DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connector, one end of the connector connected to the first lens, and the other end of the connector is connected to the second lens wherein the connector comprises a connecting shaft and a positioner, two ends of the connecting shaft being connected to the first lens and the second lens respectively, and the positioner is disposed in the UAV body to fix the connecting shaft wherein the positioner is a threaded structure, and the threaded structure abuts against the connecting shaft and wherein the UAV body comprises a through hole, the threaded structure is a bolt, and the bolt passes through the through hole to abut against the connecting shaft must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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(s) 1-2 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutson (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0186471). Hutson teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising: arms (240); and a lens assembly, the lens assembly comprising a first lens (110b) and a second lens (110a), wherein the first lens protrudes from a top of a fuselage of the UAV so that the arms are outside an angle of view of the first lens and the second lens protrudes from a bottom of the fuselage of the UAV so that the arms are outside an angle of view of the second lens (¶5, “the tilt angle and the arrangement of the one or more camera mounts may hide the drone from fields of view of the two or more cameras.”)
Regarding claim 2, a UAV body of the UAV has a longitudinal axis along a height direction of the fuselage (an axis perpendicular to 256 in fig. 2C), and an axis of the first lens or/and an axis of the second lens (252) are relatively inclined to the longitudinal axis so that the UAV body is located outside the angle of view of the first lens and the angle of view of the second lens. See fig. 2C as well as ¶35.
Regarding claim 17, the angle of view of the first lens is at least 185 degrees, and the angle of view of the second lens is at least 185 degrees. See fig. 3 which teaches an angle of view of at least 190 degrees.
Regarding claim 18, the angle of view of the first lens is 190 degrees which is in a range of 185 degrees to 210 degrees, and the angle of view of the second lens is 190 degrees which is in a range of 185 degrees to 210 degrees.
Regarding claim 19, the angle of view of the first lens is same as the angle of view of the second lens. See the abstract.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hesselbarth (U.S. Patent No. 10442553). Hesselbarth teaches a UAV comprising arms (see arms of rotors (13) in annotated fig. 3B below); and a lens assembly (lenses (4)), the lens assembly comprising a first lens and a second lens, wherein the first lens protrudes from a top of a fuselage (see top lens, fig. 4a) of the UAV so that the arms are outside an angle of view of the first lens and the second lens protrudes from a bottom of the fuselage (see bottom lens, fig. 4a) of the UAV so that the arms are outside an angle of view of the second lens. Language in italics is considered intended use and not being given patentable weight. For the sake of advancing prosecution it it pointed out that the abstract teaches that the rotors are outside the field of vision of the cameras.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 5 teaches an embodiment where an axis of the first lens or/and an axis of the second lens are relatively inclined to the longitudinal axis so that the UAV body is located outside the angle of view of the first lens and the angle of view of the second lens.
Regarding claim 3, the arms comprise a first set of arms and a second set of arms, the first set of arms is closer to one side of the fuselage in a length direction relative to the second set of arms; and the first set of arms is closer to the top of the fuselage relative to the second set of arms. See annotated fig. 3B below.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, fig. 5 teaches an embodiment where the axis of a first lens (upper right lens 4) and the axis of the second lens (complimentary lower left lens (not shown)) are coaxially arranged and the axis of the first lens is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis in a direction from the first set of arms to the second set of arms.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 5 alternatively teaches the axis of the first lens (top middle front lens, labeled 4 in fig. 5) and the axis of the second lens (bottom left front, labeled 4 in fig. 5) are not coaxially arranged, and the axis of the first lens is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis in a direction from the first set of arms to the second set of arms.
Regarding claim 8, the axis of the second lens is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis in a direction from the first set of arms to the second set of arms. See fig. 5.
Regarding claim 9, the axis of the first lens and the axis of the second lens are not coaxially arranged (see description re:claim 6), and the axis of the second lens is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis in a direction from the first set of arms to the second set of arms (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, fig. 2b teaches the axis of the first lens and the axis of the second lens are not coaxially arranged and wherein the axis of the first lens is provided along a direction of the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 11, fig. 4a teaches the axis of the first lens, the axis of the second lens are parallel to the longitudinal axis, and the first lens and the second lens are spaced apart along a length direction of the UAV body so that the UAV body is outside the angle of view of the first lens and the angle of view of the second lens.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesselbarth (U.S. Patent No. 10442553). Hesselbarth teaches the claimed invention except for an acute angle between the axis of the first lens or the axis of the second lens and the longitudinal axis is in a range of 2 degrees to 10 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an acute angle in a range of 2 degrees to 10 degrees for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesselbarth (U.S. Patent No. 10442553) in view of Wu (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0043497). Hesselbarth teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for explicitly stating a boundary of the angle of view of the first lens is tangent to a UAV body of the UAV or/and a boundary of the angle of view of the second lens is tangent to the UAV body of the UAV. Wu teaches in fig. 10 that it was known to use a boundary of the angle of view of the first lens is tangent to a UAV body of the UAV or/and a boundary of the angle of view of the second lens is tangent to the UAV body of the UAV. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Wu for the purpose of maximizing the view.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesselbarth (U.S. Patent No. 10442553) in view of Wan (CN107891991). Hesselbarth teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a connector, one end of the connector is connected to the first lens, and the other end of the connector is connected to the second lens. Wan teaches a connector 260 (see fig 6b) one end of the connector is connected to the first lens (inherent because lens is powered by and communicates via 260) lens, and the other end of the connector is connected to the second lens (inherent because lens is powered by and communicates via 260) (“when the camera module 200 is inserted to the unmanned machine main assembly, it can through the power supply and communication interface 260 connected with the unmanned machine component by the power supply device power supply in unmanned machine main assembly and realizing the communication between the camera assembly 200 and the unmanned machine main assembly. In this embodiment, the top lens 210 and the bottom lens 220 each having a respective camera sensor plate”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Wan for the purpose of easily powering and communicating with the cameras.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiao (U.S. Publication No. 2026/0091890) is directed to a UAV with camera. Zhang (U.S. Publication No. 2026/0145824) is directed to a UAV with top and bottom cameras. It has a common assignee and common inventors with the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights