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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (1-6, 12-13, 17, and 19) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. Amendments to these claims are acknowledged.
Claims now pending: 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 17, 19.
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 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 17, 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 17, 19 recite the limitation: “… wherein, in a first state … wherein, in a second case … wherein, in a third state …” (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis).
The limitation lacks clarity, since the claims never introduced a first case. Instead the claim relies on a first state, introduces a second “case” and then introduces the third state. It is unclear if each “state” refers to each “case” or in other words, if “state” and “case” are to be interpreted as the same.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the following:
“… wherein, in a first state … wherein, in a second [[case]] state … wherein, in a third state …”.
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 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai (CN-112616019-B) in view of Mentese et al., hereinafter referred to as Mentese (US 2016/0171330 A1).
As per claim 1, Kai discloses an arithmetic device comprising (Kai: Para. [0070] discloses “a pan-tilt [claimed arithmetic device], including a processor and a memory”):
one or more memories that store instructions (Kai: Para. [0070] discloses “a memory [claimed one or more memories], where the memory stores machine-executable instructions”); and
one or more processors that execute the instructions to (Kai: Para. [0070] discloses “machine-executable instructions that can be executed by the processor”):
calculate a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image (Kai: Para. [0015] discloses “Calculate the motor tracking speed [claimed calculate a control speed]”; Para. [0016] discloses “Adjust the direction of the gimbal [claimed for controlling a posture]”; Para. [0092] discloses “target [claimed of an object] in the picture or video captured [claimed detected from an image captured] by the camera [claimed by the image capturing device]”; and Para. [0072] discloses “aim at the target to be tracked [claimed so that a detection position … becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]”; [therefore, calculating a motor tracking speed to adjust the gimbal direction so the camera aims at the detected target in the captured picture teaches calculating a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]),
wherein the control speed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation (Kai: Para. [0046] discloses “speed_t1 is the first vertical speed [claimed wherein the control speed], max_speed_t is the vertical maximum speed, dist_t is the third difference [claimed and a difference between the detection position and the target position], and fov_t is the vertical angle of view”, relating to the formula in Para. [0044] [claimed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation … indicates a relationship between a control speed]; [therefore, calculating the motor tracking speed utilizing the difference and field of view formulas satisfies the claimed speed and equation relationship]),
wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold, a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the first difference and the first equation (Kai: Para. [0039] discloses “otherwise [claimed wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold], according to the vertical maximum velocity, calculating the first vertical velocity [claimed a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture] from the third difference and the vertical angle of view [claimed in accordance with the first difference and the first equation]”),
However, Kai does not explicitly disclose “and a second equation, each of which”, “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation, and”, and “wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation.”
Further, Mentese is in the same field of endeavor and teaches “and a second equation, each of which” and “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “Multiple boundaries can be set each assigned with a specific mode [claimed and a second equation, each of which] … once the target object crosses the threshold of the first boundary and enters the next boundary [claimed wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state], the mode can change to a slightly more aggressive mode [claimed a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation]”), and
“wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “program a zero response for the first boundary, in other words a deadband that can allow the object to linger to the edge of the boundary without mechanical gimbal 102 moving [claimed after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold]. If the object escapes the first boundary the instructions transmitted to mechanical gimbal can switch to another (aggressive) mode [claimed wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold … a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kai and Mentese before him or her, to modify the tracking method of Kai to include the multi-control thresholds feature as described in Mentese. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the tracking stability and responsiveness by providing distinct speed modes that prevent the camera from jittering during minor movements while allowing adjustments to catch fast-moving targets (Mentese: Para. [0068]).
As per claim 2, Kai-Mentese disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein, in the fourth state, the control speed of the posture is set to 0 (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “program a zero response [claimed the control speed of the posture is set to 0] for the first boundary, in other words a deadband [claimed wherein, in the fourth state]”).
As per claim 5, Kai-Mentese disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the control speed of the posture of the image capturing device is not smaller than a threshold, the first control speed is calculated in accordance with the difference and the first equation (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “If the object escapes the first boundary the instructions transmitted to mechanical gimbal can switch to another (aggressive) mode to ensure the object stays within the first boundary [claimed wherein, in a case where the control speed of the posture of the image capturing device is not smaller than a threshold, the first control speed is calculated in accordance with the difference and the first equation]”).
As per claim 6, Kai-Mentese disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the difference becomes smaller than the third threshold and not smaller than the second threshold after the fourth state the control speed of the posture is set to 0 (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “allow the object to linger to the edge of the boundary without mechanical gimbal 102 moving [claimed wherein, in a case where the difference becomes smaller than the third threshold and not smaller than the second threshold after the fourth state the control speed of the posture is set to 0]”).
As per claim 12, Kai-Mentese disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to control the posture in accordance with the calculated control speed of the posture (Kai: Para. [0016] discloses “Adjust the direction of the gimbal based on the tracking position coordinates and the motor tracking speed [claimed wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to control the posture in accordance with the calculated control speed of the posture]”).
As per claim 13, Kai-Mentese disclose the device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to transmit information on the calculated control speed of the posture to the image capturing device (Mentese: Para. [0007] discloses “a pivoting device (e.g., a gimbal that can at least rotate about one or more axis) to which the camera can be mounted [claimed to the image capturing device]”; and Para. [0059] discloses “Gimbal tracking control 206 module can also transmit signals to gimbal stabilizer controller to control the roll, pitch, or yaw motors [claimed wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to transmit information on the calculated control speed of the posture]”; [therefore, transmitting control signals to the gimbal on which the camera is mounted teaches transmitting information on the calculated control speed of the posture to the image capturing device]).
As per claim 17, Kai discloses an arithmetic method executed by an arithmetic device, comprising (Kai: Para. [0070] discloses “a pan-tilt [claimed an arithmetic device], including a processor and a memory … executable instructions that can be executed by the processor to implement the steps of the target tracking method [claimed arithmetic method executed by … comprising]”):
calculating a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image (Kai: Para. [0015] discloses “Calculate the motor tracking speed [claimed calculating a control speed]”; Para. [0016] discloses “Adjust the direction of the gimbal [claimed for controlling a posture]”; Para. [0092] discloses “target [claimed of an object] in the picture or video captured [claimed detected from an image captured] by the camera [claimed by the image capturing device]”; and Para. [0072] discloses “aim at the target to be tracked [claimed so that a detection position … becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]”; [therefore, calculating a motor tracking speed to adjust the gimbal direction so the camera aims at the detected target in the captured picture teaches calculating a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]),
wherein the control speed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation (Kai: Para. [0046] discloses “speed_t1 is the first vertical speed [claimed wherein the control speed], max_speed_t is the vertical maximum speed, dist_t is the third difference [claimed and a difference between the detection position and the target position], and fov_t is the vertical angle of view”, relating to the formula in Para. [0044] [claimed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation … indicates a relationship between a control speed]; [therefore, calculating the motor tracking speed utilizing the difference and field of view formulas satisfies the claimed speed and equation relationship]),
wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold, a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the first difference and the first equation (Kai: Para. [0039] discloses “otherwise [claimed wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold], according to the vertical maximum velocity, calculating the first vertical velocity [claimed a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture] from the third difference and the vertical angle of view [claimed in accordance with the first difference and the first equation]”),
However, Kai does not explicitly disclose “and a second equation, each of which”, “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation, and”, and “wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation.”
