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 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 § 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 3, 4 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.
Claim 1 includes the limitations “adjust control information of the stabilization device based on the telescoping state information”. It is not clear what is “control information is adjusted”, and how does it relate to the telescoping state information? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claims 2 – 19 rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 3 includes the limitations “an induction signal between the first detection component and the second detection component”. It is not clear what is mean by “an induction signal”. How is it generated, and how does it relate to the telescoping state information? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 4 includes the limitations “a trigger signal, wherein the trigger signal is configured to trigger a change in a telescoping state”. It is not clear what is mean by “a trigger signal”. How is it generated, and how does it relate to the telescoping state information? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 5 includes the limitations “changing, by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at a specific vibration frequency, a vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the specific vibration frequency”. It is unclear how the “specific vibration frequency” relates to the stabilization device. Is it associated with the device or not? Additionally, “a vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the specific vibration frequency” is unclear. What is a vibration amplitude at the specific vibration frequency? How is it changed? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claims 6 – 11, 13 – 19 rejected as being dependent on claim 5.
Claim 7 includes the limitations “wherein the specific vibration frequency is a global frequency… changing, by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at the global frequency, the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the global frequency”. It is unclear how the “global frequency” relates to the stabilization device. Is it associated with the device or not? Additionally, what is a global frequency? How is it changed? How is it determined? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 8 includes the limitations “wherein the specific vibration frequency is a resonance frequency… determining a resonance frequency of the stabilization device; and changing, by changing the control information of the stabilization device at the resonance frequency, a resonance amplitude of the stabilization device at the resonance frequency”. It is unclear how the “resonance frequency” relates to the stabilization device. Is it associated with the device or not? Also, is “a resonance frequency of the stabilization device” and “a resonance frequency” referring to the same or different features? Additionally, what is a resonance amplitude? How is it changed? How is it determined? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claims 9 and 17 – 19 rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
Claim 9 includes the limitations “change in the resonance amplitude at the resonance frequency is positively correlated with a magnitude of a resonance amplitude”. The correlation between a change in the resonance amplitude and a magnitude thereof is unclear. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 10 includes the limitations “adjusting the control information of the power assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11, 13 – 16 rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
Claim 12 includes the limitations “a degree of stabilization corresponding to the control information of the stabilization device when the extension rod is at a first telescoping length is smaller than a degree of stabilization corresponding to the control information of the stabilization device when the extension rod is at a second telescoping length”. It is unclear what is meant by “degree of stabilization corresponding to the control information of the stabilization device”. Is it related to the device or to the control information? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 13 includes the limitations “a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod”. It is unclear how “a specific vibration frequency” relates to the length of the telescopic rod. Additionally, is “a specific vibration frequency” the same or different than “the specific vibration frequency” of the claims from which it depends. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 13 includes the limitations “the first telescoping length” and “the second telescoping length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 includes the limitations “a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod”. It is unclear how “a specific vibration frequency” relates to the length of the telescopic rod. Additionally, is “a specific vibration frequency” the same or different than “the specific vibration frequency” of the claims from which it depends. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 14 includes the limitations “the first telescoping length” and “the second telescoping length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 includes the limitations “a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod”. It is unclear how “a specific vibration frequency” relates to the length of the telescopic rod. Additionally, is “a specific vibration frequency” the same or different than “the specific vibration frequency” of the claims from which it depends. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 15 includes the limitations “the first telescoping length” and “the second telescoping length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 includes the limitations “a filter of the power assembly”. It is unclear what is meant by “a filter” and how that relates to the power assembly. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claim 17 includes the limitations “motion state information”. It is unclear how the “motion state information” is determined, and how is it used to determine the resonance frequency? For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
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)(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, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (WO 2021258407).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for controlling a stabilization device, the stabilization device is configured to stabilize a load (FIG. 4; ¶60: handheld stabilizer of a shooting device)), the stabilization device includes a first part (FIG. 1; ¶60: 3: gimbal assembly); and a second part (FIG. 4; ¶60: 1: handle), wherein the first part is connected to a first end of an extension rod (FIG. 4; ¶60: 5: telescopic rod structure), the second part is connected to a second end of the extension rod ( ¶60: "The fixed end of the telescopic rod structure is fixed in the mounting cavity of the handle"), and the extension rod is telescopic (FIG. 4; ¶60: 5: telescopic rod structure); obtaining telescoping state information of the extension rod (¶60: "The telescopic rod structure has a contracted state ... and an extended state"); and adjusting control information of the stabilization device based on the telescoping state information (¶60 : "the pan-tilt (gimbal) assembly is used to adjust the spatial position of the clamping mechanism to adjust the shooting angle of the shooting device on the clamping mechanism").
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1. Li also teaches wherein the telescoping state information comprises: information associated with a telescoping length of the extension rod (¶60: telescopic rod structure has contracted state…and an extended state”.
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1. Li also teaches wherein with a same load, a degree of stabilization corresponding to the control information of the stabilization device when the extension rod is at a first telescoping length is smaller than a degree of stabilization corresponding to the control information of the stabilization device when the extension rod is at a second telescoping length, wherein the first telescoping length is greater than the second telescoping length (¶15).
Claim 20 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, supra.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Royole (CN 209622437U).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1. Li, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, fails to explicitly disclose wherein one of the first part, the second part and the extension rod is provided with a first detection component, another of the first part, the second part and the extension rods is provided with a second detection component; and the obtaining of the telescoping state information of the extension rod comprises: determining the telescoping state information based on an induction signal between the first detection component and the second detection component.
In a similar field of endeavor, Royole teaches a selfie stick with a retractable portion 18, magnetic element 112, and Hall sensor 162 that generates a signal for controlling the power supply to turn on (fig. 1; ¶56). In light of the teaching of Royole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Royole’s teaching in Li’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in ease of use by the user.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Shenzhen (CN 106331477A).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1. Li, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the obtaining of the telescoping state information of the extension rod comprises: receiving a trigger signal, wherein the trigger signal is configured to trigger a change in a telescoping state of the extension rod; and determining the telescoping state information based on the trigger signal..
In a similar field of endeavor, Shenzhen teaches a selfie stick with a ranging sensor, 120, detection signal transmitter 121, and detection signal receiver 122 that detect the position of the telescoping rod (fig. 1, 2; ¶42). In light of the teaching of Shenzhen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use Shenzhen’s teaching in Li’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in ease of use by the user.
Claim(s) 5 – 11 and 13 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of SZ (WO 2022/067548).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the limitations of claim 1. Li, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adjusting of the control information of the stabilization device comprises: changing, by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at a specific vibration frequency, a vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the specific vibration frequency.
In a similar field of endeavor, SZ teaches stabilization devices, such as gimbals, may generate a mechanical resonance, which is measurable, for example using an inertial measurement unit, and the mechanical resonance is characterized by vibration frequency and amplitude (fig. 8; ¶132-140). In light of the teaching of SZ, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use SZ;s teaching in Li’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in ease of use by the user due to automatic adjustment.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 5. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the changing of the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device comprises: reducing the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the specific vibration frequency (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 5. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the specific vibration frequency is a global frequency, and the changing of the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the vibration frequency by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at the vibration frequency comprises: changing, by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at the global frequency, the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the global frequency (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 5. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the specific vibration frequency is a resonance frequency, and the changing of the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device at the vibration frequency by adjusting the control information of the stabilization device at the vibration frequency comprises: determining a resonance frequency of the stabilization device; and changing, by changing the control information of the stabilization device at the resonance frequency, a resonance amplitude of the stabilization device at the resonance frequency (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 8. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein a change in the resonance amplitude at the resonance frequency is positively correlated with a magnitude of a resonance amplitude corresponding to the resonance frequency (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 5. The combination, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the first part comprises a power assembly (fig. 4; ¶74-75: 31 and 34, motors of a power device of the pan-tilt assembly), and the adjusting of the control information of the stabilization device at the specific vibration frequency comprises: adjusting the control information of the power assembly at the specific vibration frequency (SZ fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 10. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the control information of the power assembly comprises at least one of a force value of the power assembly, a sensitivity of the power assembly to resist disturbance torque, or a sensitivity of the power assembly to respond to a control input (¶143: the gimbal control parameter may include at least one of a force value, a strength value, and a configuration parameter of a filter of the motor).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 11. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein with a same load, a first force value of the power assembly at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod is smaller than a second force value of the power assembly at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the second telescoping length of the extension rod, wherein the first telescoping length is greater than the second telescoping length (¶143: the gimbal control parameter may include at least one of a force value, a strength value, and a configuration parameter of a filter of the motor).
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 11. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein with a same load, a first sensitivity of the power assembly to resist disturbance torque at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod is smaller than a second sensitivity of the power assembly to resist disturbance torque at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the second telescoping length of the extension rod, wherein the first telescoping length is greater than the second telescoping length (¶143: the gimbal control parameter may include at least one of a force value, a strength value, and a configuration parameter of a filter of the motor).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 11. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein with a same load, a first sensitivity of the power assembly to respond to a control input at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the first telescoping length of the extension rod is smaller than a second sensitivity of the power assembly to respond to a control input at a specific vibration frequency corresponding to the second telescoping length of the extension rod, wherein the first telescoping length is greater than the second telescoping length (¶143: the gimbal control parameter may include at least one of a force value, a strength value, and a configuration parameter of a filter of the motor).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 10. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the adjusting of the control information of the power assembly is achieved by configuring a filter of the power assembly; or the power assembly comprises at least one of a yaw power assembly, a pitch power assembly, or a roll power assembly (¶143: the gimbal control parameter may include at least one of a force value, a strength value, and a configuration parameter of a filter of the motor).
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 8. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the determining of the resonance frequency of the stabilization device comprises: determining the resonance frequency of the stabilization device based on a pre-established resonance model of the stabilization device; or when the vibration amplitude of the stabilization device exceeds a preset amplitude, determining the resonance frequency of the stabilization device based on motion state information of the stabilization device (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 8. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the determining of the resonance frequency of the stabilization device comprises: determining a resonance frequency range of the stabilization device and/or a plurality of resonance frequency points of the stabilization device (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of SZ discloses the limitations of claim 17. SZ, as interpreted based on 112 rejections, also teaches wherein the motion state information is measured by an inertial measurement unit of the stabilization device (fig. 8; ¶132-140).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights