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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s response filed on August 27th, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendment filed August 27th, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, and 20 rejections, maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 claims 15-18 rejections, withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 claims 4-7, 11, and 13-14 rejections, and maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim 19 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed August 27th, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 1 and 12, as set forth on pages 10-11, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Song does not disclose "control the movable platform to change a nose direction based on one of the first operation and the second operation" together with "control the movable platform to change a horizontal component direction of a motion velocity based on the other one of the first operation and the second operation," as recited in claim 1, and accordingly does not anticipate claim 1. Song may allow a target flight direction to be expressed at an angle relative to the UAV coordinate system. That geometric result does not supply the amended operation-to-parameter mapping: Song uses the UAV attitude as current-state information for determining and implementing the target flight direction, rather than disclosing that one of the claimed user operations controls a change in the UAV nose direction and the other controls a change in the horizontal direction of motion. In light of the foregoing, Song's processing yields a single navigation output. In contrast, the amended claims require that the generated control instruction(s) independently control, based on different user inputs, the following two parameters: (1) the heading (orientation of the nose); and (2) the direction of the horizontal component of the movement velocity. These two control objectives are then intentionally allowed to deviate from one another, thereby creating the aforementioned non-zero angle.”
As to point (a), Examiner partially disagrees. Examiner maintains that song discloses controlling the movable platform to change a horizontal component direction of a motion velocity based on an operation of the controller such that and angle greater than 0 is formed. As shown by fig. 3A-3C, the drone is capable of being configured to fly in a direction independent of the heading and therefore forming an angle greater than 0. However, examiner agrees with applicant’s argument that Song does not disclose controlling the nose direction based on an operation of the remote control. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of DJI Tutorials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEZ2i6t_CRs)
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 2-3, 8-10 and 12, as set forth on page 11, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Claims 2-3, 8-10, and 12 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Because Song does not disclose each limitation of amended claim 1. Song likewise does not anticipate these dependent claims”.
As to point (b), see point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 15, as set forth on page 11-13, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Independent claim 15 recites, inter alia, “the trigger is configured to receive the resetting force provided by the reset member during movement from the target position in either a first direction or second direction.” This limitation requires a single reset member/target-position arrangement capable of supplying a restoring force regardless of which of two directions is displaced… This passage discloses, at most, a single elastic member engaged at a single point, one side against a mounting arm, the other side against "the first side of the trigger." An elastic member compressed between a fixed mounting arm and one face of the trigger will, by ordinary mechanical operation, resist and restore motion of the trigger in the direction that further compresses that member. Nothing in the cited passage, nor anywhere else identified in the rejection, discloses or even suggests a corresponding structure engaging the opposite side of the trigger, or any other mechanism by which the same elastic member could supply a restoring force when the trigger moves away from it, in the second direction”.
As to point (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as written states that “the resetting force provided by the reset member during movement from the target position in either a first direction or second direction”. The use of the terms “either” and “or” render the claim to be broadly interpreted as only needing a resetting force in one of the two directions. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 16, as set forth on page 13, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “For the same reason, Zhou does not disclose the further limitation of claim 16 requiring that, "for a same movement stroke, the trigger, during a movement from the target position in the first direction, is subjected to a resetting force provided by the reset member that is greater than a resetting force provided by the reset member during a movement from the target position in the second direction." Zhou's one-sided spring-return arrangement does not provide two restoring-force conditions for movements from a common target position that can be compared as required by claim 16. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claim 16”.
As to point (d), see point (c). Additionally, the restoring force of Zhou in the one direction would be zero and therefore the first restoring force would be greater than the second.
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 17, as set forth on pages 13, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Zhou also does not disclose the two user force-application parts recited in claim 17. Zhou explains that the user applies force in one direction and releases the trigger for spring-driven movement in the other direction (Zhou 11 188-189). That operating arrangement does not identify a first force application part that receives force along the first direction to drive trigger rotation and a second force application part that receives force along the second direction to drive trigger rotation. Therefore, Zhou does not disclose "upon receiving a force along the first direction, the first force application part drives the trigger to rotate along the first direction, and upon receiving a force along the second direction, the second force application part drives the trigger to rotate along the second direction," as recited in claim 17. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claim 17.”
As to point (e), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As written the claims do not require the force-application part to be a “user” force-application part. The elastic member used to provide the elastic restoring force to the trigger is applying a force causing the trigger to rotate along the second direction and therefore, constitutes a force application part. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 18, as set forth on pages 13-14, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and further requires a receiving groove formed by sides of the claimed first and second force application parts. Because Zhou does not disclose the two force application parts and their respective bidirectional force-receiving functions as recited in claim 17, Zhou likewise does not disclose the receiving groove formed by sides of those claimed parts as recited in claim 18. Accordingly, Zhou does not anticipate claim 18.”.
As to point (f), see point (c) and point (e).
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 4-7, as set forth on pages 14, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Zhou is also utilized to remedy the deficiency of Song with respect to claims 4-7. The Office Action relies on Zhou for trigger-related subject matter. Even assuming that Zhou supplies the additional trigger limitations, Zhou does not teach using one of the first and second user operations mapped to Song by the Office Action to control a change in the UAV nose direction and the other of those operations to control a change in the horizontal-component direction of motion. The Song-Zhou combination therefore still lacks the amended limitation of claim 1, from which claims 4-7 ultimately depend. Accordingly, claims 4-7 are patentable over the proposed combination.”
As to point (g), see point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 11, as set forth on page 14, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Yang does not disclose using the claimed first and second operations as mapped to Song by the Office Action, one of which is a motion-sensing control operation, so that one controls a change in the UAV nose direction and the other controls a change in the horizontal-component direction of motion. Even if Yang supplies an up-down axis, the Song-Yang combination as proposed by the Office Action therefore does not cure the missing limitation of amended claim 1.”.
As to point (h), see point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 13 and 14, as set forth on page 14-15, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Deng is used to remedy the deficiency of Song with respect to claims 13 and 14…These camera-control teachings do not disclose or suggest assigning one of the first and second operations mapped to Song by the Office Action to change the UAV nose direction and the other operation to change the horizontal-component direction of motion. Thus, regardless of whether Deng supplies the additional scroll-wheel limitations of claims 13 and 14, the Song-Deng combination does not cure the missing limitation of amended claim 1”.
As to point (i), see point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 15-18, as set forth on page 15, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Forest does not cure Zhou's failure to disclose the parent-claim arrangement in which two force application parts each receive user force in a respective direction to drive trigger rotation. The proposed Zhou-Forest combination therefore remains deficient at least for the limitations inherited from claims 15, 17, and 18.”.
As to point (j), see points (c-f).
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 19, as set forth on page 15, arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Forest paragraph 50 describes a rotational coupling that allows an end effector to rotate and lock in position; the cited disclosure does not expressly identify "a_ fastener" having a first state in which the first and second force application parts are fixed and a second state in which those parts are rotatable relative to each other, as recited in claim 19. Accordingly, Forest does not cure the deficiencies of Zhou and claim 19 is patentable over the proposed combination.”
As to point (k), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “fastener” is well-known in the art and can be defined as a hardware device that mechanically joins or affixes two or more objects together. While Forest does not explicitly use the term fastener, the rotation coupling affixes the trigger to the housing and can therefore be considered a fastener. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 4-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "generating the control instruction based on the first operation, the second operation and the third operation, wherein among the first operation, the second operation and the third operation, one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change a velocity vector direction, another one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change a velocity vector magnitude, and a remaining one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change the nose direction" renders the claim(s) unclear. Claim 1, on which claim 4 depends states that each of the first and second operations control one of the first and second actions, claim 4 contradicts this by stating the third operation can control the first or second action to occur. Therefore, it is unclear whether the first and second actions can only be performed by the first and second operations of claim 1 or whether it could also be performed by the third operation of claim 4. Claims 5-7 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 merely repeats limitations of claim 1, without further limiting the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by CN214504257U (hereinafter, “Zhou”)
Regarding claim 15 Zhou discloses a motion-sensing controller (see at least [0001]; “This application relates to the field of remote-control technology, and more specifically, to a trigger assembly and a remote controller.”), comprising:
a housing (see at least fig. 1); and
a trigger assembly movably connected to the housing (see at least Fig. 1), wherein the trigger assembly comprises a trigger (see at least [0004]; “the trigger assembly of this application includes a support structure, a trigger, and a position detector”) and a reset member (see at least [0015]; “the trigger assembly further includes an elastic member”), the trigger is connected to the reset member and is movable relative to the housing, the reset member is configured to provide a resetting force to position the trigger to a target position (see at least [0015]; “a first side of the elastic member engaging with the mounting arm, a second side of the elastic member engaging with the first side of the trigger, the elastic member being used to provide an elastic restoring force to the trigger”), the trigger is configured to receive the resetting force provided by the reset member during a movement from the target position in either a first direction or a second direction (see at least [0015]; “the trigger assembly further includes an elastic member housed within the receiving space, a first side of the elastic member engaging with the mounting arm, a second side of the elastic member engaging with the first side of the trigger, the elastic member being used to provide an elastic restoring force to the trigger.”).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Zhou discloses wherein the housing comprises a grip part (see at least [0069]; “In some embodiments, the housing includes a grip portion and a bent mounting portion. The grip portion is designed for one-handed use by a user”), and for a same movement stroke, the trigger, during a movement from the target position in the first direction, is subjected to a resetting force provided by the reset member that is greater than a resetting force provided by the reset member during a movement from the target position in the second direction (see at least [0189]; “When an external force is applied to the free end of the trigger 32, causing the second side 322 of the trigger 32 to rotate toward the interior of the housing 10, the first side 321 of the trigger 32 rotates away from the interior of the housing 10. That is, the trigger 32 is triggered by force and rotates around the connecting shaft 21251 in the first direction. At this time, the trigger 32 drives the second side 3272 of the elastic element 327 to move away from the first side 3271 of the elastic element 327. That is, the elastic element 327 is stretched to generate elastic force. When the free end of the trigger 32 is released or the force is reduced, the elastic element 327 provides elastic restoring force, causing the second side 3272 of the elastic element 327 to move toward the first side 3271 of the elastic element 327,” the restoring force executed after the trigger is pulled inward is greater because its working against the elastic force, whereas in the other direction the trigger is being pushed outward and therefore works with the elastic force), the first direction is a direction in which the trigger moves toward the grip part, and the second direction is a direction in which the trigger moves away from the grip part (see at least [0076]; “when the trigger is turned toward the interior of the housing the rotational speed of the drone’s motor increases, and when the trigger is turned away from the interior of the housing the rotational speed of the drone’s motor decrease”).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Zhou discloses wherein the trigger comprises a first force application part and a second force application part, the first force application part and the second force application part are located outside the housing, upon receiving a force along the first direction, the first force application part drives the trigger to rotate along the first direction, and upon receiving a force along the second direction, the second force application part drives the trigger to rotate along the second direction (see at least [0139]; “The first side 3271 of the elastic element 327 is engaged with the mounting arm 2123, and the second side 3272 of the elastic element 327 is engaged with the first side 321 of the trigger 32. When the trigger 32 is triggered by force and rotates around the connecting shaft 21251 in the first direction, the elastic element 327 is stretched. When the trigger 32 is released or the force is reduced, the elastic element 327 drives the trigger 32 to rotate around the connecting shaft 21251 in the second direction, and the first direction is opposite to the second direction,” and [00181]; “when the trigger 32 is turned toward the inside of the housing 10, the rotational speed of the motor 402 of the drone 400 increases, and when the trigger 32 is turned away from the inside of the housing 10, the rotational speed of the motor 402 of the drone 400 decreases,” it would be obvious that in order to turn the trigger both toward and away from the housing there is force application parts on either side).
Regarding claim 18 Zhou discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Zhou discloses wherein a side of the first force application part and a side of the second force application part enclose to form a receiving groove (see at least [0094]; “In some embodiments, the housing further includes a first housing and a second housing, the first housing and the second housing being detachably connected to form a receiving cavity, the support structure being received within the receiving cavity; the trigger being received within the receiving cavity and protruding from the first housing.”).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180074487 (hereinafter, “Song”) in view of DJI Tutorials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEZ2i6t_CRs)
Regarding claim 1 Song discloses a motion-sensing control method for a movable platform (see at least [Abstract]; “A method for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes receiving remote control information indicating an operating direction of a rudder stick of a remote controller.”), comprising:
receiving a first operation and a second operation input by a user (see at least [0044]; “The smart controller is configured to monitor a user's operation and obtain related remote-control information”), wherein the first operation and the second operation are operations on different objects of a motion-sensing controller(see at least [0047]; “The attitude sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the remote controller, also referred to as "controller attitude information," while the remote controller is static or moving. The attitude information of the remote controller may include a nose orientation, a pitch angle, and a roll angle of the remote controller,” movement of the controller, the second operation, as detected by the controller’s attitude sensor corresponds to the motion sensing, and [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation on a different object than the second operation)…
in response to the first operation and the second operation, generating a control instruction, wherein the control instruction is configured to (see at least fig. 1, the UAV is controlled based on the inputs of the remote controller)…
…control the movable platform to change a horizontal component direction of a motion velocity based on the other one of the first operation and the second operation, such that an angle greater than 0° is formed between the nose direction of the movable platform and the horizontal component direction of the motion velocity of the movable platform (see at least [0069-0075]; “the unmanned aerial vehicle may obtain a target flight direction in accordance with attitude information of a remote controller, an operating angle of a rudder stick of the remote controller, and current attitude information of the unmanned aerial vehicle. The target flight direction may be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick of the remote controller. Accordingly, the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to fly in the target flight direction. [0074] It should be noted that, as the embodiments of the present disclosure achieve the functions corresponding to the remote-controller-locked mechanism, remote control information sent by the remote controller may carry indication information of headless mode and indication information of the remote-controller-locked mechanism. The unmanned aerial vehicle may start the controller-locked mode in the headless mode accordingly,” the nose orientation is able to be controlled independently of the flight direction which allows a control instruction with an angle greater than 0 to be output).
Song does not disclose a motion-sensing control method…comprising… one of the first operation and the second operation is a motion-sensing control operation on the motion-sensing controller…control the movable platform to change a nose direction based on one of the first operation and the second operation.
DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a motion-sensing control method…comprising… one of the first operation and the second operation is a motion-sensing control operation on the motion-sensing controller…control the movable platform to change a nose direction based on one of the first operation and the second operation (see at least [2:46-3:02]; “If you want to make a turn, rotate your wrist and forearm to move the circle on the screen to the left or right. The drone will rotate in the same direction as the motion controller does”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the heading control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Regarding claim 2 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the first operation and the second operation are operations on different components in the motion-sensing controller; or the first operation and the second operation are operations targeting different physical elements of a same component in the motion-sensing controller (see at least [0047]; “The attitude sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the remote controller, also referred to as "controller attitude information," while the remote controller is static or moving. The attitude information of the remote controller may include a nose orientation, a pitch angle, and a roll angle of the remote controller,” the second operation is acted on the controller as a whole, and [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” the first operation is acted on a rudder component).
Regarding claim 3 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the motion-sensing controller comprises a joystick, the first operation is an operation to change a stick control input of the joystick, (see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation on a different object than the second operation), and the second operation is an operation to change a motion-sensing attitude of the motion-sensing controller (see at least [0047]; “The attitude sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the remote controller, also referred to as "controller attitude information," while the remote controller is static or moving. The attitude information of the remote controller may include a nose orientation, a pitch angle, and a roll angle of the remote controller,” movement of the controller, the second operation, as detected by the controller’s attitude sensor corresponds to the motion sensing).
Regarding claim 4 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Song discloses further comprising:
generating the control instruction based on the first operation, the second operation (see at least fig. 1, the UAV is controlled based on the inputs of the remote controller) …
among the first operation, the second operation…one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change a velocity vector direction (see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation on a different object than the second operation).
Song does not disclose providing a trigger on the motion-sensing controller;
receiving a third operation from the user on the trigger, wherein the generating of the control instruction comprises:
generating the control instruction based on … the third operation,
wherein among the first operation, the second operation and the third operation… another one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change a velocity vector magnitude, and a remaining one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change the nose direction.
DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches providing a trigger on the motion-sensing controller (see at least [2:25]);
receiving a third operation from the user on the trigger (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone”), wherein the generating of the control instruction comprises:
generating the control instruction based on … the third operation (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone to fly towards the circle”),
wherein among the first operation, the second operation and the third operation… another one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change a velocity vector magnitude (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone to fly towards the circle,” as can be seen the drone goes from hovering in place to moving forward this constitutes a change in a velocity vector magnitude), and a remaining one is at least configured to control the movable platform to change the nose direction (see at least [2:46-3:02]; “If you want to make a turn, rotate your wrist and forearm to move the circle on the screen to the left or right. The drone will rotate in the same direction as the motion controller does”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the heading control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Regarding claim 5 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the control instruction is configured to:
control, based on the first operation, the movable platform to change a component of a velocity vector along an axis (see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation),…or
control, based on the first operation, the movable platform to change the nose direction of the movable platform, control, based on the second operation, the movable platform to change a component of a velocity vector along an axis, and control, based on the third operation, the movable platform to change a component of the velocity vector along another axis.
Song does not disclose control, based on the second operation, the movable platform to change the nose direction of the movable platform…
control, based on the third operation, the movable platform to change a component of the velocity vector along another axis.
DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches control, based on the second operation, the movable platform to change the nose direction of the movable platform (see at least [2:46-3:02]; “If you want to make a turn, rotate your wrist and forearm to move the circle on the screen to the left or right. The drone will rotate in the same direction as the motion controller does”)…
control, based on the third operation, the movable platform to change a component of the velocity vector along another axis (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone to fly towards the circle,” as can be seen the drone goes from hovering in place to moving forward this constitutes a change in a velocity vector magnitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the heading control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Regarding claim 8 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the control instruction is further configured to perform at least one of:
controlling, based on at least one of a stick control input or a change in the stick control input of the joystick, the movable platform to change a velocity vector (see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation and a stick control input, and changes the direction of the velocity vector); controlling, based on at least one of a stick control input or a change in the stick control input of the joystick, the movable platform to change the nose direction; or controlling, based on at least one of a stick control input or a change in the stick control input of the joystick, the movable platform to change an attitude of a photographing device mounted on the movable platform.
Regarding claim 9 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the stick control input of the joystick comprises a stick control input along a first axis and a stick control input along a second axis, and the first axis and the second axis are not parallel to each other (see at least Fig. 3a and [0064]; “The operating angle of the rudder stick of the remote controller, i.e., the angle 8 in FIG. 3a, may be obtained counterclockwise from the positive half axis of the horizontal axis of the coordinate system of the remote controller Y1X1O. The direction F, forming the angle 8 with the positive half axis of the horizontal axis of the coordinate system of the remote controller Y1X1O, is the operating direction of the rudder stick of the remote controller.”).
Regarding claim 10 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the controlling of the movable platform to change the velocity vector based on at least one of the stick control input or the change in the stick control input of the joystick comprises at least one of:
controlling, based on at least one of the stick control input or the change in the stick control input of the joystick along the first axis, the movable platform to change at least one of a direction or a magnitude of a component of the velocity vector along a third axis (Examiner note: per claim 11 the third axis is left-right in the body coordinate system)(see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” it would be obvious that one of the directions the rudder can be operated in is the left-right direction);
controlling, based on at least one of the stick control input or the change in the stick control input of the joystick along the second axis, the movable platform to change at least one of a direction or a magnitude of a component of the velocity vector along a fourth axis (Examiner note: per claim 11 the third axis is front-back in the body coordinate system)(see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” it would be obvious that one of the directions the rudder can be operated in is the front-back direction); or controlling, based on at least one of the stick control input or the change in the stick control input of the joystick along the second axis, the movable platform to change at least one of a direction or a magnitude of a component of the velocity vector along a fifth axis, wherein
the third axis and the fourth axis are in a same plane and are not parallel to each other (see at least Fig. 3a), and the fifth axis is perpendicular to the plane of the third axis and the fourth axis.
Regarding claim 11 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the third axis and the fourth axis are respectively a left-right direction and a front-back direction in a body coordinate system of the movable platform (see at least Fig. 3a, additionally it would be obvious that the drone could additionally travel up and down which would correspond to the fifth axis)…or the third axis and the fourth axis are respectively a left-right direction and a front- back direction in a photographing frame coordinate system of the photographing device mounted on the movable platform, and the fifth axis is an up-down direction in the photographing frame coordinate system of the photographing device mounted on the movable platform.
Song does not disclose the fifth axis is an up-down direction in the body coordinate system of the movable platform.
DJI tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the fifth axis is an up-down direction in the body coordinate system of the movable platform (see at least [2:53]; “the drone will fly up or down vertically”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Regarding claim 12 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Song discloses wherein one of the first operation and the second operation is at least configured to…control the movable platform to change a velocity vector (see at least [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation and changes the direction of the flight which corresponds to changing direction of a velocity vector).
Song does not disclose wherein one of the first operation and the second operation is at least configured to control the movable platform to change the nose direction of the movable platform.
DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein one of the first operation and the second operation is at least configured to control the movable platform to change the nose direction of the movable platform (see at least [2:46-3:02]; “If you want to make a turn, rotate your wrist and forearm to move the circle on the screen to the left or right. The drone will rotate in the same direction as the motion controller does”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the heading control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Regarding claim 20 Song discloses a control device for a movable platform (see at least [Abstract]; “A method for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes receiving remote control information indicating an operating direction of a rudder stick of a remote controller.”), comprising:
at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein during operation (see at least fig. 9, it would be obvious that a storage medium would include instruction for the control method executed by the processor), the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the device to at least:
receive a first operation and a second operation input by a user (see at least [0044]; “The smart controller is configured to monitor a user's operation and obtain related remote-control information”), wherein the first operation and the second operation are operations on different objects of a motion-sensing controller, and one of the first operation and the second operation is a motion-sensing control operation of the motion-sensing controller (see at least [0047]; “The attitude sensor is configured to obtain attitude information of the remote controller, also referred to as "controller attitude information," while the remote controller is static or moving. The attitude information of the remote controller may include a nose orientation, a pitch angle, and a roll angle of the remote controller,” movement of the controller, the second operation, as detected by the controller’s attitude sensor corresponds to the motion sensing, and [0049]; “The unmanned aerial vehicle only needs to be controlled to fly towards an operating direction of a rudder stick by operating the rudder stick of the remote controller. As such, the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick,” operation of the rudder stick corresponds to a first operation on a different object than the second operation), and
in response to the first operation and the second operation, generate a control instruction, wherein the control instruction is configured to (see at least fig. 1, the UAV is controlled based on the inputs of the remote controller)…
control the movable platform to change a horizontal component direction of a motion velocity based on the other one of the first operation and the second operation such that an angle greater than 0 is formed between the nose direction of the movable platform and the horizontal direction of the motion velocity of the movable platform. (see at least [0069-0075]; “the unmanned aerial vehicle may obtain a target flight direction in accordance with attitude information of a remote controller, an operating angle of a rudder stick of the remote controller, and current attitude information of the unmanned aerial vehicle. The target flight direction may be the same as the operating direction of the rudder stick of the remote controller. Accordingly, the unmanned aerial vehicle may be controlled to fly in the target flight direction. [0074] It should be noted that, as the embodiments of the present disclosure achieve the functions corresponding to the remote-controller-locked mechanism, remote control information sent by the remote controller may carry indication information of headless mode and indication information of the remote-controller-locked mechanism. The unmanned aerial vehicle may start the controller-locked mode in the headless mode accordingly,” the nose orientation is able to be controlled independently of the flight direction which allows a control instruction with an angle greater than 0 to be output).
Song does not disclose one of the first operation and the second operation is a motion-sensing control operation on the motion-sensing controller…control the movable platform to change a nose direction based on one of the first operation and the second operation.
DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches one of the first operation and the second operation is a motion-sensing control operation on the motion-sensing controller…control the movable platform to change a nose direction based on one of the first operation and the second operation (see at least [2:46-3:02]; “If you want to make a turn, rotate your wrist and forearm to move the circle on the screen to the left or right. The drone will rotate in the same direction as the motion controller does”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of DJI Tutorials, as applied to claim 4 above, in view of CN214504257U (hereinafter, “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 6 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, of DJI Tutorials, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in response to that the third operation is configured to control the movable platform to change the velocity vector (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone to fly towards the circle,” as can be seen the drone goes from hovering in place to moving forward this constitutes a change in a velocity vector magnitude), the control instruction is further configured to:
control, when the trigger moves in a first direction, the movable platform to generate at least one of a velocity or an acceleration along a target direction (see at least [2:25]; “press the accelerator to control the drone to fly towards the circle,” as can be seen the drone goes from hovering in place to moving forward this constitutes a change in a velocity vector magnitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song with the heading control of DJI Tutorials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enabling single-handed remote control of the drone (see at least DJI Tutorials).
Song in view of DJI Tutorials does not disclose control, when the trigger moves in a second direction, the movable platform to generate at least one of a velocity or an acceleration along a direction opposite to the target direction.
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches control, when the trigger moves in a second direction, the movable platform to generate at least one of a velocity or an acceleration along a direction opposite to the target direction When the trigger is turned in the first direction, the speed of the drone's motor decreases; when the trigger is turned in the second direction, the speed of the drone's motor increases”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song as modified by DJI Tutorials with the second direction trigger movement of Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of precise control of a drone’s throttle (see at least Zhou; [0108]).
Regarding claim 7 Song in view of DJI Tutorials and Zhou renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Song discloses wherein the target direction is the nose direction of the movable platform, the target direction is the velocity vector direction, or the target direction is associated with at least one of the first operation or the second operation (see at least Fig.3e – step 304 “determine a target flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle in accordance with the relative position and the operating angle of the rudder stick of the remote controller.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of DJI Tutorials, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20200183381 (hereinafter, “Deng”).
Regarding claim 13 Song in view of DJI Tutorials renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Song does not disclose further comprising: providing a scroll wheel in the motion-sensing controller;
receiving a fourth operation from the user on the scroll wheel, wherein the control instruction is further configured to control photographing parameters of a photographing device mounted on the movable platform based on the fourth operation.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: providing a scroll wheel in the motion-sensing controller (see at least fig. 1, 172-trackwheel);
receiving a fourth operation from the user on the scroll wheel, wherein the control instruction is further configured to control photographing parameters of a photographing device mounted on the movable platform based on the fourth operation (see at least [0061]; “the camera control button 172 can adjust the focus and exposure of the imaging device when it is scrolled. The trackwheel can adjust the focus and exposure in steps. At this time, the trackwheel can be scrolled and stay at specific angles (such as ninety degrees, sixty degrees, etc.) to maintain a focal length and exposure to be at a specific and spaced value; or the focal length and exposure of the job wheel can be adjusted steplessly, and at this time the trackwheel can be scrolled and stay at any angle, so that the focal length and exposure are maintained at any value within an adjustable range.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song as modified by DJI Tutorials with the camera control wheel of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing clear photos to be taken by the drone (see at least Deng; [0061]).
Regarding claim 14 Song in view of DJI Tutorials and Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the scroll wheel is configured to slide and move after being pressed (see at least [0061]; “the camera control button 172 can adjust the focus and exposure of the imaging device when it is scrolled), and the controlling of the photographing device mounted on the movable platform based on the fourth operation comprises at least one of:
controlling the photographing device to adjust the photographing parameters based on a sliding operation on the scroll wheel (see at least [0061]; “the camera control button 172 can adjust the focus and exposure of the imaging device when it is scrolled. The trackwheel can adjust the focus and exposure in steps. At this time, the trackwheel can be scrolled and stay at specific angles (such as ninety degrees, sixty degrees, etc.) to maintain a focal length and exposure to be at a specific and spaced value; or the focal length and exposure of the job wheel can be adjusted steplessly, and at this time the trackwheel can be scrolled and stay at any angle, so that the focal length and exposure are maintained at any value within an adjustable range.”); determining the photographing parameters based on a short press operation on the scroll wheel; or canceling the controlling of the photographing device to adjust the photographing parameters based on a long press operation on the scroll wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the remote controller control method of Song as modified by DJI Tutorials with the camera control wheel of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing clear photos to be taken by the drone (see at least Deng; [0061]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of US-20200023270 (hereinafter, “Forest”).
Regarding claim 19 Zhou discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Zhou does not disclose wherein the first force application part and the second force application part are rotatably connected, so that a size of the receiving groove is changeable; and
the trigger further comprises a fastener, and when the fastener is in a first state, the first force application part and the second force application part are fixed, when the fastener is in a second state, the first force application part and the second force application part are rotatable relative to each other.
Forest, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first force application part and the second force application part are rotatably connected, so that a size of the receiving groove is changeable (see at least [0050]; “FIG. 6 depicts a cross-sectional view of trigger 275, in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention. Trigger 275 includes face 276 and adjustable end effector 277 to eliminate gap 186 and gap 188. In this embodiment, trigger 275 includes rotational coupling 279 that allows adjustable end effector 277 to rotate to different positions and then lock in place, thereby increasing or decreasing the width of gap 180 to accommodate different finger sizes”); and
the trigger further comprises a fastener, and when the fastener is in a first state, the first force application part and the second force application part are fixed, when the fastener is in a second state, the first force application part and the second force application part are rotatable relative to each other (see at least [0050]; “FIG. 6 depicts a cross-sectional view of trigger 275, in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention. Trigger 275 includes face 276 and adjustable end effector 277 to eliminate gap 186 and gap 188. In this embodiment, trigger 275 includes rotational coupling 279 that allows adjustable end effector 277 to rotate to different positions and then lock in place, thereby increasing or decreasing the width of gap 180 to accommodate different finger sizes,” the rotational coupling is able to fasten the trigger size in place).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the controller of Zhou with the adjustable trigger of Forest. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of accommodating different finger sizes (see at least Forest; [0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/23/26
