DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments or arguments filed July 7th, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and 11-23 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 was amended to recite in lines 3-4 of the claim “a panoramic image captured by a panoramic image capturing device of a panoramic unmanned aerial vehicle” (emphasis added) despite the previous recitation of the claim being “a panoramic image captured by the panoramic unmanned aerial vehicle” (emphasis added). This amendment was not properly annotated and is thus objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Hwang et al. (US Pub. No. 20180046188 A1), herein after Hwang, and further in view of Dasgupta et al. (US Pub. No. 20180158197 A1), herein after Dasgupta.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches [a] target following method for a panoramic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the method comprising: obtaining a panoramic image captured by a panoramic image capturing device of the panoramic UAV: obtaining a panoramic image captured by the panoramic UAV (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching a UAV that captures panoramic images); controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object based on the target follow view angle (Hwang: Para. 0056, teaching controlling the UAV to track a target; and Para. 0060, teaching that the control includes control of the rotation of the UAV to track the target); and determining, based on the panoramic image, a target image corresponding to the target follow view angle (Hwang: Para. 0057, teaching determining a position of the target across multiple successive images to use to determine the coordinates to send to the UAV to have it track the target).
Hwang is silent to in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determining a target object based on the panoramic image; selecting a target follow view angle from at least four follow view angles; and displaying the target image via a visual interface that is configured to control the panoramic UAV, wherein the target image comprises the target object.
In a similar field, Dasgupta teaches in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determining a target object based on the panoramic image (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV); selecting a target follow view angle from at least four follow view angles (Dasgupta: Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target); and displaying the target image via a visual interface that is configured to control the panoramic UAV, wherein the target image comprises the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV) for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the panoramic UAV target tracking from Hwang to have the UAV revolve around a target with the angle of the view being selected by a user, as taught by Dasgupta, for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein; the visual interface is configured on a control terminal of the panoramic UAV; and determining the target object based on the panoramic image further comprises: determining a first image based on the panoramic image, the first image corresponding to a predetermined display view angle of the panoramic image; displaying the first image via the visual interface; and in response to identifying an expected target for the first image, determining the expected target as the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV; and Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 2, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 2, further comprising: in response to a trigger operation for adjusting the predetermined display view angle, adjusting the predetermined display view angle, wherein the trigger operation for adjusting the predetermined display view angle comprises at least one of: a trigger operation for a control component configured on the control terminal, the control component comprising at least one of a joystick, a scroll wheel, or a preset button; or a trigger operation for the visual interface configured on the control terminal (Dasgupta: Para. 0105, teaching that the input device for controlling the UAV can also include physical buttons, joysticks, click wheels, and any other conventional input device).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 1, further comprising: displaying a follow mode switching interface via the visual interface on a control terminal of the panoramic UAV; and in response to a trigger operation for a follow mode in the follow mode switching interface, entering a target follow mode, wherein the target follow mode comprises one of an automatic follow mode, a view angle lock mode, or a surround mode (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that the user may cause the UAV to follow a target by touching a region of the screen; and Para. 0080, teaching that the UAV may be controlled to revolve around the target).
Regarding claim 21, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the target object is displayed in an approximately centered manner in the target image (Dasgupta: Para. 0033, teaching that the tracked object is kept centered in the display image).
Regarding claim 22, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to a trigger operation for adjusting a display view angle, adjusting the display view angle of the panoramic image on the visual interface (Dasgupta: Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target).
Regarding claim 23, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein: each of the at least four follow view angles corresponds to a fixed angular orientation of the panoramic UAV relative to the target object during following of the target object, the at least four follow view angles comprising: a front view angle, in which the panoramic UAV is located in front of the target object; a rear view angle, in which the panoramic UAV is located behind the target object; a left view angle, in which the panoramic UAV is located to a left of the target object; and a right view angle, in which the panoramic UAV is located to a right of the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang teaches the first image being determined based on a panoramic image captured by a panoramic image capturing device of the panoramic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching a UAV that captures panoramic images); control the panoramic UAV to follow the target object based on the target follow view angle (Hwang: Para. 0056, teaching controlling the UAV to track a target; and Para. 0060, teaching that the control includes control of the rotation of the UAV to track the target); and determine, based on the panoramic image, a target image corresponding to the target follow view angle (Hwang: Para. 0057, teaching determining a position of the target across multiple successive images to use to determine the coordinates to send to the UAV to have it track the target).
Hwang is silent to [a] control terminal, comprising: a communication module, configured to obtain a first image; a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions executable by the processor, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determine a target object based on the first image; select a target follow view angle from at least four follow view angles; and display the target image via a visual interface that is configured to control the panoramic UAV, wherein the target image comprises the target object.
In a similar field, Dasgupta teaches [a] control terminal, comprising: a communication module, configured to obtain a first image (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV), a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions executable by the processor, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Dasgupta: Para. 0123, teaching that the touchscreen display device may be a computer with processors and memory that are configured to control the UAV): in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determine a target object based on the first image (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV); select a target follow view angle from at least four follow view angles (Dasgupta: Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target); and display the target image via a visual interface that is configured to control the panoramic UAV, wherein the target image comprises the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV) for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the panoramic UAV target tracking from Hwang to have the UAV revolve around a target with the angle of the view being selected by a user, as taught by Dasgupta, for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
Regarding claim 14, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 13, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he control terminal according to claim 13, further comprising a display, configured to display the visual interface, wherein the processor is configured to: control the display to display the first image via the visual interface, the first image corresponding to a predetermined display view angle of the panoramic image; and in response to identifying an expected target for the first image, determine the expected target as the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0079, teaching that an augmented reality (AR) touchscreen display is used to receive input from a user to control a UAV; and Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target).
Regarding claim 20, Hwang teaches [a] flight system, comprising: a panoramic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), configured to capture a panoramic image through a panoramic image capturing device, and receive a first control command from the control terminal to follow a target object based on the first control command (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching a UAV that captures panoramic images); generate a first control command for controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object based on the target follow view angle; send the first control command to the panoramic UAV (Hwang: Para. 0056, teaching controlling the UAV to track a target; and Para. 0060, teaching that the control includes control of the rotation of the UAV to track the target); and determine, based on the panoramic image, a target image corresponding to the target follow view angle (Hwang: Para. 0057, teaching determining a position of the target across multiple successive images to use to determine the coordinates to send to the UAV to have it track the target).
Hwang is silent to a control terminal, configured to: obtain a first image determined based on the panoramic image from the panoramic UAV; in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determine the target object based on the first image; select a target follow view angle from at least four follow view angles; and display the target image via a visual interface that is configured to control the panoramic UAV, wherein the target image comprises the target object.
In a similar field, Dasgupta teaches a control terminal, configured to: obtain a first image determined based on the panoramic image from the panoramic UAV (Dasgupta: Para. 0055, teaching computers used to control the UAV which receives the images created by the UAV); in response to a trigger operation for a target following function, determine the target object based on the first image (Dasgupta: Para. 0081, teaching that a UAV identifies a target to track based on a gesture of the user) for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the panoramic UAV target tracking from Hwang to have the UAV revolve around a target with the angle of the view being selected by a user, as taught by Dasgupta, for the benefit of generating a detailed display of a tracked object and its environment.
Claims 3, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Dasgupta as applied to claims 2, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Li et al. (US Pub. No. 20190094850 A1), herein after Li.
Regarding claim 3, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 2, however they are silent to [t]he method according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined display view angle comprises at least one of: a view angle corresponding to a somatosensory pose of the control terminal; a view angle determined based on a trigger operation for a candidate view angle in the visual interface by a user; or a preset view angle corresponding to a flight direction of the panoramic UAV.
In a similar field, Li teaches [t]he method according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined display view angle comprises at least one of: a view angle corresponding to a somatosensory pose of the control terminal; a view angle determined based on a trigger operation for a candidate view angle in the visual interface by a user; or a preset view angle corresponding to a flight direction of the panoramic UAV (Li: Para. 0026, teaching displaying an image of the tracked target onto a client device in response to the user's gestures with the view angle being set based on the gestures of the user, the movements of the target, and the movement of the UAV) for the benefit of controlling how the UAV tracks the target without needing a physical input device.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the UAV target tracking from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have control the UAV using gestures made by the user, as taught by Li, for the benefit of improved control of how the UAV tracks the target.
Regarding claim 15, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 14, however they are silent to [t]he control terminal according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined display view angle comprises one of: a view angle corresponding to a somatosensory pose of the control terminal; a view angle determined based on a trigger operation for a candidate view angle in the visual interface by a user; or a preset view angle corresponding to a flight direction of the panoramic UAV
In a similar field, Li teaches (Li: Para. 0026, teaching displaying an image of the tracked target onto a client device in response to the user's gestures with the view angle being set based on the gestures of the user, the movements of the target, and the movement of the UAV) for the benefit of controlling how the UAV tracks the target without needing a physical input device.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the UAV target tracking from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have control the UAV using gestures made by the user, as taught by Li, for the benefit of improved control of how the UAV tracks the target.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 13, however they are silent to [t]he control terminal according to claim 13, wherein the trigger operation for the target following function comprises at least one of: a trigger operation for a button configured on the control terminal; a trigger operation for the visual interface configured on the control terminal; or matching a current pose of a holding object of the control terminal with a first preset pose.
In a similar field, Li teaches [t]he control terminal according to claim 13, wherein the trigger operation for the target following function comprises at least one of: a trigger operation for a button configured on the control terminal; a trigger operation for the visual interface configured on the control terminal; or matching a current pose of a holding object of the control terminal with a first preset pose (Li: Para. 0026, teaching the angle and orientation of the image displayed is adjusted according to a user input or the object moves during the displaying) for the benefit of controlling how the UAV tracks the target without needing a physical input device.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the UAV target tracking from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have control the UAV using gestures made by the user, as taught by Li, for the benefit of improved control of how the UAV tracks the target.
Claims 4, 8, 11, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Dasgupta applied to claims 1, 2 and 14 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Harnett et al. (US Pub. No. 20180107210 A1), herein after Harnett.
Regarding claim 4, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 2, and Hwang goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 2, further comprising: in response to failing to identify the expected target for the first image determining the target object from a holding object of the control terminal (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching that when the target is not recognized in the image the UAV generates a panoramic image to track the target), in a case where the expected target is not identified in the first image, adjusting the predetermined display view angle to be an adjusted display view angle and displaying a second image via the visual interface, the second image corresponding to the adjusted display view angle and comprising the expected target (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching that when the target is not recognized in the image the UAV generates a panoramic image to track the target).
They are silent to determining the target object from a holding object of the control terminal and a user selection object as determined according to the first image; or wherein the holding object of the control terminal has a higher priority than the user selection object.
In a similar field, Harnett teaches determining the target object from a holding object of the control terminal and a user selection object as determined according to the first image (Harnett: Para. 0143, teaching a user device with multiple displays that show a target that is being tracked based on the user's selection; and Para. 0206, teaching that multiple targets may be tracked at the same time including a marine vessel the user is located on and a fish that the user wishes to catch), or wherein the holding object of the control terminal has a higher priority than the user selection object (Harnett: Para. 0148, teaching that the UAV is instructed to orient the camera toward the marine vessel to monitor an area around the marine vessel; and Para. 0150, teaching that when the UAV recognizes an object like fish in an image the UAV begins to track the object in the display while maintaining the current viewing angle) for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV tracking of a target or a user from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have the UAV focus on the user and track other objects, as taught by Harnett, for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
Regarding claim 8, Hwang, Dasgupta, and Harnett remain as applied as in claim 4, and Harnett goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 4, further comprising: in a case where it is determined that the first image or the second image comprises a plurality of candidate objects, obtaining a display proportion of each candidate object or a display position of each candidate object, in the first image or the second image; and based on the display proportion or the display position, determining the expected target from the plurality of candidate objects (Harnett: Para. 0143, teaching a user device with multiple displays that show a target that is being tracked based on the user's selection; and Para. 0206, teaching that multiple targets may be tracked at the same time including a marine vessel the user is located on and a fish that the user wishes to catch).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 1, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach in a view angle lock mode, adjusting a relative position between the target object and the panoramic UAV via the control terminal and capturing or recording the target object, a display view angle corresponding to a display screen on the control terminal being locked with the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0078 and 0080, teaching that the UAV may be controlled to follow a target at a constant separation distant in accordance with a user's input); and in a surround mode, controlling the panoramic UAV to surround the target object in a target relative position relationship and capturing or recording the target object (Dasgupta: Para. 0080, teaching controlling a UAV control device that causes the UAV to view a target from any angle 360 degrees around a target).
They are silent to [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object comprises controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object to capture or record the target object, comprising: in an automatic follow mode, controlling a control terminal of the panoramic UAV to be in a preset locked state, adjusting a position of the panoramic UAV based on a relative position between the target object and the panoramic UAV, and capturing or recording the target object.
In a similar field, Harnett teaches [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object comprises controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object to capture or record the target object, comprising: in an automatic follow mode, controlling a control terminal of the panoramic UAV to be in a preset locked state, adjusting a position of the panoramic UAV based on a relative position between the target object and the panoramic UAV, and capturing or recording the target object (Harnett: Para. 0149, teaching that the display of the marine vessel during auto-selfie mode has the marine vessel be the main focus of the display) for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV tracking of a target or a user from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have the UAV focus on the user and track other objects, as taught by Harnett, for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
Regarding claim 12, Hwang, Dasgupta, and Harnett remain as applied as in claim 11, and Harnett goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 11, wherein the control terminal of the panoramic UAV being in a preset locked state comprises at least one of: buttons configured on the control terminal except the preset button are in a locked state, wherein the preset button is configured to trigger at least one of: a capturing operation, a recording operation, an emergency obstacle avoidance operation, or a flight pose control operation; or a somatosensory control operation of a holding object of the control terminal for the panoramic UAV is in a locked state (Harnett: Para. 0149, teaching that the display of the marine vessel during auto-selfie mode has the marine vessel be the main focus of the display).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang and Dasgupta remain as applied as in claim 14, and Hwang goes on to further teach [t]he control terminal according to claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to failing to identify the expected target for the first image, determine the target object from a holding object of the control terminal (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching that when the target is not recognized in the image the UAV generates a panoramic image to track the target), in a case where the expected target is not identified in the first image, adjust the predetermined display view angle to be an adjusted display view angle and control the display to display a second image via the visual interface, the expected target being included in the second image corresponding to the adjusted display view angle (Hwang: Para. 0051, teaching that when the target is not recognized in the image the UAV generates a panoramic image to track the target).
They are silent to determine the target object from a holding object of the control terminal and a user selection object as determined according to the first image; or wherein the holding object of the control terminal has a higher priority than the user selection object.
In a similar field, Harnett teaches determine the target object from a holding object of the control terminal and a user selection object as determined according to the first image (Harnett: Para. 0143, teaching a user device with multiple displays that show a target that is being tracked based on the user's selection; and Para. 0206, teaching that multiple targets may be tracked at the same time including a marine vessel the user is located on and a fish that the user wishes to catch), or wherein the holding object of the control terminal has a higher priority than the user selection object (Harnett: Para. 0148, teaching that the UAV is instructed to orient the camera toward the marine vessel to monitor an area around the marine vessel; and Para. 0150, teaching that when the UAV recognizes an object like fish in an image the UAV begins to track the object in the display while maintaining the current viewing angle) for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV tracking of a target or a user from Hwang in view of Dasgupta to have the UAV focus on the user and track other objects, as taught by Harnett, for the benefit of improving a user’s ability to identify areas or objects of interest around themself.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang, Dasgupta, and Harnett remain as applied as in claim 16, and Dasgupta goes on to further teach [t]he control terminal according to claim 16, wherein when the processor adjusts the predetermined display view angle, the processor is further configured to: in response to a trigger operation for adjusting the predetermined display view angle, adjust the predetermined display view angle, wherein the trigger operation comprises at least one of: a trigger operation for a control component configured on the control terminal; or a trigger operation for the visual interface configured on the control terminal, and wherein the control component comprises at least one of: a joystick, a scroll wheel, or a preset button (Dasgupta: Para. 0105, teaching that the input device for controlling the UAV can also include physical buttons, joysticks, click wheels, and any other conventional input device).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang, Dasgupta, and Harnett remain as applied as in claim 17, and Harnett goes on to further teach [t]he control terminal according to claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a third image in the panoramic image; and display the third image via the visual interface, wherein the holding object is displayed in an approximately centered manner in the third image (Harnett: Para. 0149, teaching that the display of the marine vessel during auto-selfie mode has the marine vessel be the main focus of the display).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 7th, 2026, with respect to the priority of the case have been fully considered and are persuasive. The request for a certified copy of the PCT/CN2024/144277 application has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed July 7th, 2026 with respect to the objection of claim 8 has been fully considered and has rendered the objection moot. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new objection is made to claim 13 due to a typographical error where an amendment was not properly annotated.
Applicant’s amendments, see Remarks, filed July 7th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, 13, and 20 under 103 in view of Hwang in further view of Kohstall have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 20-23 in view of Hwang in further view of Dasgupta.
Applicant contends (see page 11 lines 9-24, filed July 7th, 2026) that Hwang is deficient in teaching controlling the panoramic UAV to follow the target object based on the target follow view angle; and determining, based on the panoramic image, a target image corresponding to the target follow view angle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the control of the UAV based on the target follow view angle, the examiner notes that Hwang teaches in at least paragraphs 0056 and 0060 that when performing control of the UAV the position and angle of the UAV with respect to the target being tracked is controlled. Regarding the determination of a target image, the examiner notes that Hwang teaches in at least paragraph 0057 that the successive images from panoramic images are used to determine a location of the target in the images which are then used to determine the coordinates the UAV is controlled to fly to.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 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, 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights