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 .
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.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application SG10202006745X filed 07/15/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/SG2021/050392 filed 07/06/2021.
As such, the effective filing date of the application is 07/15/2020.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 08/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 23 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 25 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-9, 12, 15-20, 23 and 34 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously filed 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but are moot because amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0394902 A1), hereinafter Troy in view of Wilcox (US Patent No: 10,499,037B1), hereinafter Wilcox, Mehta et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0195103 A1), hereinafter Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi (US Pub. No: US 2020/0307786 A1), hereinafter Tavakolikhakaledi.
Regarding Claim 1, Troy discloses:
An aerial vehicle comprising: a frame. (See at least [0057], which describes a UAV 2 that includes a body frame 4.)
a camera assembly attached to the frame, the camera assembly comprising a cascaded bi-directional linear actuator comprising a motor and a rack-and-pinion system comprising a gear rack along a length of the aerial vehicle, and a camera attached to the cascaded bi- directional linear actuator such that the camera is configured to be moved to different positions linearly along the gear rack by the rack-and-pinion system of the cascaded bi-directional linear actuator based on a rotational motion of the motor to capture a plurality of images of an object. (See at least paragraph [0057] and figure 3A which describe a rack-and-pinion arrangement that is coupled to a linear guide to constrain parallel racks. Paragraph [0018] describes a marking module connected to the rack-and-pinion. Paragraph [0116] describes a video camera 30 connected to the marking device 24 which is connected to the rack-and-pinion. Paragraph [0060] describes linear actuators in the form of a rack-and-pinion.
Examiner notes that while Troy does not fully disclose the limitation, particularly, that the rack and pinion system is along the length of the aerial vehicle, it is functionally the same. If the UAV described in Troy is flying parallel to the ground the rack and pinion moves vertically, however, if the UAV flies perpendicular to the ground the rack and pinion moves horizontally. It is a flipped version of what is described in the limitations.)
a processor in electrical connection to the camera such that the processor is configured to determine one or more dimensions of the object based on the plurality of images. (See at least paragraph [0139] which describes a processor that receives the measured motion characteristics of the UAV to determine a control signal.)
a flight system configured to move the aerial vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0139] which describes a processor that receives the measured motion characteristics of the UAV to determine a control signal.to adjust a motion characteristic.)
and an energy system in electrical connection to the camera assembly, the processor, and the flight system. (See at least paragraph [0090] which describes an electric power system 134 that includes a battery and associated electronics for providing electric power.)
the camera assembly comprising a cascaded bi-directional linear actuator and a camera attached to the cascaded bi- directional linear actuator such that the camera is configured to be moved to different positions by the cascaded bi-directional linear actuator to capture a plurality of images of an object. (See at least Paragraph [0105] which describes a drive rotation of a pinion gear that allows the camera system to move in a x-direction and is driven by an actuator. Therefore, the actuator is bi-directional.)
a power tethering unit (See at least [0090] which describes an electric power system 134 that includes a battery and associated electronics for providing electric power.)
Troy does not explicitly disclose:
a depth between a camera and a reference region of an object and a camera being a single monocular camera;
determining a distance between adjacent positions of the camera to capture successive images of the plurality of images based on the depth between the camera and a reference region of the object and an overlap percentage between successive images;
wherein the energy system comprises a power system electrically coupled to the power tethering unit; and wherein the power tethering unit comprises an automated tether anchor and a tether line having a first end physically coupled to the automated tether anchor, and a second end physically coupled to the frame.
Wilcox, in the analogous field of camera controls teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a depth between the camera and a reference region of the object. (See at least Column 10, lines 18 - 53 describes a processor 908. Column 3, lines 30 - 38 describes that the first and second camera can be aligned to provide 3D images. Additionally, claim 5 describes a depth sensor.)
the camera being a single monocular camera. (See at least Column 3, line 6 - 29 describes a first camera 102A and the second camera 102B that simulate binocular vision. That means each camera is monocular.)
Mehta, in the analogous field of image processing teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distance between adjacent positions of the camera to capture successive images of the plurality of images based on the depth between the camera and a reference region of the object. (See at least paragraph [0025] which describes a single camera that is configured to capture images. A sequence of overlapping images is taken.)
and a desired overlap percentage between the successive images. (See at least paragraph [0101] which describes a desired overlap for image acquisition about the standard roll, pitch and yaw axis for image construction.)
Tavakolikhakaledi, in the analogous field of aerial vehicles teaches:
wherein the energy system comprises a power system electrically coupled to the power tethering unit; and wherein the power tethering unit comprises an automated tether anchor and a tether line having a first end physically coupled to the automated tether anchor, and a second end physically coupled to the frame (See at least paragraph [0035] which describes a tether cable connected from an aerial vehicle to a power source, with automatic tension controls.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Troy to incorporate the teachings of Wilcox to show a depth between a camera and a reference region of an object. One would have been motivated to do so to extract 3D information from various objects and because monocular cameras are cheap and versatile (Column 3, line 6 - 29 of Wilcox). It would have further been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Troy to incorporate the teachings of Mehta to show determining a distance between adjacent positions of the camera to capture successive images of the plurality of images based on the depth between the camera and a reference region of the object and an overlap percentage between successive images. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure maximum coverage of the ground area ([0012] of Mehta). It would have further been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Troy to incorporate the teachings of Tavakolikhakaledi to add a tethering cable with automated anchoring. This is because as stated by Mehta in paragraph [0035], the modification can prevent tangling.
Claims 12 and 23 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1.
Troy does not explicitly disclose, but Mehta teaches:
The aerial vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to stitch the plurality of images to form a stitched image. (See at least paragraph [0101] which describes a desired overlap for image acquisition about the standard roll, pitch and yaw axis for image construction. The images are then stitched together to create the desired 3D image reconstruction.)
The motivation to combine Mehta with Wilcox is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 8 the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1.
Troy further discloses wherein the flight system comprises a propulsion system configured to propel the aerial vehicle, and a flight controller configured to control the propulsion system to move in a desired direction. (See at least paragraph [0084] which describes a flight controller 32 that includes a computer 36 and a plurality of motor controllers 35. These control the rotor motors of a UAV that dictate lift, drag, etc.)
Claim(s) 5 - 7 and 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy in view of Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi further in view of Holzer et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0199025 A1), hereinafter Holzer.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi teach the aerial vehicle according to claim 4.
Troy does not explicitly disclose a semantic segmentation neural network.
Holzer, in the analogous field of image processing in aerial vehicles teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine one or more targeted regions in the stitched image using an image semantic segmentation neural network. (See at least paragraph [0066] which describes a semantic segmentation with neural networks.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Troy to incorporate the teachings of Holzer to show a semantic segmentation neural network. This is because as described in the background section of Holzer: “Current predictions indicate that every several years the quantity of visual data that is being captured digitally online will double. As this quantity of visual data increases, so does the need for much more comprehensive search and indexing mechanisms than ones currently available. Unfortunately, neither 2D images nor 2D videos have been designed for these purposes. Accordingly, improved mechanisms that allow users to capture, view and digitally reproduce visual data, as well as query and quickly receive meaningful results from visual data are desirable. Therefore, there is a need for better and more efficient multi-view media capture systems that takes advantage of the capability and availability of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones or the like.”
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta, Tavakolikhakaledi and Holzer teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 5.
Troy does not explicitly disclose, but Wilcox teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a depth between the camera and each targeted region of the one or more targeted regions based on images of the plurality of images capturing the one or more targeted regions. (See at least column 10, lines 18 - 53 which describes a processor 908. Column 3, lines 30 – 38 describes that the first and second camera can be aligned to provided 3D images. Additionally, claim 5 describes a depth sensor.)
The reason to combine Wilcox with Troy is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta, Tavakolikhakaledi and Holzer teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 6.
Troy does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to determine one or more dimensions of the object in the stitched image; wherein the processor is configured to determine one or more dimensions of the reference region in the stitched image; and wherein the one or more dimensions of the object are determined based on the depth between the camera and each targeted region of the one or more targeted regions, the one or more dimensions of the object in the stitched image; the one or more dimensions of the reference region in the stitched image, one or more dimensions of the reference region in the object; and the depth between the camera and the reference region.
(Wilcox column 10, lines 18 - 53 of describes a processor 908. Column 3, lines 30 - 38 of Wilcox describes that the first and second camera can be aligned to provided 3D images. Additionally, claim 5 describes a depth sensor.)
(Mehta paragraph [0101] describes a desired overlap for image acquisition about the standard roll, pitch and yaw axis for image construction. The images are then stitched together to create the desired 3D image reconstruction.)
The reason to combine Wilcox and Mehta with Troy is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy in view of Wilcox, Mehta, Tavakolikhakaledi and further in view of Bry et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0214068 A1), hereinafter Bry.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi teach the aerial vehicle according to claim 1.
Troy does not explicitly disclose, but Bry, in the analogous field of image processing for aerial vehicles teaches:
An illumination system to provide illumination to the object. (See at least Paragraph [0094] which describes a UAV configured to include powered illumination sources to emit light into the surrounding environment.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Troy to incorporate the teachings of Bry to provide illumination to the object. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent the UAV from operating in low light levels ([0094] of Bry).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 9 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy in view of Wilcox, Mehta, Tavakolikhakaledi and further in view of Dutoit (US Pub No: 2009/0084048 A1, hereinafter Dutoit).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Troy, Wilcox, Mehta and Tavakolikhakaledi teaches the method according to claim 23.
Troy does not explicitly disclose, but Dutioit teaches:
wherein the object is a rail viaduct bearing, and wherein the rail viaduct bearing is within a cavity formed by a rail viaduct and a structural pier (See at least paragraph [0016] which describes a load-bearing for each of a slab of an elevated railway track having viaducts.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Wilcox to incorporate the teachings of Dutoit to show an object being a rail viaduct bearing within a cavity. One would have been motivated to do so because as stated in [0016] of Dutoit: “…each U-shaped structure 3, 3a is self-supporting, which means that it is not supported by another element, such as an intermediate caisson, and that, therefore, in the case of an elevated railway track, each U-shaped structure 3, 3a is directly supported by the piers of the corresponding viaduct, and runs from one pier to another.”
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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