Further, Mentese is in the same field of endeavor and teaches “and a second equation, each of which” and “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “Multiple boundaries can be set each assigned with a specific mode [claimed and a second equation, each of which] … once the target object crosses the threshold of the first boundary and enters the next boundary [claimed wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state], the mode can change to a slightly more aggressive mode [claimed a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation]”); and
“wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “program a zero response for the first boundary, in other words a deadband that can allow the object to linger to the edge of the boundary without mechanical gimbal 102 moving [claimed after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold]. If the object escapes the first boundary the instructions transmitted to mechanical gimbal can switch to another (aggressive) mode [claimed wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold … a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kai and Mentese before him or her, to modify the tracking method of Kai to include the multi-control threshold modes feature as described in Mentese. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the tracking stability and responsiveness by providing distinct speed modes that prevent the camera from jittering during minor movements while allowing adjustments to catch fast-moving targets.
As per claim 19, Kai discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to perform a method, the method comprising (Kai: Para. [0071] discloses “a storage medium on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, implements the steps of the target tracking method [claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to perform a method, the method comprising]”):
calculating a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image (Kai: Para. [0015] discloses “Calculate the motor tracking speed [claimed calculating a control speed]”; Para. [0016] discloses “Adjust the direction of the gimbal [claimed for controlling a posture]”; Para. [0092] discloses “target [claimed of an object] in the picture or video captured [claimed detected from an image captured] by the camera [claimed by the image capturing device]”; and Para. [0072] discloses “aim at the target to be tracked [claimed so that a detection position … becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]”; [therefore, calculating a motor tracking speed to adjust the gimbal direction so the camera aims at the detected target in the captured picture teaches calculating a control speed for controlling a posture of an image capturing device so that a detection position of an object detected from an image captured by the image capturing device becomes closer to a target position of the object in the captured image]),
wherein the control speed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation (Kai: Para. [0046] discloses “speed_t1 is the first vertical speed [claimed wherein the control speed], max_speed_t is the vertical maximum speed, dist_t is the third difference [claimed and a difference between the detection position and the target position], and fov_t is the vertical angle of view”, relating to the formula in Para. [0044] [claimed is calculated in accordance with one of a first equation … indicates a relationship between a control speed]; [therefore, calculating the motor tracking speed utilizing the difference and field of view formulas satisfies the claimed speed and equation relationship]),
wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold, a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the first difference and the first equation (Kai: Para. [0039] discloses “otherwise [claimed wherein, in a first state where the difference is a first difference that is not smaller than a first threshold], according to the vertical maximum velocity, calculating the first vertical velocity [claimed a first control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture] from the third difference and the vertical angle of view [claimed in accordance with the first difference and the first equation]”),
However, Kai does not explicitly disclose “and a second equation, each of which”, “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation, and”, and “wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation.”
Further, Mentese is in the same field of endeavor and teaches “a second equation, each of which” and “wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state, a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation,” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “Multiple boundaries can be set each assigned with a specific mode [claimed and a second equation, each of which] … once the target object crosses the threshold of the first boundary and enters the next boundary [claimed wherein, in a second case where the difference is a second difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a second threshold smaller than the first threshold after the first state], the mode can change to a slightly more aggressive mode [claimed a second control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the second difference and the second equation, the second control speed being higher than a control speed in accordance with the second difference and the first equation]”); and
“wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold, a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation” (Mentese: Para. [0068] discloses “program a zero response for the first boundary, in other words a deadband that can allow the object to linger to the edge of the boundary without mechanical gimbal 102 moving [claimed after a fourth state where the difference is smaller than the second threshold]. If the object escapes the first boundary the instructions transmitted to mechanical gimbal can switch to another (aggressive) mode [claimed wherein, in a third state where the difference is a third difference that becomes smaller than the first threshold and not smaller than a third threshold bigger than the second threshold … a third control speed is calculated, as the control speed of the posture, in accordance with the third difference and the first equation].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kai and Mentese before him or her, to modify the tracking method of Kai to include the multi-control threshold modes feature as described in Mentese. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the tracking stability and responsiveness by providing distinct speed modes that prevent the camera from jittering during minor movements while allowing adjustments to catch fast-moving targets.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 08-17-2026
Prosecution Insights