DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues US Patent No. 7,747,364 (hereinafter “Roy”) fails to teach or suggest that “the gimbal-mounted turret is movably coupled to the fuselage such that a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the first camera with respect to the central video image processor” as recited in claim 11. The Examiner disagrees. Column 5 lines 12-22 discloses an example in which camera 38 may be disposed on the gimbal assembly, while video processor 28 is disposed physically separately from the camera and in sufficient proximity to permit transmission from the camera to the video processor. It is also disclosed that camera 38 is housed in the gimbaled assembly, which is attached to the underside of the craft’s fuselage (col.5, lines 23-25). Figure 3 also shows video camera 38 mounted on gimbal assembly and Video Processor 28 being separate from the camera/gimbal assembly and being coupled via a connection. Column 4 lines 65-67 and column 5 lines 1-3 disclose that coupling between video camera 38 and video processor 28 may be a wireless interface.
Roy’s disclosure show that a video processor can be placed outside the gimbal assembly, separate from the camera and when the gimbal-mounted turret moves with respect to the fuselage, camera 38 also moves with respect to video processor 28 since video processor 28 is not mounted on the gimbaled assembly.
Therefore, Roy does disclose the limitation “the gimbal-mounted turret is movably coupled to the fuselage such that a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the first camera with respect to the central video image processor”.
Regarding independent claims 31 and 41 the Applicant makes a similar argument that Roy teaches that the camera and the video processor are both positioned within the gimbal assembly and does not teach the limitation “a central video image processor positioned within the fuselage and exteriorly of the gimbal-mounted turret such that a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the camera with respect to the central video image processor”. The Examiner disagrees and the same reasoning/response as for the arguments for claim 11 are applied here.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 11 and 12 do not show the appropriate markings to show the changes. According to MPEP 714, all claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) with 2 exceptions: (1) for deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, double brackets may be used (e.g., [[eroor]]); (2) if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of number "4" or certain punctuation marks), double brackets must be used (e.g., [[4]]). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-12, 16-17, 20-22, 26-27, and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of in view of Israel (US 2002/0093564).
Regarding claim 11 Roy discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising:
a fuselage (Figure 2 shows the fuselage of UAV 12) including:
a central video image processor configured to receive and process image data (video processor 28 in Figures 2 and 3 – col.3, 34-36);
a transceiver coupled to the central video image processor to transmit processed image data to a remote location (UAV includes an onboard transceiver (low-orbit satellite modem) – col.1, 62-65);
a gimbal-mounted turret including a first camera communicatively coupled to the central video image processor to provide first image data to the central video image processor (gimbal assembly 28 – Figure 3; col.4, 1-2; camera 38 is housed in the gimbaled assembly; the gimbal is stabilized using feedback logic that links the gimbal’s servo-motors and the IMU under software control – col.5, 23-31), wherein the gimbal-mounted turret is movably coupled to the fuselage such that a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the first camera with respect to the central video image processor (gimbal assembly 28 – Figure 3; col.4, 1-2; camera 38 is housed in the gimbaled assembly; the gimbal is stabilized using feedback logic that links the gimbal’s servo-motors and the IMU under software control – col.5, 23-31); and
a second camera coupled to the fuselage and communicatively coupled to the central video image processor to provide second image data to the central video image processor (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7);
wherein the first camera is associated with a first task and the second camera is associated with the task (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7), and wherein central video image processor is further configured to:
receive and process the first image data while the UAV is directed to perform the first task; and receive and process the second image data while the UAV is directed to perform the task (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7).
However, fails to explicitly disclose a second camera is associated with a second task and wherein central video image processor is further configured to: receive and process the second image data while the UAV is directed to perform the second task.
In his disclosure Israel teaches a second camera is associated with a second task (Figures 3 and 6 show a bottom camera array, camera 301 is being interpreted as the camera associated with acquiring images during take-off and landing – [0034-0035]) and wherein central video image processor is further configured to:
receive and process the second image data while the UAV is directed to perform the second task (the array of cameras are connected to and controlled by a central computer system – abstract, [0008, 0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 12 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11, wherein the first task is a surveillance task and the first camera is a surveillance camera (camera 38 acquires images of terrain, airspace, or other scenes in a vicinity of the craft – col.4, 55-60).
However, fails to explicitly disclose the second task is a landing task and the second camera is a landing camera.
In his disclosure Israel teaches the second task is a landing task and the second camera is a landing camera (Figures 3 and 6 show a bottom camera array, camera 301 is being interpreted as the camera associated with acquiring images during take-off and landing – [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 16 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11. Roy discloses a camera being positioned within a gimbal-mounted turret. However is silent on the second camera being positioned within the gimbal-mounted turret.
It would be obvious, at the time the invention was made, to position a second camera in the gimbal-mounted turret since Roy already shows it is common knowledge in the art to position cameras in gimbal-mounted turrets.
Regarding claim 17 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11. Roy discloses a camera being positioned within a gimbal-mounted turret that is rotatably coupled to the fuselage. However, Roy is silent on the second camera being positioned within a second gimbal-mounted turret that is rotatably coupled to the fuselage.
It would be obvious, at the time the invention was made, to position a second camera in a second gimbal-mounted turret since Roy already shows it is common knowledge in the art to position cameras in gimbal-mounted turrets.
Regarding claim 20 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11, further comprising an autopilot microprocessor coupled to the central video image processor to relay non-image related information (Figure 3 shows video processor 28, master mission computer 14, and autopilots 40 and 42 being coupled to each other and relay non-image related information).
Regarding claim 21 Roy discloses a method, comprising:
providing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 2 shows the fuselage of UAV 12), the UAV including:
a fuselage having a central video image processor coupled to a transceiver (video processor 28 in Figures 2 and 3 – col.3, 34-36; UAV includes an onboard transceiver (low-orbit satellite modem) – col.1, 62-65);
a gimbal-mounted turret including a first camera communicatively coupled to the central video image processor, the first camera associated with a first task (gimbal assembly 28 – Figure 3; col.4, 1-2; camera 38 is housed in the gimbaled assembly; the gimbal is stabilized using feedback logic that links the gimbal’s servo-motors and the IMU under software control – col.5, 23-31; UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7); and
a second camera coupled to the fuselage and communicatively coupled to the central video image processor, the second camera associated with the task (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7);
operating the UAV to perform the first task, wherein operating the UAV to perform the first task includes:
moving the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage, wherein a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the first camera with respect to the central video image processor (The gimbal 28 preferably includes an integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Measurement Unit system (GPS/IMU) and is stabilized using feedback logic that links the gimbal's servo-motors and the IMU under software control – col.5, 23-29);
acquiring first image data by the first camera; providing the first image data to the central video image processor; processing, by the central video image processor, the first image data; and transmitting the processed first image data via the transceiver (image data is acquired by camera 38 and processed/compressed by video processor 28 and then is transmitted via SATCOM link – col.8, 6-30).
Roy further discloses acquiring second image data by the second camera; providing the second image data to the central video image processor; processing, by the central video image processor, the second image data; and transmitting the processed second image data via the transceiver (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7; UAV includes an onboard transceiver (low-orbit satellite modem) – col.1, 62-65).
However, fails to explicitly disclose a second camera coupled to the fuselage, the second camera associated with a second task; operating the UAV to perform the second task.
In his disclosure Israel teaches a second camera coupled to the fuselage, the second camera associated with a second task; operating the UAV to perform the second task (Figures 3 and 6 show a bottom camera array, camera 301 is being interpreted as the camera associated with acquiring images during take-off and landing – [0034-0035]; the array of cameras are connected to and controlled by a central computer system – abstract, [0008, 0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 22 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first task is a surveillance task and the first camera is a surveillance camera (camera 38 acquires images of terrain, airspace, or other scenes in a vicinity of the craft – col.4, 55-60).
However, fails to explicitly disclose the second task is a landing task and the second camera is a landing camera.
In his disclosure Israel teaches the second task is a landing task and the second camera is a landing camera (Figures 3 and 6 show a bottom camera array, camera 301 is being interpreted as the camera associated with acquiring images during take-off and landing – [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 26 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the second camera is positioned within the gimbal-mounted turret (refer to rejection of claim 16).
Regarding claim 27 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the second camera is positioned within a second gimbal-mounted turret that is rotatably coupled to the fuselage (refer to rejection of claim 17).
Regarding claim 30 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the UAV further includes an autopilot microprocessor, the method further comprising relaying non-image related information to the central video image processor from the autopilot microprocessor (refer to rejection of claim 20).
Claims 13-15, 18, 23-25, and 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of in view of Israel (US 2002/0093564) further in view of Gin (US 2003/0093805).
Regarding claim 13 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central video image processor is configured to not receive and process the second image data while the UAV is directed to perform the first task.
In his disclosure Israel teaches a central video image processor being configured to receive and process second image data while the aerial vehicle is directed to perform the second task (the array of cameras are connected to and controlled by a central computer system – abstract, [0008, 0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
However, fails to explicitly disclose a central video image processor being configured to not receive and process second image data while a system is directed to perform a first task.
In his disclosure Gin teaches a central video image processor being configured to not receive and process second image data while a system is directed to perform a first task (Figure 3 shows video and data compression/decompression module 976 selectively receiving/not receiving first image data (video signal S1) or second image data (video signal S2) based on the task being performed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Gin into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation reduces the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 14 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 13. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central video image processor is configured to not receive and process the first image data while the UAV is directed to perform the second task.
In his disclosure Israel teaches a central video image processor being configured to receive and process first image data while the aerial vehicle is directed to perform the first task (the array of cameras are connected to and controlled by a central computer system – abstract, [0008, 0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the camera of Israel into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation increases the situational awareness of the aerial vehicle.
However, fails to explicitly disclose a central video image processor being configured to not receive and process first image data while a system is directed to perform a second task.
In his disclosure Gin teaches a central video image processor being configured to not receive and process first image data while a system is directed to perform a second task (Figure 3 shows video and data compression/decompression module 976 selectively receiving/not receiving first image data (video signal S1) or second image data (video signal S2) based on the task being performed).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Gin into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation reduces the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 15 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11, wherein the first camera is an electro-optical camera (video camera 38 being of the type “true color” three-band (RGB) image – col.4, 61-64).
However, fails to explicitly disclose the second camera being an infrared camera.
In his disclosure Gin teaches the second camera being an infrared camera (Figure 3 shows camera 200 being a color camera – [0022-0023] and camera 100 being an infrared camera – [0022-0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Gin into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation reduces the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 18 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first image data is/are raw, uncompressed image data.
In his disclosure Gin teaches the first image data is/are raw, uncompressed image data (Figure 3 shows first data S1 being raw uncompressed data).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Gin into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation reduces the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 23 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the operating the UAV to perform the first task includes not processing, by the central video image processor, the second image data (refer to rejection of claim 13).
Regarding claim 24 Roy discloses the method of claim 23, wherein operating the UAV to perform the second task includes not processing, by the central video image processor, the first image data (refer to rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 25 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first camera is an electro-optical camera and the second camera is an infrared camera (refer to rejection of claim 15).
Regarding claim 28 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first image data is raw, uncompressed image data (refer to rejection of claim 18).
Claims 19 and 29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of in view of Israel (US 2002/0093564) further in view of Rubenstein (US 2008/0063237).
Regarding claim 19 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 11. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the central video image processor further includes: a de-mosaicing module; a video conditioning module configured to modify at least one of color correction, white balance, saturation, and contrast; an individual frame display information module configured to provide information on at least one of rotating, scaling and offset; and a template matching module for at least one of stabilization, tracking, and video compression.
In his disclosure Rubenstein teaches a central video image processor further includes:
a de-mosaicing module (demosaicing – [0062]);
a video conditioning module configured to modify at least one of color correction, white balance, saturation, and contrast (adjusting the color of the image by, for example, adjusting brightness and contrast – [0062]);
an individual frame display information module configured to provide information on at least one of rotating, scaling and offset (enhancing may include the steps of performing geometric transformations, such as, enlarging, reducing, or rotating the image or a portion of the image – [0062]); and
a template matching module for at least one of stabilization, tracking, and video compression (registering or aligning two or more images – [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Rubenstein into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation may be utilized to improve consistency of analysis over a broader range of images (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 29 Roy discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the central video image processor further includes: a de-mosaicing module; a video conditioning module configured to modify at least one of color correction, white balance, saturation, and contrast; an individual frame display information module configured to provide information on at least one of rotating, scaling and offset; and a template matching module for at least one of stabilization, tracking, and video compression (refer to rejection of claim 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 31-33, 36-38, 41-43, and 46-48 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364).
Regarding claim 31 Roy discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising:
a fuselage (fuselage shown in Figure 2);
a gimbal-mounted turret movably coupled to the fuselage (gimbal assembly 38 in Figure 3);
a camera positioned within the gimbal-mounted turret (camera 38 mounted in gimbal assembly 38 in Figure 3);
a central video image processor positioned within the fuselage and exteriorly of the gimbal-mounted turret such that a movement of the gimbal-mounted turret with respect to the fuselage results in a movement of the camera with respect to the central video image processor (Column 5 lines 12-22 discloses an example in which camera 38 may be disposed on the gimbal assembly, while video processor 28 is disposed physically separately from the camera and in sufficient proximity to permit transmission from the camera to the video processor. Figure 3 also shows video camera 38 mounted on gimbal assembly and Video Processor 28 being separate from the camera/gimbal assembly and being coupled via a connection. Column 4 lines 65-67 and column 5 lines 1-3 disclose that coupling between video camera 38 and video processor 28 may be a wireless interface); and
a communication channel communicatively coupling the camera within the gimbal-mounted turret with the central video image processor within the fuselage to transmit image data from the camera to the central video image processor (Figure 3 shows buses/communication links that couple the camera/gimbal assembly 38 with video processor 28 that enables transmission of image data from the camera to the video processor; coupling between the video processor 28 and the video camera 38 may be via FireWire or other interface (wired, wireless or otherwise) known in the art – col.4, line 37 to col.5, 1-3).
Regarding claim 32 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31, wherein the image data is/are raw image data (image data captured by camera 38 in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 33 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 32, wherein the communication channel is a high speed data connection selected to have sufficient bandwidth to transmit the raw image data (coupling between the video processor 28 and the video camera 38 may be via FireWire or other interface (wired, wireless or otherwise) known in the art – col.4, line 37 to col.5, 1-3).
Regarding claim 36 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31, wherein the gimbal-mounted turret does not contain an image processor associated with the camera (Figure 3 shows image processor 28 being separate from camera/gimbal assembly 38).
Regarding claim 37 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31, wherein the gimbal-mounted turret is waterproof (the craft 12 may operate in other environments such as water – col.3, 56-57).
Regarding claim 38 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31, further comprising a second camera positioned outside of the gimbal-mounted turret, the second camera communicatively coupled to the central video image processor by a second communication channel to transmit second image data from the second camera to the central video image processor (UAV that includes an airborne imaging computer that acquires and/or analyzes images from onboard cameras – col.2, 1-7).
Claim 41 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 31. Therefore, claim 41 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 31.
Claim 42 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 32. Therefore, claim 42 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 32.
Claim 43 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 33. Therefore, claim 43 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 33.
Claim 46 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 36. Therefore, claim 46 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 36.
Claim 47 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 37. Therefore, claim 47 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 37.
Claim 48 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 38. Therefore, claim 48 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 38.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 34 and 44 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of Houck, II et al. (US Patent No. 8,624,959).
Regarding claim 34 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31. Roy further discloses that a coupling between the video processor 28 and the video camera 38 may be via FireWire or other interface (wired, wireless or otherwise) known in the art (col.4, line 37 to col.5, 1-3).
However, Roy is silent on the communication channel being a coaxial or optical cable.
In his disclosure Houck teaches it is commonly known in the art for signals to be transferred via coaxial or optical cable (signals may be transmitted over communications links, such as wireless communications links, an optical fiber cable, a coaxial cable, a wire, and/or any other suitable type of communications link – col.10, 21-26).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Houck into the teachings of Roy because transferring data via coaxial or optical cable is a common practice in the art.
Claim 44 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 34. Therefore, claim 44 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 34.
Claims 35 and 45 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of Wallach (US 2008/0002045).
Regarding claim 35 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 31, wherein the camera is coupled to the communication channel (a coupling between the video processor 28 and the video camera 38 may be via FireWire or other interface (wired, wireless or otherwise) known in the art (col.4, line 37 to col.5, 1-3).
However, fails to explicitly disclose a camera being coupled to the communication channel via a USB connection.
In his disclosure Wallach teaches it is well known in the art for a camera being coupled to the communication channel via a USB connection (Figure 1 shows digital camera 21 that contains a USB connector).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Wallach into the teachings of Roy because connecting a camera via a USB connector is a common practice in the art.
Claim 45 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 35. Therefore, claim 45 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 35.
Claims 39, 40, 49, and 50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent No. 7,747,364) in view of Gin (US 2003/0093805).
Regarding claim 39 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 38. However, Roy is silent on the second image data is/are raw image data.
In his disclosure Gin teaches the second image data is/are raw image data (Figure 3 shows first data S2 being raw uncompressed data).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the teachings of Gin into the teachings of Roy because such incorporation reduces the complexity of the system.
Regarding claim 40 Roy discloses the UAV of claim 39. Roy discloses a camera that is connected via a communication channel and said communication channel is a high speed data connection selected to have sufficient bandwidth to transmit the second image data (coupling between the video processor 28 and the video camera 38 may be via FireWire or other interface (wired, wireless or otherwise) known in the art – col.4, line 37 to col.5, 1-3).
Even though Roy is silent on the communication channel of the second camera Roy shows that it is known in the art for cameras having a communication channel being a high speed data connection selected to have sufficient bandwidth to transmit the second image data. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use a high speed data connection selected to have sufficient bandwidth to transmit the second raw image data because such incorporation is a common practice in the art.
Claim 49 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 39. Therefore, claim 49 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 39.
Claim 50 corresponds to the method being performed by the UAV of claim 40. Therefore, claim 50 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 40.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482