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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 7/7/2025. Claims 1-2 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 includes Japanese symbols that have not been translated into English.
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
5. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
6. Claims 1-2 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.
7. The term “substantially” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a direction substantially opposite to a direction in which the drone performs display is interpreted as any direction. Claim 2 has the same limitation as Claim 1 except for its is a separate independent claim but is rejected for the same reasoning.
8. Regarding Claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood what is meant by “a direction substantially opposite to a direction in which the drone performs display.” More specifically, it is unclear if the opposite direction is with respect to the target person or the body of the drone. The claim is being interpreted as moving at least one of the plurality of drones so the distances are changed based on the illuminance in a direction that increases visibility of the display.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (US 20180312274 A1) in view of Lim (KR 102267750 B1).
13. Regarding Claim 1, Kessler teaches a control method for controlling a plurality of drones, each of the plurality of drones being configured to… perform display at a predetermined position, wherein the control method comprises (Kessler: [0030] and [0050] “the light system processor 268 may adjust each light sources 150A-H differently based on environmental awareness”):
The illuminance being detected by at least one of the plurality of drones (Kessler: [0051] The processor 268 determining the sunlight is equivalent to detecting illuminance.);
Capturing an image in a predetermined direction from at least one of the plurality of drones (Kessler: [0036] Camera 222);
Extracting a target person from a captured image acquired by the capturing of the image (Kessler: [0036] “A camera 222 image may be processed to determine whether an operator of the UAV can be recognized”);
And causing the display of each of the plurality of drones to face a direction in which the target person is present (Kessler: [0044] and [0068] Block 620).
Kessler fails to explicitly teach each of the plurality of drones being configured to be movable in a space; and moving at least one of the plurality of drones so that distances between the plurality of drones are changed based on illuminance in a direction substantially opposite to a direction in which the drone performs display.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches each of the plurality of drones being configured to be movable in a space; and moving at least one of the plurality of drones so that distances between the plurality of drones are changed based on illuminance in a direction substantially opposite to a direction in which the drone performs display (Lim: [0013], [0053], and [0054] “The screen management unit 550 determines the position of the sun so that when the user looks at the screen 200, the screen 200 is located at a position where the sun does not interfere with the position of the drone 100”).
Kessler and Lim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kessler to incorporate the teachings of Lim to move the drones so that distances between the drones are changed based on illuminance because it provides the benefit of position the display to increase the visibility for the user as explicitly explained in [0013] and [0053] of Lim.
14. Regarding Claim 2, Kessler teaches a control system comprising a plurality of drones and a control apparatus configured to control the plurality of drones… wherein each of the plurality of drones comprises (Kessler: [0030] and [0050] “the light system processor 268 may adjust each light sources 150A-H differently based on environmental awareness”):
A display unit configured to perform display at a predetermined position in the space (Kessler: [0025] “LEDs mounted to the rotors may display messages or images”);
And an illuminance sensor configured to detect illuminance of the display unit in a rear direction thereof which is a direction substantially opposite to a direction in which the display unit performs display (Kessler: [0034] and [0051] sensors 220),
Captures an image in a predetermined direction from at least one of the plurality of drones (Kessler: [0036] Camera 222);
Extracts a target person from a captured image acquired by the capturing of the image (Kessler: [0036] “A camera 222 image may be processed to determine whether an operator of the UAV can be recognized”);
And causes the display of each of the plurality of drones to face a direction in which the target person is present (Kessler: [0044] and [0068] Block 620).
Kessler fails to explicitly teach each of the plurality of drones being configured to be movable in a space; and the control apparatus: moves at least one of the plurality of drones so that distances between the plurality of drones are changed based on the illuminance detected by at least one of the plurality of drones.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lim teaches each of the plurality of drones being configured to be movable in a space; and the control apparatus: moves at least one of the plurality of drones so that distances between the plurality of drones are changed based on the illuminance detected by at least one of the plurality of drones (Lim: [0013], [0053], and [0054] “The screen management unit 550 determines the position of the sun so that when the user looks at the screen 200, the screen 200 is located at a position where the sun does not interfere with the position of the drone 100”).
Kessler and Lim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kessler to incorporate the teachings of Lim to move the drones so that distances between the drones are changed based on illuminance because it provides the benefit of position the display to increase the visibility for the user as explicitly explained in [0013] and [0053] of Lim.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boudville (US 20190047695 A1)
Jobanputra (US 20200073385 A1)
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
