DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 8/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,758,246 B1 in view of Beard et al. (US 9,769,387 B1), hereinafter Beard.
With respect to application claim 1, patent claim 5 recites an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising an image sensor configured to capture visual information (see patent claim 1 that recites “a sensor carried by the unmanned aerial vehicle configured to capture output signals conveying visual information”). The “visual information” captured by a “sensor” in patent claim 1 implies an image sensor.
Patent claim 5 further recites one or more processors (see patent claim 1 that recites “a processor”) configured to:
recognize a first pattern associated with a performer based on the visual information (see patent claim 1 that recites “recognize a first pattern associated with the performer based on the visual information”);
determine a first distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the first pattern (see patent claim 1 that recites “determine a first distance between the first pattern and the unmanned aerial vehicle”);
recognize a second pattern associated with a performee based on the visual information (see patent claim 1 that recites “recognize a second pattern associated with the performee based on the visual information”);
determine a second distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the second pattern (see patent claim 1 that recites “determine a second distance between the second pattern and the unmanned aerial vehicle”);
adjust the flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based at least on the first distance and the second distance so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view (see patent claim 1 that recites “adjust the flight control based on the first distance and the second distance such that the unmanned aerial vehicle is in position for the sensor to capture both the performer and the performee at the same time”); Capturing the performer and performee at the same time in patent claim 1 requires the performer and performee to be “within a single field of view,” given a singular “sensor” is claimed.
mark a video segment with a tag where the first pattern and the second pattern overlap (see patent claim 5 that recites “mark the video segment at a point in time in which the first pattern and the second pattern overlap”).
Patent claim 5 does not define the “processor” as being part of the “unmanned aerial vehicle,” nor does patent claim 5 include a “flight control subsystem” as being part of the “unmanned aerial vehicle.”
However, Beard teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a flight control subsystem (i.e. attitude control system 232) and one or more processors (i.e. image processor 234) for performing similar operations (see col. 7, lines 13-32, with respect to Figure 5, regarding that image processor 234 aboard UAV 100 analyzes the stream of images captured by camera 210 and image sensor 212 to select a target 118 and determine optimal and current orientations of the target 118 to UAV 100, which is adjusted via attitude control system 232, as described in col. 4, lines 60-64; col. 3, lines 22-39, regarding that action camera system determines a relative distance to target 118 based on the pattern 114, depicted in at least Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the one or more processors recited in patent claim 5 to be included in the unmanned aerial vehicle, in addition to a flight control system, as taught by Beard, in order to provide local processing of images for optimal real-time control (col. 7, lines 28-35 of Beard).
The combination of patent claim 5 and Beard applied to application 1 above is applied similarly to application 16. Specifically, Beard is applied to teach the system comprising a flight control subsystem (i.e. attitude control system 232) configured to adjust a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see col. 7, lines 13-32, with respect to Figure 5, regarding that optimal and current orientations of target 118 to UAV 100 are determined for adjustment via attitude control system 232 aboard UAV 100, described in col. 4, lines 60-64) and a computing system comprising one or more processors (i.e. image processor 234) and a storage medium (i.e. onboard data storage and memory 206) for performing similar operations (see col. 7, lines 13-32, with respect to Figure 5, regarding that image processor 234 aboard UAV 100 analyzes the stream of images captured by camera 210 and image sensor 212 to select a target 118 and determine optimal and current orientations of the target 118 to UAV 100, which is adjusted via attitude control system 232, as described in col. 4, lines 60-64; col. 3, lines 22-39, regarding that action camera system determines a relative distance to target 118 based on the pattern 114, depicted in at least Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the one or more processors recited in patent claim 5 to be associated with a computing system included in the unmanned aerial vehicle, in addition to a storage medium and a flight control system, as taught by Beard, in order to provide local processing of images for optimal real-time control (col. 7, lines 28-35 of Beard).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No 9,758,246 B1. Although the claims at issues are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 9 is anticipated by patent claim 15.
With respect to application claim 9, patent claim 15 recites a method comprising:
capturing visual information with an image sensor carried by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see claim 11 that recites “wherein a sensor carried by the unmanned aerial vehicle captures output signals conveying the visual information”); The “visual information” captured by a “sensor” in patent claim 11 implies an image sensor.
recognizing a first pattern associated with a performer based on the visual information (see claim 11 that recites “recognizing a first pattern associated with the performer based on visual information”);
determining a first distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the first pattern (see patent claim 11 that recites “determining a first distance between the first pattern and the unmanned aerial vehicle”);
recognizing a second pattern associated with a performee based on the visual information (see patent claim 11 that recites “recognizing a second pattern associated with the performee based on the visual information”);
determining a second distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the second pattern (see patent claim 11 that recites “determining a second distance between the second pattern and the unmanned aerial vehicle”);
adjusting flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based at least on the first distance and the second distance so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view (see patent claim 11 that recites “adjusting the flight control based on the first distance and the second distance such that the unmanned aerial vehicle is in position for the sensor to capture both the performer and the performee at the same time”); Capturing the performer and performee at the same time in patent claim 11 requires the performer and performee to be “within a single field of view,” given a singular “sensor” is claimed.
marking a video segment with a tag where the first pattern and the second pattern overlap (see patent claim 15 that recites “marking the video segment at a point in time in which the first pattern and the second pattern overlap”).
Therefore, patent claim 15 is in essence a "species" of the generic invention of application claim 9. It has been held that a generic invention is "anticipated" by a "species" within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Soll et al. (US 2016/0054737 A1), hereinafter Soll, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed system, method, and unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture visual information;
a flight control subsystem; and
one or more processors configured to:
recognize a first pattern associated with a performer based on the visual information;
determine a first distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the first pattern;
recognize a second pattern associated with a performee based on the visual information;
determine a second distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the second pattern;
adjust the flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based at least on the first distance and the second distance so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view; and
mark a video segment with a tag where the first pattern and the second pattern overlap.
Specifically, Soll teaches a similar unmanned aerial vehicle (i.e. drone 103, depicted in Figure 1) that comprises an image sensor configured to capture visual information (see ¶0018, regarding that a camera is attached to drone 103 for recording a moving object), a flight control subsystem (i.e. UAV flight controller 800, described in ¶0033), and one or more processors (i.e. processor 810, described in ¶0033) configured to recognize a performer based on the visual information (see ¶0043, regarding that the live video stream from the drone’s camera is analyzed to compute how close the user is to the UAV via computer vision, where the object tracker 850 is configured to track the moving object, as described in ¶0040), determine a first distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the moving object/user (see ¶0043, regarding that the user’s distance from the UAV is computed using the visual information from the drone’s camera), determine a second distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and a waypoint (see ¶0042, with respect to the lines 910, 912, and 913 of Figure 9, regarding that the UAV advances to the next waypoint along the rail when the user reaches a minimum threshold distance away from the UAV; ¶0047, regarding that a set of location points defines a flight pattern of the UAV), and adjust the flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based at least on the first distance and the second distance (see ¶0042, regarding that the UAV advances to the next waypoint along the rail when the user reaches a minimum distance away from the UAV; ¶0046, regarding that the UAV velocity is commanded along the rail based on a distance from the user). However, Soll fails to teach several features of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Soll generally teaches recognizing the moving object (i.e. “performer”) using computer vision and does not particularly teach recognizing a first pattern associated with a performer based on the visual information, such that the “first distance” is defined between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the first pattern.
The “second distance” of Soll is between the UAV and a predefined waypoint, which is not “recognized” by the UAV’s camera (i.e. “image sensor configured to capture visual information”), and thus, Soll further fails to teach that the processor is configured to recognize a second pattern associated with a performee based on the visual information, such that the “second distance” is defined between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the second pattern.
While the adjusted “flight control” of Soll considers distances between a moving object (i.e. “performer”) and a waypoint (i.e. “performee”), Soll does not perform this adjustment so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view.
Further, Soll is entirely silent on any teaching to mark a video segment with a tag where the first pattern and the second pattern overlap.
In light of the claimed features absent in Soll, Meier et al. (US 2015/0350614 A1), hereinafter Meier, and Gans et al. (US 2011/0128387 A1), hereinafter Gans, have been identified as closest relevant prior art.
Specifically, Meier teaches an autonomous aerial device that comprises an image sensor configured to capture visual information (see ¶0064-0065, regarding sensor component 104 of autonomous aerial device 100 includes one or more cameras to provide video information related to person 106), a flight control subsystem (see ¶0007, regarding a controller is configured to navigate the apparatus along a trajectory configured in accordance with a position of the subject of interest), and one or more processors (see ¶0145, regarding that one or more processing devices are used to implement the inventive methods) configured to mark a video segment with a tag where a runner (i.e. “performer”) and a finish line (i.e. “performee”) overlap (see ¶0152-0154, regarding that a time stamp associated with an indication of interest indicates a snippet in a video stream, where the snippet may indicate a runner crossing a finish line in ¶0090). However, Meier is silent in regards to any recognized “patterns” associated with the “performer” or “performee,” and thus, Meier does not teach that the “mark” is where the first pattern and the second pattern overlap.
Gans teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (see ¶0047, regarding that the camera may be attached to an unmanned aerial vehicle) that comprises an image sensor configured to capture visual information (see ¶0064, with respect to Figure 9, regarding camera 36 is used to track multiple moving objects 32) and one or more processors (see ¶0065-0068, regarding computing system 38 that includes camera controller 54) is configured to adjust the flight control of the unmanned aerial vehicle so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view (see ¶0030, ¶0068, regarding that the camera is controlled by controlling a vehicle to which the camera is mounted to keep the feature points of multiple tracked, moving targets within the camera FOV). However, Gans does not consider distances between the tracked, moving targets (i.e. “performer” and “performee”) and thus, Gans does not “adjust the flight control” based at least on the first distance and the second distance so that the image sensor captures the performer and the performee within a single field of view.
Additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Kageyama et al. (US 2019/0002104 A1) that teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle controlled to photograph an image of a player (“performer”) addressing a ball (“performee”) (see ¶0086-0089), Lokshin (US 2013/0330054 A1) teaches identifying a sportsman event for automatically tagging video data (see abstract), and Egnal et al. (WO 2007/095526 A2) that teaches a UAV that uses a camera system to automatically detect and track people crossing a border (see ¶0159).
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. The allowable subject in parent applications 14/989,738, 15/264,216, 15/807,399, 16/827,241, and 17/947,020 have been considered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights