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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
There are two claims which have both been labeled “Claim 15” (Claims, filed 11/07/2024). Examiner will henceforth refer to the second “Claim 15” as “Claim 21” instead.
Claims 1-2 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “each having a respective video projectors” should instead read “each having a respective video projector”
In claim 2, “wherein hub device” should instead read “wherein the hub device”
In claim 14, “an area a computer game” should instead read “an area of a computer game”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 both recite the limitation "the ground" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0051224 (hereinafter “Marshall”).
Regarding Claim 12, Marshall discloses computer memory that is not a transitory signal and comprising instructions executable by at least one processor system (par. 0058: “a machine readable medium 822 that is non-transitory on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 824… the hardware processor 802 during execution thereof”) to:
control flight paths for plural drones over an area (par. 0019: “each drone may include one or more processing circuitries and memory circuitries to enable flight pattern and positioning of the drone;” par. 0029: “drones 206 and 208 self-align to place screens (interchangeably, tiles) 207 and 209 adjacent [to] each other. The drones may be further configured to maintain appropriate flight position, speed or other necessary flight attributes”); and
control video projection from the drones into the area (fig. 1; par. 0015: “media that the drone(s) project can be images, video, and/or audio;” par. 0029: “The drones may be further configured to maintain appropriate flight position, speed or other necessary flight attributes to maintain screens 207, 209 in proper formation”).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of US 2022/0288489 (hereinafter “Black”).
Regarding Claim 1, Marshall discloses a swarm of drones each having a respective video projector to project portions of a video onto an area when the swarm of drones overflies the area (par. 0027: “a swarm of drones… group of drones may project the signage;” par. 0016: “projector drones may be used to project onto the projection surface to display a desired signage. An exemplary projector (or projection) drone may comprise optical train and electronics necessary to project an image from the drone to a surface;” par. 0015: “media that the drone(s) project can be images, video, and/or audio;” par. 0029: “The drones may be further configured to maintain appropriate flight position, speed or other necessary flight attributes to maintain screens 207, 209 in proper formation”); and
at least one hub device configured for wireless communication with the drones to control the drones as they overfly the area (fig. 7; par. 0024: “the drones may receive information from other devices in the IoT network that provides pertinent information. An IoT device may include… wireless devices;” par. 0051: “a wireless communication system compatible with any of the IEEE communication standards including cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and Near-Field Communication (NFC). Wireless communication system 730 is shown with one or more antennas 732”).
Marshall does not explicitly disclose that the video/media being projected is from a computer game. However, Black discloses a drone having a video projector to project portions of a computer game onto an area (figs. 4, 11-12; par. 0006: “The device may include at least one projector on a drone for projecting the image;” par. 0035: “a computer game console that can be used to send computer game audio and video to the AVD 12”).
Marshall and Black are analogous arts because they both teach a drone(s) having a video projector to project a video or other similar media onto a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projection system employing a swarm of drones as disclosed by Marshall with the computer game projection of Black because a computer game is merely one type of media capable of being projected in such a manner and/or to enhance user enjoyment of playing such computer games (Back, abstract; figs. 4, 12).
Regarding Claim 2, Marshall modified by Black further discloses the hub device comprises a processor system configured to receive demanded video images from a game engine (see claim 1 above for combination of a projected computer game of Black with projected general media of Marshall; Black, par. 0023: “computer game networks… client components may include one or more computing devices including game consoles such as Sony PlayStation® or a game console made by Microsoft or Nintendo or other manufacturer… an operating environment according to present principles may be used to execute one or more computer game programs”) and send respective portions of the demanded video images to respective drones to project the respective portions (Marshall, par. 0016: “A projecting drone… may wirelessly receive the images;” figs. 1: each of drones 102, 104, 106, & 108 have received and are projecting different video images).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Marshall further discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to cause at least some of the portions to be projected by the drones into respective regions of the area that are contiguous to each other, the portions establishing at least one complete frame of computer game video (Marshall, fig. 1: portions 103 & 105 and 109 & 107 are projected adjacent/contiguous to each other, respectively, to form two complete images; par. 0019: “the drones are moved, tilted or otherwise positioned so as to stitch different portions of the signage so as to form a uniform (seamless) signage to the audience;” see claim 1 above for combination of computer game videos with the projection of contiguous videos forming a complete frame as disclosed by Marshall).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Marshall further discloses the portions have a same size and shape as each other (Marshall, figs. 1-2: portions 103 & 105 and 207 & 209 are of the same size and shape).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Marshall further discloses the portions do not have a same size and shape as each other (Marshall, fig. 1: portion 103 is smaller than portion 108).
Regarding Claim 7, Marshall modified by Black further discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to cause the drones to project their respective portions onto the ground (Black, par. 0039: “an image projector 206 on the drone 204. The projector 206 can project one or more images 208 onto the top surface 210 of the water 200… the image can propagate through the water to also appear at 212 on the bottom surface;” fig. 12: video/image 1210 projected onto ground).
It would have been obvious to further combine this projection feature of Black with the video projection of Marshall because Marshall already discloses that the video/image/media can be projected onto any planar surface (par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Marshall further discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to cause the drones to project their respective portions onto a vertical surface (Marshall, fig. 1: drones 102, 104, 106, 108 are projecting their portions onto a vertical surface, i.e., the side of a building; par. 0040: “An optimal surface may be a planar surface… buildings”).
Regarding Claim 14, Marshall discloses controlling flight paths of plural drones (par. 0058: “a machine readable medium 822 that is non-transitory on which is stored one or more sets of data structures or instructions 824… the hardware processor 802 during execution thereof”); and
controlling projection of video portions from the drones such that the drones together project into an area a video (fig. 1; par. 0015: “media that the drone(s) project can be images, video, and/or audio;” par. 0029: “The drones may be further configured to maintain appropriate flight position, speed or other necessary flight attributes to maintain screens 207, 209 in proper formation”).
Marshall does not explicitly disclose that the video/media being projected is from a computer game. However, Black discloses project into an area a computer game (figs. 4, 11-12; par. 0006: “The device may include at least one projector on a drone for projecting the image;” par. 0035: “a computer game console that can be used to send computer game audio and video to the AVD 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projection system employing a swarm of drones as disclosed by Marshall with the computer game projection of Black because a computer game is merely one type of media capable of being projected in such a manner and/or to enhance user enjoyment of playing such computer games (Back, abstract; figs. 4, 12).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Marshall further discloses causing at least some of the video portions to be projected by the drones into respective regions of the area that are contiguous to each other (Marshall, fig. 1: portions 103 & 105 and 109 & 107 are projected adjacent/contiguous to each other, respectively, to form two complete images; par. 0019: “the drones are moved, tilted or otherwise positioned so as to stitch different portions of the signage so as to form a uniform (seamless) signage to the audience”).
Regarding Claim 16, Marshall modified by Black further discloses causing the drones to project their respective video portions onto the ground (Black, par. 0039: “an image projector 206 on the drone 204. The projector 206 can project one or more images 208 onto the top surface 210 of the water 200… the image can propagate through the water to also appear at 212 on the bottom surface;” fig. 12: video/image 1210 projected onto ground).
It would have been obvious to further combine this projection feature of Black with the video projection of Marshall because Marshall already discloses that the video/image/media can be projected onto any planar surface (par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Marshall further discloses causing the drones to project their respective video portions onto a vertical surface (Marshall, fig. 1: drones 102, 104, 106, 108 are projecting their portions onto a vertical surface, i.e., the side of a building; par. 0040: “An optimal surface may be a planar surface… buildings”).
Claims 4, 11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Black as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of JP 2020/115656 (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Marshall does not explicitly disclose multiple drones projecting a first portion. However, Suzuki discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to cause at least two drones to project a first portion into the area (par. 0078: “if there are many viewers (multiple rows, with people in the front row obstructing the view), the projection image PjB is projected not only by the lower projector 9A but also by the upper projector 9B”).
Marshall and Suzuki are analogous arts because they both teach systems of projectors mounted on drones which project a video or other similar media onto a surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of multiple projectors projecting a first video portion as disclosed by Suzuki with the system of a plurality of drones each having a mounted projector for projecting media as disclosed by Marshall in order to ensure more viewers will be able to see that video portion (Suzuki, par. 0078).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Marshall does not explicitly disclose a substitute drone projecting a first portion in the case of a blockage. However, Suzuki discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to, responsive to a first drone projecting a first portion onto a first region and indicating a blockage, cause a substitute drone to project the first portion onto the first region (par. 0078: “if there are many viewers (multiple rows, with people in the front row obstructing the view), the projection image PjB is projected not only by the lower projector 9A but also by the upper projector 9B… This allows viewers in the back to view the projection image PjB projected by the upper projector 9B without obstructing the view of viewers in the front row”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of multiple projectors projecting a first video portion as disclosed by Suzuki with the system of a plurality of drones each having a mounted projector for projecting media as disclosed by Marshall in order to ensure more viewers will be able to see that video portion despite potential obstructions (Suzuki, par. 0078).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Marshall does not explicitly disclose a substitute drone projecting a first portion in the case of a blockage. However, Suzuki discloses responsive to a first drone projecting a first video portion onto a first region and indicating a blockage, causing a substitute drone to project the first video portion onto the first region (par. 0078: “if there are many viewers (multiple rows, with people in the front row obstructing the view), the projection image PjB is projected not only by the lower projector 9A but also by the upper projector 9B… This allows viewers in the back to view the projection image PjB projected by the upper projector 9B without obstructing the view of viewers in the front row”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of multiple projectors projecting a first video portion as disclosed by Suzuki with the system of a plurality of drones each having a mounted projector for projecting media as disclosed by Marshall in order to ensure more viewers will be able to see that video portion despite potential obstructions (Suzuki, par. 0078).
Regarding Claim 21, Examiner first reiterates this claim was originally mislabeled as a second “Claim 15” (Claims, filed 11/07/2024) but will be referred to as “Claim 21,” as explained above. Suzuki discloses causing at least two drones to project a first video portion into the area (par. 0078: “if there are many viewers (multiple rows, with people in the front row obstructing the view), the projection image PjB is projected not only by the lower projector 9A but also by the upper projector 9B”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of multiple projectors projecting a first video portion as disclosed by Suzuki with the system of a plurality of drones each having a mounted projector for projecting media as disclosed by Marshall in order to ensure more viewers will be able to see that video portion (Suzuki, par. 0078).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Black as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of WO 2025/022140 (hereinafter “Qureshi”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Marshall does not explicitly disclose monitoring the battery voltage. However, Qureshi discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to, responsive to a first drone projecting a first portion onto a first region and reporting low battery voltage, cause a substitute drone to project the first portion onto the first region (p. 7: “the drone may carry a digital projector and projects images/video at suitable surfaces;” p. 9: “In case of the drone battery drops below a certain threshold the drone [may fly] back to its base and the platform deploy a replacement drone… The drone transmits back… battery status”).
Marshall and Qureshi are analogous arts because they both teach systems in which drones are used to project videos/media. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drone replacement method of Qureshi with the drone-mounted projection system of Marshall in order to continuous efficacy of a particular drone despite battery depletion (Qureshi, p. 9).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Marshall does not explicitly disclose monitoring the battery voltage. However, Qureshi discloses responsive to a first drone projecting a first video portion onto a first region and reporting low battery voltage, causing a substitute drone to project the first video portion onto the first region (p. 7: “the drone may carry a digital projector and projects images/video at suitable surfaces;” p. 9: “In case of the drone battery drops below a certain threshold the drone [may fly] back to its base and the platform deploy a replacement drone;” p. 9: “The drone transmits back… battery status”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drone replacement method of Qureshi with the drone-mounted projection system of Marshall in order to continuous efficacy of a particular drone despite battery depletion (Qureshi, p. 9).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Black as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of JP 2013/122550 (hereinafter “Taneshima”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Marshall discloses plural drones having projectors which project game objects (see claims 1-2 above) but does not disclose those plural drones projecting a first object based on its importance. However, Taneshima discloses the processor system of the hub device is configured to, responsive to a first image object having a first importance, cause plural projectors to project images of the first object onto a first region (par. 0057: “for the case where the importance of the images is 3:1 when two projectors are projecting simultaneously… use four of the divided sections for an image with an importance level of 3. For images with an importance level of 1, use one divided section;” Examiner notes that the sections are spread between the plural projectors, and images identified as more important will be projected by the plural projectors onto those sections).
Marshall and Taneshima are analogous arts because they both teach a system in which a plurality of projectors are used to project media/videos/images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Taneshima in which projectors are used to project a variety of images/objects and in which a first image object is projected by multiple projectors based on its importance with the drone projection system of modified Marshall in order to ensure visibility and/or successful projection of the most important images/objects (Taneshima, par. 0008; pars. 0056-0058).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Marshall discloses plural drones having projectors which project game objects (see claims 1-2 above) but does not disclose those plural drones projecting a first object based on its importance. However, Taneshima discloses responsive to a first image object having a first importance, causing plural projectors to project images of the first object onto a first region (par. 0057: “for the case where the importance of the images is 3:1 when two projectors are projecting simultaneously… use four of the divided sections for an image with an importance level of 3. For images with an importance level of 1, use one divided section;” Examiner notes that the sections are spread between the plural projectors, and images identified as more important will be projected by the plural projectors onto those sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Taneshima in which projectors are used to project a variety of images/objects and in which a first image object is projected by multiple projectors based on its importance with the drone projection system of modified Marshall in order to ensure visibility and/or successful projection of the most important images/objects (Taneshima, par. 0008; pars. 0056-0058).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Black.
Regarding Claim 13, Marshall does not explicitly disclose that the video/media being projected is from a computer game. However, Black discloses the video projection establishes presentation of a computer game (figs. 4, 11-12; par. 0006: “The device may include at least one projector on a drone for projecting the image;” par. 0035: “a computer game console that can be used to send computer game audio and video to the AVD 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projection system employing a swarm of drones as disclosed by Marshall with the computer game projection of Black because a computer game is merely one type of media capable of being projected in such a manner and/or to enhance user enjoyment of playing such computer games (Black, abstract; figs. 4, 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0246039 (Graf) teaches a drone-mounted projector which is used to project components of a game onto a horizontal surface for user interaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights