprising: projecting onto an object from the aerial vehicle; (via camera , object tracker 850, Fig.8) through recording the user, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]); in the aerial vehicle (via103).
However, Soll does not explicitly teach, projecting a detectible pattern onto an object from the aerial vehicle; recognizing the detectible pattern using a pattern recognition component in the aerial vehicle; and repositioning the aerial vehicle based upon recognition of the detectible pattern.
In a related field of Art, Tran teaches, projecting a detectible pattern onto an object from the aerial vehicle; recognizing the detectible pattern using a pattern recognition component in the aerial vehicle; and repositioning the aerial vehicle based upon recognition of the detectible pattern (via “a specific software scanning, reading and interpreting a QR code having user registration information”,[0024], ..”the specialized software on the electronic device used to capture the QR code having a predetermined format, can recognize and execute specific commands encoded within the QR code”. [0030], also see [0005], Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll and Tran before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings ( the software) of Tran and configure with the controller of Soll in order to scan, read and interpret the pattern recognition component (QR code) on the wearable device of the individual from the capture image, to analyze the information. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to retrieve the information of the individual and provide assistance (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the user).
As per Claim 34, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 33. However, Soll in view of Tran teaches, wherein repositioning the aerial vehicle includes tracking the object. (Soll : via “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]).
As per Claim 35, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 33. However, Soll in view of Tran teaches, producing the detectible pattern using the aerial vehicle. (Soll : via video recording : capturing and producing (displaying) detectable pattern , being captured from video recording of drone camera [0018], also see [0040-0041]).Fig.1).
As per Claim 36, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 35. However, Soll in view of Tran teaches, capturing an image of the object using the aerial vehicle; (Soll : via video recording : capturing and producing (displaying) detectable pattern , being captured from video recording of drone camera [0018], Fig.1); and creating multimedia content based on the image captured using the aerial vehicle. ( Soll : [0041], [0033], [0037]).
As Per claim 38, Soll et al. (Soll) teaches, a method (via performed by a drone enabled video recording system Fig.1, [0018]) for controlling an aerial vehicle( via 103, Fig.1), the method comprising: tracking the user. ( via camera , object tracker 850, Fig.8) through recording the user, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]); in the aerial vehicle (via103).
However, Soll does not explicitly teach, projecting a detectible pattern onto a user from the aerial vehicle; recognizing the detectible pattern using a pattern recognition component in the aerial vehicle.
In a related field of Art, Tran teaches, projecting a detectible pattern onto a user from the aerial vehicle; recognizing the detectible pattern using a pattern recognition component in the aerial vehicle(via “a specific software scanning, reading and interpreting a QR code having user registration information”,[0024], ..”the specialized software on the electronic device used to capture the QR code having a predetermined format, can recognize and execute specific commands encoded within the QR code”. [0030], also see [0005], Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll and Tran before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings ( the software) of Tran and configure with the controller of Soll in order to scan, read and interpret the pattern recognition component (QR code) on the wearable device of the individual from the capture image, to analyze the information. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to retrieve the information of the individual and provide assistance (i.e., an added feature to enhance safety of the user).
As per Claim 40, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 38. However, Soll in view of Tran teaches, transmitting flight control information to the aerial vehicle from a remote controller in communication with the aerial vehicle ( Soll : via “The wearable device 102 can also be configured to control the drone. For example, the wearable device can control the launch/land, flight route, and/or video recording of the drone”, [0018]). ..”the wearable device 102 can be configured to give a user the ability to control the drone via buttons”. [0022]).
9. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Soll et al. (USP 2016/0054737) in view of Tran (USP 2013/0233916) in view of Clark et al. (USP 7,460,148).
As per Claim 37, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 33. However, Soll in view of Tran does not explicitly teach, timestamping proximity of a user to the object.
In a related field of Art, Clark et al. ( Clark) teaches, a near real-time video (NRTV ) system comprising a server equipped with software , wherein, timestamping proximity of a user to the object (“The server component provides the capability to input unencrypted video in any analog or digital video format (NTSC, PAL, MPEG, etc.) from manned or unmanned video surveillance systems, such as the Predator UAV, digitize (encode and timestamp), capture frames at specified intervals encode and time stamp the frames, and store all data locally for an entire collection mission”, col.2, lines 57-64, also see col.1, lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll and Tran and Clark before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings ( the software of the server ) of Clark and configure with the controller of Soll in order to scan, read and interpret the pattern recognition component (QR code) on the wearable device . capture the video frames at a specific intervales, encode and time stamp the frames and store it. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to establish a definitive, unchangeable record of when a photo or video was captured ( i.e., an added feature record keeping).
10. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Soll et al. (USP 2016/0054737) in view of Tran (USP 2013/0233916) in view of Miller et al. ( USP 2011/0279384) in view of Weng et al. (USP 2012/0105613).
As per Claim 39, Soll as modified by Tran teaches the limitation of Claim 38. However, Soll in view of Tran teaches, capturing an image of the user using an image sensor (via camera , object tracker 850, Fig.8) through recording the user, “The drone 103 actively tracks the position of the moving object to keep the moving object in a frame of a camera attached to the drone such that a video of the moving object can be recorded during a sporting activity”, [0018]).[0040-0041]); in the aerial vehicle (via103).
However, Soll in view of Tran does not explicitly teach, interpreting a gesture from the user; and repositioning the aerial vehicle based upon the gesture.
In an analogous art, Miller et al. (Miller) teaches, a mobile device 200 for automatically deriving touch gestures for related action, the mobile device 200 being equipped with a touch gesture receiver 202, a gesture definition module 210, a gesture database 212 and a gesture interpretation module 214, [0029].“a user may define a touch gesture associated with an action in mobile application modules 216 using gesture definition module 210…Once the user-defined gesture is created, a user may input a variation of the gesture, having a different direction, size, or position, on touch receiver 202. Gesture interpretation module 214 may recognize that the user has input a variation of the user-defined gesture by comparing the inputted gesture data with the data stored in gesture database 212”, [0030], Fig.2).
In a related field of Art, Weng et al. ( Weng) teaches, an in-car hand gesture recognition system , comprising a gesture capturing module 16 (camera), gesture recognition module 18, gesture confirmation module 20, communication module 22 etc. Fig.1, [0037]). An in-car video acquisition system being mounted of the vehicle capturing video sequences of hand gesture [0039] and applying real-time algorithm to interprets the gesture and using the gesture interpretation as an input for the in-car command system ([0039][0045])…”gesturing capturing module 16 interpreting the user's gestures until confirmation module 20 receives confirmation that it recognized the gesture correctly (i.e., as the user intended). After receiving confirmation of correct recognition of the user's gesture, confirmation module 20 may then forward the recognized gesture to a vehicle system, such as navigation system 30”,[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Soll, Tran, Miller and Weng before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Soll to include the teachings (the mobile modules: gesture definition modules, gesture recognition modules gesture database) of Miller and in-car hand gesture recognition teachings (gesture recognition module , gesture confirmation module communication module) of Weng and configure with the controller of Soll in order to when UAV is hovering and video recording the user gesture, using different modules recognizing the hand gesture, interpreting the gesture and forwarding the recognized gesture to control aerial vehicle operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control / reposition aerial vehicle navigation based on user gesture interpretation( i.e., user recovery) .
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights