DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1–3, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman (US 2020/0391878 A1) and Yang (US 2016/0275649 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Woodman and Yang teaches or suggests a control method comprising: controlling a gimbal to send attitude information of an arm assembly of the gimbal to a load device carried by the arm assembly to allow the load device to adjust a display interface direction of the load device according to the attitude information of the arm assembly (Woodman, ¶ 0069: teaches the gimbal control system can detect the orientation of the gimbal and camera and determine a preferred orientation of the camera; Examiner finds that obviously the display device of the camera would match the preferred orientation of the camera so that the display would reflect the orientation; Yang, ¶¶ 0041 and 0049: teaches a display device whose orientation changes upon receiving an input indicating a change in display orientation from portrait to landscape or vice versa).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman, with those of Yang, because Yang simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding defining ranges of orientation of a device in order to switch the display orientation from horizontal to vertical and vice versa. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman and Yang used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Woodman and Yang teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, wherein: the attitude information of the arm assembly belongs to a first attitude range and is configured to instruct the load device to display a display interface in a first direction; or the attitude information of the arm assembly belongs to a second attitude range and is configured to instruct the load device to display the display interface in a second direction different from the first direction (Woodman, ¶ 0069: teaches the gimbal control system can detect the orientation of the gimbal and camera and determine a preferred orientation of the camera; Examiner finds that obviously the display device of the camera would match the preferred orientation of the camera so that the display would reflect the orientation; Yang, ¶¶ 0041 and 0049: teaches a display device whose orientation changes upon receiving an input indicating a change in display orientation from portrait to landscape or vice versa).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Woodman and Yang teaches or suggests the method according to claim 2, wherein: the first direction is vertical, and the second direction is horizontal; or the first direction is horizontal, and the second direction is vertical (Woodman, ¶ 0069: teaches the gimbal control system can detect the orientation of the gimbal and camera and determine a preferred orientation of the camera; Examiner finds that obviously the display device of the camera would match the preferred orientation of the camera so that the display would reflect the orientation; Yang, ¶¶ 0041 and 0049: teaches a display device whose orientation changes upon receiving an input indicating a change in display orientation from portrait to landscape or vice versa).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Woodman and Yang teaches or suggests the method according to claim 10, further comprising: while the arm assembly is in the attitude, controlling the gimbal to enter a stabilization mode to allow the arm assembly to enhance stabilization for the load device (Examiner notes this behavior is what a self-stabilizing gimbal does; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches a gimbal providing image stabilization by maintaining a particular position).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Woodman and Yang teaches or suggests a gimbal system comprising: a gimbal including: an arm assembly including an arm and a motor configured to rotate the arm; and a support assembly supporting the arm assembly; a load device configured to be carried by the arm assembly and including a display interface; one or more processors; and one or more memories storing a computer program that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to: while the load device is mounted at the arm assembly, control the gimbal to send attitude information of the arm assembly to the load device to allow the load device to adjust a direction of the display interface according to the attitude information of the arm assembly (Woodman, ¶ 0069: teaches the gimbal control system can detect the orientation of the gimbal and camera and determine a preferred orientation of the camera; Examiner finds that obviously the display device of the camera would match the preferred orientation of the camera so that the display would reflect the orientation; Yang, ¶¶ 0041 and 0049: teaches a display device whose orientation changes upon receiving an input indicating a change in display orientation from portrait to landscape or vice versa).
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman, Yang, and Peng (US 2022/0201113 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Peng teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the load device being mounted to the arm assembly, controlling the gimbal to perform a broadcast to enable the load device to output prompt information or directly display an interface of an application after establishing a communication connection with the gimbal based on broadcast information corresponding to the broadcast; wherein: the application is installed on the load device and is configured to obtain an instruction of controlling the gimbal; and the prompt information is configured to prompt whether to open the interface of the application (Examiner notes these are common or generic behaviors of apps installed on a mobile device that can control a peripheral device, such as a gimbal, wherein the peripheral device (gimbal) can be paired with a cell phone and can execute I/O using the Bluetooth communication protocol; Woodman, ¶¶ 0104 and 0117: teaches the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to carry out I/O using Bluetooth between a gimbal and a cell phone; Peng, ¶ 0054: teaches a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) broadcast message transmitted and the establishment of a communication connection based on Bluetooth pairing wherein upon establishing the connection, an interface is displayed).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman and Yang, with those of Peng, because Peng simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding utilizing the Bluetooth communication protocol to effectuate wireless communication between the gimbal and the camera device. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman, Yang, and Peng used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Peng teaches or suggests the method according to claim 4, wherein: the broadcast information includes identity information of the gimbal (Peng, ¶ 0223: teaches the Bluetooth protocol includes identifiers such as device name, type, model, icon, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Peng teaches or suggests the method according to claim 4, wherein the broadcast is a first broadcast and the communication connection is a first communication connection; the method further comprising: in response to the load device being mounted to the arm assembly, controlling the gimbal to perform a second broadcast to enable the load device to establish a second communication connection with the gimbal based on broadcast information corresponding to the second broadcast, the first communication connection being different from the second communication connection; wherein the second communication connection is configured to transmit an instruction of controlling the gimbal input on the load device or an instruction of controlling the load device input on the gimbal (Woodman, ¶¶ 0104 and 0117: teaches the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to carry out I/O using Bluetooth between a gimbal and a cell phone; Peng, e.g. ¶¶ 0042–0043: explains the skilled artisan knows about first and second Bluetooth connections for establishing different connection channels between devices).
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman, Yang, and Saika (US 2018/0079529 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Saika teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to a calibration instruction, obtaining load attitude information of the load device measured by a sensor arranged at the load device; and controlling the gimbal to perform a calibration according to the load attitude information (Saika, ¶ 0046: teaches calibrating the gimbal’s motors for proper gimbal movements).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman and Yang, with those of Saika, because Saika simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding utilizing a calibration routine to calibrate the torque necessary to move the gimbal axes to effectuate camera stabilization. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman, Yang, and Saika used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Saika teaches or suggests the method according to claim 7, wherein the calibration is a first calibration; the method further comprising, before performing the first calibration: obtaining the attitude information of the arm assembly and performing a second calibration on the gimbal according to the attitude information of the arm assembly; wherein rotation amplitude of the arm assembly during the second calibration is greater than rotation amplitude of the arm assembly during the first calibration (Saika, ¶ 0046: teaches calibrating the gimbal’s motors for proper gimbal movements; Examiner finds that additional calibration relationships are common for motors under load such that multiple calibrations for non-linear piecewise relationships based on magnitude of rotation movement is obvious).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Saika teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: while the gimbal is in an unloaded mode, in response to a push-pull operation on the arm assembly, controlling at least one motor of the arm assembly to enable the arm assembly to maintain a current attitude when the push-pull operation on the arm assembly is removed; wherein the current attitude is an attitude of the arm assembly when the push-pull operation on the arm assembly is removed (Examiner interprets the claimed behavior as the gimbal providing stabilization; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches a gimbal providing image stabilization by maintaining a particular position; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches the camera mount may include electrical connection points for power or to communicate signals; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches detecting whether a compatible device is connected, which teaches or suggests detecting whether a device is connected at all).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Saika teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the load device being mounted to the arm assembly, controlling at least one motor of the arm assembly to output torque to cause the arm assembly to be in an attitude at which a lens optical axis of the load device is parallel to a horizontal plane, and an operation surface of the load device faces the user (Examiner notes this behavior is what a self-stabilizing gimbal does; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches a gimbal providing image stabilization by maintaining a particular position; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches detecting whether a compatible device is connected, which teaches or suggests detecting whether a device is connected at all).
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman, Yang, and Liu (US 2021/0147205 A1) (herein “Liu”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: while the gimbal is in a stabilization mode in which the arm assembly stabilizes the load device, determining whether a support assembly, of the gimbal, supporting the arm assembly, is in suspension; and in response to the support assembly being in suspension, controlling the gimbal to switch from the stabilization mode to a protection mode, in which at least one motor of the arm assembly stops outputting torque (Examiner interprets Applicant’s “in suspension” according to Applicant’s published paragraphs [0091]–[0095] wherein it is explained the “in suspension” state is a “protection mode” that powers off the motors of the gimbal; Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman and Yang, with those of Liu, because Liu simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding utilizing a safe way to power down the motorized gimbal so that the system can protect itself from undesirable damage due to powered down motors. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman, Yang, and Liu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 12, further comprising: while the gimbal is in the protection mode, in response to an input operation on the gimbal, determining whether the support assembly is in suspension; and in response to the support assembly still being in suspension, maintaining the gimbal in the protection mode (Examiner interprets Applicant’s “in suspension” according to Applicant’s published paragraphs [0091]–[0095] wherein it is explained the “in suspension” state is a “protection mode” that powers off the motors of the gimbal; Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Woodman, Yang, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 12, further comprising: while the gimbal is in the protection mode, in response to the input operation on the gimbal, determining whether the support assembly is in suspension; and in response to the support assembly not being in suspension, controlling the gimbal to switch from the protection mode to the stabilization mode (Examiner interprets Applicant’s “in suspension” according to Applicant’s published paragraphs [0091]–[0095] wherein it is explained the “in suspension” state is a “protection mode” that powers off the motors of the gimbal; Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu (US 2021/0102656 A1) (herein “Liu ‘656”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu ‘656 teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the load device being removed from the arm assembly, controlling at least one motor of the arm assembly to rotate to cause the arm assembly to be in an attitude in which an operating surface of the load device faces a user when the load device is mounted to the arm assembly (Examiner notes that claim 15 and claim 16 recited opposite behavior thus evidencing the extra-solution activity of this claimed element; Obviously you can elect to include a behavior or not include a behavior in a device; Liu ‘656, ¶ 0043: teaches moving the gimbal to a pre-set position when receiving a power-down command to protect the device; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman, Yang, and Saika, with those of Liu ‘656, because Liu ‘656 simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding utilizing a safe way to power down the motorized gimbal so that the system can protect itself from undesirable damage due to powered down motors. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu ‘656 teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to the load device being removed from the arm assembly, controlling at least one motor of the arm assembly to cause the arm assembly to maintain an attitude at a time when the load device is separated from the arm assembly (Examiner notes that claim 15 and claim 16 recited the opposite behavior thus evidencing the extra-solution activity of this claimed element; Obviously you can elect to include a behavior or not include a behavior in a device; Liu ‘656, ¶ 0043: teaches moving the gimbal to a pre-set position when receiving a power-down command to protect the device; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached).
Claims 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu (US 2021/0147205 A1) (herein “Liu”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: while the gimbal is in a stabilization mode in which the arm assembly stabilizes the load device, determining whether a support assembly, of the gimble, supporting the arm assembly is in suspension during a process of removing the load device from the arm assembly; and in response to the support assembly being in suspension, controlling the gimbal to switch from the stabilization mode to a protection mode in which the motor stops outputting torque (Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached; Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Woodman, Yang, and Saika, with those of Liu, because Liu simply defines for the benefit of the teachings of Woodman how one skilled in the art would interpret the capabilities of the skilled artisan regarding utilizing a safe way to power down the motorized gimbal so that the system can protect itself from undesirable damage due to powered down motors. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to a load mounting member being mounted to the arm assembly (Examiner interprets this in view of Applicant’s published paragraph [0032] as a sensor, like a microswitch or a Hall sensor, determining if the mount and camera are attached to the gimbal assembly; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches the camera mount may include electrical connection points for power or to communicate signals; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached), determining a combination state of the load mounting member and the load device, the load mounting member being configured to be connected to the arm assembly and the load device (Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches a camera mount interfacing with the camera and the gimbal arm and having electrical connections for communication; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached); and controlling a mode of the gimbal based on whether the load mounting member is connected to the load device, including: in response to the load mounting member being not connected to the load device, controlling the gimbal to be in a protection mode in which one or more motors of the arm assembly stop outputting torque; or in response to the load mounting member being connected to the load device, controlling the gimbal to be in a stabilization mode in which the arm assembly stabilizes the load device (Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Woodman, Yang, Saika, and Liu teaches or suggests the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to a load mounting member being mounted to the arm assembly (Examiner interprets this in view of Applicant’s published paragraph [0032] as a sensor, like a microswitch or a Hall sensor, determining if the mount and camera are attached to the gimbal assembly; Woodman, ¶ 0068: teaches the camera mount may include electrical connection points for power or to communicate signals; Saika, ¶ 0048: teaches the protection mode of a gimbal can include not restoring power unless a compatible camera and/or platform is detected to be attached), controlling at least one motor of the arm assembly to output torque, the load mounting member being configured to be connected to the arm assembly and the load device; and controlling a mode of the gimbal based on whether the load mounting member rotates, including: in response to the load mounting member rotating, controlling the gimbal to be in a protection mode; or in response to the load mounting member not rotating, controlling the gimbal to enter a stabilization mode (Liu, ¶¶ 0005 and 0043: teaches determining a state of the gimbal as tipped-over and switching the gimbal into “protection mode” wherein the motor of the gimbal is powered off and then restoring power when the gimbal is back to operating in a normal state).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saun (US 2020/0337776 A1) teaches a motorized gimbal control loop for stabilizing a gimbal’s payload, which can be a camera, wherein IMU sensor measurements are fed through calibration correction and ultimately fed to motor drivers of the gimbal to achieve stabilization (e.g. ¶ 0052). The publication also teaches the camera can remotely control the 3-axis gimbal using onboard computer vision algorithms to automatically track an area of interest (e.g. ¶ 0100). See also the generic explanation of a gimbal (¶¶ 0129–0130). See also the control of the gimbal can come from an app on a smartphone and be connected via Bluetooth (¶ 0143).
Saika (US 2016/0352992 A1) teaches gimbals coupled to mounting platforms of an aerial vehicle are also contemplated to be coupled to a handheld grip (Abstract).
Liao (US 2022/0034446 A1) teaches damage protection by powering off the gimbal during a phone call (e.g. ¶ 0057).
Xie (US 2021/0064069 A1) teaches gradually powering down or entering sleep mode so as to not damage the camera since an abrupt powering down could cause the load to swing wildly (e.g. ¶ 0003).
Thompson (US 2019/0329903 A1) teaches a system in which the gimbal can be locked so that when not powered, the motors do not allow the gimbal to freely swing and potentially cause damage (¶ 0160).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights