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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/20/2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pugach (US 20250111789 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9, Pugach teaches a method and information processing device, comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including: first display control code configured to cause the at least one processor to display a list indicating a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles on a screen of a terminal of an operator who monitors the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 2 which shows a list of drones and associated information, para 0010, 0024); first acquisition code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire vehicle information acquired by an unmanned aerial vehicle selected by the operator from among the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles indicated in the list (table 200 in Fig. 2 shows drone information); second acquisition code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire base information acquired by an instrument at a base where the selected unmanned aerial vehicle can take off and land (Para 0024 shows where each drone is deployed) (Fig. 2) (Fig. 4); and second display control code configured to cause the at least one processor to display the acquired vehicle information and the acquired base information on the screen of the terminal (Para 0024 shows where each drone is deployed) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Pugach teaches an information processing device according to claim 1, the program code further including base identification code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify, for each unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, a base to which the unmanned aerial vehicle belongs, wherein the second acquisition code is configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire the base information acquired by the instrument at the base to which the unmanned aerial vehicle selected by the operator belongs from among the identified bases (Para 0024 shows where each drone is deployed) (Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugach in view of Hatakeyama (US 20240427341 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Pugach teaches drone status information and eye tracking (para 0024, 0033) but does not teach highlighting a specific portion on the screen on which the vehicle information and the base information are displayed, the specific portion being a portion on the screen at which the operator is requested to gaze. Hatakeyama teaches highlighting a specific portion on the screen on which the vehicle information and the base information are displayed, the specific portion being a portion on the screen at which the operator is requested to gaze (pay attention) (para 0222-0223, 0227). Since both Pugach and Hatakeyama teachings are directed to providing graphical user interfaces to monitor drone operations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pugach’s interface to include highlighting specific portion of the screen taught by Hatakeyama. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide Pugach’s interface the ability to notify user/operator the change in drone operation status (Hatakeyama, para 0222-0223).
Regarding claim 4, Pugach in view of Hatakeyama teaches first identification code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify a current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle selected by the operator; and second identification code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify the specific portion based on the current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the second display control code is configured to cause the at least one processor to highlight the identified specific portion on the screen (Hatakeyama, para 0222-0223, 0227)
Regarding claim 5, Pugach in view of Hatakeyama teaches the program code further including: first identification code configured to cause the at least one processor to identify a current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle selected by the operator; and determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine, based on the current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle, whether a timing at which the operator is to gaze at the specific portion has arrived, wherein the second display control code is configured to cause the at least one processor to highlight, on the screen, the specific portion in a case where it is determined that the timing at which the operator is to gaze at the specific portion has arrived (Pugach, 0033) (Hatakeyama, Fig. 9, para 0151, 0222-0223, 0227).
Regarding claim 6, Pugach in view of Hatakeyama teaches the program code further including detection code configured to cause the at least one processor to detect a change of a current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle selected by the operator, wherein the second display control code is configured to cause the at least one processor to change highlighting of the specific portion on the screen in response to detecting the change of the current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Hatakeyama, para [0222-0223, 0227).
Regarding claim 7, Pugach in view of Hatakeyama teaches wherein the vehicle information includes first image information representing a first image captured by a first camera provided with the unmanned aerial vehicle, the base information includes second image information representing a second image captured by a second camera provided with the instrument, the specific portion is the first image or the second image, and the second display control code is configured to cause the at least one processor to change highlighting of the first image or the second image on the screen in response to detecting the change of the current status or phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Pugach, Fig 1-5)(Hatakeyama, Fig. 1-2, para 0085-0087, 0222-0223, 0227, 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eyhorn (US-20180357909-A1) and Matsumuka (US-20240153390-A1) teach interfaces for monitoring drone operation which relates to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is (571)272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Kieu Vu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4057. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
