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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 recite “sensor”. However, it is clear from various claims that these claims should instead recite --at least one sensor--. For example, claims 7 and 17 requires that the sensor includes at least one external camera. Claims 8 and 18 require that the sensor includes at least one external camera and at least one internal camera. A single sensor cannot includes multiple sensors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner note: Claims 4 and 14 introduce “a marking device” which includes a generic placeholder (device). Claim 4 recites “a marking device configured to operate a light source”, while claim 14 recites “irradiating light from a light source to the estimated landing point using a marking device”. It is not immediately apparent whether the light source is part of the marking device because the claims do not explicitly recite such a limitation. However, in light of the specification, the claims are interpreted such that the marking device does comprise the light source, and therefore claims 4 and 14 recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “output device” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “output device” uses a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language (providing a user with at least one image) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Output device: [0050-0053] - the output device 130 may include, but is not limited to, a display panel (e.g., an LCD, OLED, or E-ink display), a projection module, or an augmented reality (AR) device capable of rendering visual content
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system or a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“a sensor; an output device; a memory that stores at least one instruction; and a processor operatively connected with the sensor, the output device, and the memory, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause performance of operations comprising: identifying an estimated landing point of the mobility apparatus based on sensing information obtained using the sensor, and providing, via the output device, a user with at least one image including marking information corresponding to the estimated landing point”
The limitations of identifying an estimating landing point, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “executed by the processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “executed by the processor” language, identifying an estimated landing point in the context of the claim encompasses a person evaluating sensing information, for example an image obtained from a camera of the landing point, and making a decision or selection of where to land. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a sensor, an output device, a memory, and a processor. The sensor obtaining sensing information and output device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor and a generic output device such as a display). The memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic memory and processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation of providing, via the output device, a user with at least one image including marking information corresponding to the estimated landing point is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., selecting a location on an image in response to the mental step of identifying the estimated landing point) and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Making an identification/determination and displaying in response to that identification/determination is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution displaying. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 12-13, and 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 recite obtaining the sensing information using the sensor while hovering. This is merely further limiting when the sensing information is obtained and therefore this limitation is still considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 3 and 13 recite what kind of information the sensor obtains and therefore this limitation is still considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 9 and 19 recite a step of identifying a real-time flight image from a third-person point of view based on the at least one image and flight information obtained using the sensor. The step of identifying is still a process that can be performed in the human mind. A human mind can visualize a third-person point of view, and even draw a third-person point of view based on sensing information. Claims 9 and 19 also recite a step of providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device. The limitation of providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Making an identification/determination and displaying in response to that identification/determination is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution displaying.
Claims 10 and 20 recite a step of identifying a real-time flight image from a top-view point of view based on the at least one image and flight information obtained using the sensor. The step of identifying is still a process that can be performed in the human mind. A human mind can visualize a top-view point of view, and even draw a top-view point of view based on sensing information. Claims 10 and 20 also recite a step of providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device. The limitation of providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Making an identification/determination and displaying in response to that identification/determination is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution displaying.
Claims 4 and 14 recite operating the marking device to irradiate light from the light source to the estimated landing point. This limitation integrates the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 depend from claims 4 and 14, and therefore integrate the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons as claims 4 and 14.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salesse-Lavergne (US 2018/0222602 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salesse-Lavergne discloses a system for operating a mobility apparatus (see at least Fig. 1, [0112] – piloting assistance system 10 for an aircraft 1), the system comprising: a sensor (see at least Fig. 1, [0113, 0116] – sensors 71… at least one camera 16); an output device (see at least Fig. 1, [0124, 0126] – first display 60… second display 80); a memory that stores at least one instruction (see at least Fig. 1, [0115] – memory unit); and a processor operatively connected with the sensor, the output device, and the memory (see at least Fig. 1, [0115] – processor), wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause performance of operations (see at least Fig. 1, [0115]) comprising: identifying an estimated landing point of the mobility apparatus based on sensing information obtained using the sensor (see at least [0153-0154, 0162, 0164, 0171-0173] – position information serves to determine the position of the landing zone relative to the aircraft 1… the position information may then comprise an elevation angle 200 and a bearing angle Φ to a geometrical center of the landing zone, together with a distance D1 between the aircraft 1 and the landing zone… processing unit 75 determines a current position of the target landing zone), and providing, via the output device, a user with at least one image including marking information corresponding to the estimated landing point (see at least [0153-0154, 0162, 0164, 0171-0173, 0203-0204] - the second display 80 displays a second symbol 85 representing the landing zone positioned at the current position… the second display 80 displays a representation of the landing zone).
Regarding claim 2, Salesse-Lavergne discloses wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining the sensing information about the mobility apparatus and a landing site using the sensor (see at least Fig. 1, [0113, 0116, 0134] – sensors 71 can evaluate various parameters relating to the aircraft… cameras 16 generate images in order to identify landing zones) while the mobility apparatus performs a hovering operation above an area adjacent to the landing site (see at least [0038, 0076] – causing the aircraft to hover in order to predict where the landing zone is going to be found at the time of its rendezvous with the aircraft).
Regarding claim 3, Salesse-Lavergne discloses wherein the sensing information includes at least one of posture information of the mobility apparatus, a speed of the mobility apparatus, a flight direction of the mobility apparatus, a real-time position of the mobility apparatus, or a relative distance between the mobility apparatus and a landing site, or any combination thereof (see at least [0113] - sensors 71 can evaluate the current value of at least one flight state, such as at least one angular speed of the aircraft about an axis of a reference frame of the aircraft, a roll angle and a pitching angle of the aircraft 1, a heading followed by the aircraft 1, at least one acceleration of the aircraft 1 along an axis of the reference frame 2 of the aircraft, at least one speed of the aircraft along an axis of reference frame 2 of the aircraft, a geographical position of the aircraft in the Earth's reference frame).
Regarding claim 9, Salesse-Lavergne discloses wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a real-time flight image from a third-person point of view (see at least Fig. 2, [0195] - the first display 60 point of view) based on (i) the at least one image about the estimated landing point (see at least Fig. 2, [0195-0196] – landing zone 64 and first symbol 65) and (ii) flight information of the mobility apparatus (see at least Fig. 2, [0197] – consolidated path 66), wherein the at least one image and the flight information are obtained using the sensor (see at least [0195-0197]); and providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device (see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Salesse-Lavergne discloses wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a real-time flight image from a top-view point of view (see at least Fig. 2, [0126, 0203, 0206] – second display 80 point of view) based on (i) the at least one image about the estimated landing point (see at least Fig. 2, [0203] – second symbol 85 representing the landing zone positioned at the current position) and (ii) flight information of the mobility apparatus (see at least Fig. 2, [0206] - the second display 80 may display in conventional manner at least one piece of data…second symbol 85), wherein the at least one image and the flight information are obtained using the sensor (see at least [0153-0154, 0162, 0164, 0171-0173, 0203-0204]); and providing the user with the real-time flight image via the output device (see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 11-13 and 19-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-3 and 9-10, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 11-13 and 19-20do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-3 and 9-10; therefore, claims 11-13 and 19-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as in claims 1-3 and 9-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4-7 and 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salesse-Lavergne in view of Mouton (US 2016/0280393 A1, cited in the IDS dated 12/29/2025).
Regarding claim 4, Salesse-Lavergne does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a marking device configured to operate a light source, wherein identifying the estimated landing point comprises estimating a landing point based on the mobility apparatus maintaining a current flight state using the sensing information, wherein the operations further comprise operating the marking device to irradiate light from the light source to the estimated landing point, and wherein the marking information includes a specified marker corresponding to the light source.
Mouton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a marking device configured to operate a light source, wherein identifying the estimated landing point comprises estimating a landing point based on the mobility apparatus maintaining a current flight state using the sensing information, wherein the operations further comprise operating the marking device to irradiate light from the light source to the estimated landing point, and wherein the marking information includes a specified marker corresponding to the light source (see at least Figs. 1-5, 8, [0129, 0151-0152] - measurement system serves in particular to enable the lighting device to determine at least one distance relating to the distance that is to be traveled by the light between the projector and the ground, and at least one angle enabling a projection axis followed by the light and of the projector to be positioned relative to the ground… using this data, the processor unit calculates the values of adjustment settings and transmits orders to the light generator and to the light processor system 30 in order to obtain the desired projected light shape 91).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Mouton into the invention of Salesse-Lavergne with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accurately marking the landing zone in order to alert individuals to keep out of the illuminated zone in order to avoid being impacted by an aircraft that is landing (Mouton – [0015-0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Salesse-Lavergne does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: identifying an altitude of the mobility apparatus using the sensor; and adjusting a size of the light irradiated from the light source based on a variation of the altitude while maintaining a size of the specified marker.
Mouton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the operations further comprise: identifying an altitude of the mobility apparatus using the sensor; and adjusting a size of the light irradiated from the light source based on a variation of the altitude while maintaining a size of the specified marker (see at least Fig. 5, [0106, 0156, 0176] - the positioning system may comprise a GPS system for determining the three-dimensional coordinates of the aircraft. These coordinates make it possible in particular to evaluate the height of the aircraft… a telemeter or a radio altimeter may also measure the height 81 of the aircraft… the corrected light shape 90 emitted from the outlet of the projector varies so that the projected light shape 91 drawn on the ground nevertheless retains dimensions that are constant).
The motivation to combine Salesse-Lavergne and Mouton is the same as in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Salesse-Lavergne does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a flight posture and a flight direction of the mobility apparatus using the sensor; and determining an irradiation direction of the light source toward the estimated landing point relative to the flight posture and the flight direction.
Mouton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a flight posture and a flight direction of the mobility apparatus using the sensor; and determining an irradiation direction of the light source toward the estimated landing point relative to the flight posture and the flight direction (see at least Figs. 1-5, 8, [0065, 0129, 0151-0152] - the orientation of the aircraft relative to the terrestrial surface as illustrated by at least one of the following angles: the roll angle, the pitching angle, and the yaw angle of the aircraft in the terrestrial reference frame… measurement system serves in particular to enable the lighting device to determine at least one distance relating to the distance that is to be traveled by the light between the projector and the ground, and at least one angle enabling a projection axis followed by the light and of the projector to be positioned relative to the ground… using this data, the processor unit calculates the values of adjustment settings and transmits orders to the light generator and to the light processor system 30 in order to obtain the desired projected light shape 91).
The motivation to combine Salesse-Lavergne and Mouton is the same as in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, Salesse-Lavergne discloses wherein the sensor includes at least one external camera configured to obtain information about the estimated landing point, and wherein the operations further comprise providing, via the output device, the sensing information obtained using the at least one external camera (see at least [0134, 0153-0154, 0156, 0162, 0164, 0171-0173, 0203-0204] – the first imaging system 40 may process the stream of images generated by the cameras in order to identify landing zones… angle the second display 80 displays a second symbol 85 representing the landing zone positioned at the current position… the second display 80 displays a representation of the landing zone).
Regarding claims 14-17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 4-7, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 14-17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 4-7; therefore, claims 14-17 are also rejected over the same rationale as in claims 4-7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salesse-Lavergne in view of Mouton and Komatsu (US 2023/0294115 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Salesse-Lavergne does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor further includes at least one internal camera, and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, using the at least one internal camera, a user direction that the user faces or in which the user adjusts the mobility apparatus; and adjusting a sensing direction of the at least one external camera to thereby orient the at least one external camera to the user direction.
Komatsu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the sensor further includes at least one internal camera, and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying, using the at least one internal camera, a user direction that the user faces or in which the user adjusts the mobility apparatus; and adjusting a sensing direction of the at least one external camera to thereby orient the at least one external camera to the user direction (see at least Figs. 3-4, [0285, 0295] - line-of-sight direction and posture of the driver are recognized by the DMS 30, for example, on the basis of an image from the camera 151FL… imaging capturing directions of the cameras 51SL and 51SR are adjusted by, for example, the display control unit on the basis of at least one of the line-of-sight direction or the posture of the driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Komatsu into the invention of Salesse-Lavergne with a reasonable expectation of success. Komatsu teaches that in addition to vehicles, the present technology can also be applied to a mobile apparatus such as personal mobility, airplanes, ships, construction machinery, and agricultural machinery (Komatsu – [0553]). Furthermore, doing so appropriately adjusts the range of image being displayed according to the line-of-sight direction of the driver so the driver (pilot in an aircraft application) can check and confirm the situation in a desired range without feeling discomfort (Komatsu – [0295, 0314]). Repositioning the cameras would improve visualization, thereby improving safety. Implementing the ability to adjust an external camera direction based on a gaze or line-of-sight of an operator detected by an internal camera could be carried out to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The relevant prior art that was cited but not applied includes: Filias (US 2018/0009546 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights