DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claim 8-12 have been withdrawn.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2021 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 8/26/2021 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not considered to be independent or distinct This is not found persuasive because one species performs data fusion between radar data of the detection radar and visual image data of the image acquisition device according to the spatial conversion relationship. The other species does not.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A joint calibration method implemented by an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:
obtaining pose information of a detection radar of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and uploading the pose information of the detection radar to a server, the pose information comprising a ground height of the detection radar and a pitch angle of the detection radar;
receiving target calibration parameters matching the pose information of the detection radar from the server;
determining a spatial conversion relationship between the detection radar and an image acquisition device of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the target calibration parameters; and
performing data fusion between radar data of the detection radar and visual image data of the image acquisition device according to the spatial conversion relationship.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 13 and 16.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 13 is an apparatus claim and claim 16 a system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining a spatial conversion relationship between the detection radar and an image acquisition device of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the target calibration parameters; and performing data fusion between radar data of the detection radar and visual image data of the image acquisition device according to the spatial conversion relationship…”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 13 and 16.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “obtaining pose information of a detection radar of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and uploading the pose information of the detection radar to a server, the pose information comprising a ground height of the detection radar and a pitch angle of the detection radar; receiving target calibration parameters matching the pose information of the detection radar from the server ” (claims 1, 13, and 16) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “controller/ processor” (claims 13, and 16) however the “controller/processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [ 0047] describing a variety of different types of “controllers” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “controller/processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the fused data.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 13 and 16, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 14-15, and 17-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 13, and 16.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ham et al. US Pat # 10,678,267.
With regards to claims 1 and 16, Ham et al. US Pat # 10,678,267 teaches a joint calibration method implemented by an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising:
obtaining pose information of a detection radar of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and uploading the pose information of the detection radar to a server, the pose information comprising a ground height of the detection radar and a pitch angle of the detection radar; (Col. 40, lines 42-45)
receiving target calibration parameters matching the pose information of the detection radar from the server; (Col. 35, lines 54—57) (Col. 36, lines 5-10)
determining a spatial conversion relationship between the detection radar and an image acquisition device of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the target calibration parameters; (Col. 55, lines 55-60) and
performing data fusion between radar data of the detection radar and visual image data of the image acquisition device according to the spatial conversion relationship. (Col. 8, lines 64-67)
With regards to claim 13, Ham et al. US Pat # 10,678,267 teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising: a body, a detection radar and an image acquisition device being disposed on the body; arms, connected to the body; power apparatuses, disposed on the arms and configured to provide power for the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly; and a flight controller, disposed on the body and communicatively connected to the detection radar and the image acquisition device respectively, wherein the flight controller stores a preset calibration parameter set and is configured to perform a joint calibration method, wherein the joint calibration (Figures 15A & 19) method comprises:
obtaining pose information of the detection radar, and uploading the pose information of the detection radar to a server, the pose information comprising a ground height of the detection radar and a pitch angle of the detection radar; (Col. 40, lines 42-45)
receiving target calibration parameters matching the pose information of the detection radar from the server; (Col. 35, lines 54—57) (Col. 36, lines 5-10)
determining a spatial conversion relationship between the detection radar and the image acquisition device based on the target calibration parameters; (Col. 55, lines 55-60) and
performing data fusion between radar data of the detection radar and visual image data of the image acquisition device according to the spatial conversion relationship. (Col. 8, lines 64-67)
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ekhaguere et al. US Paat # 8,543,265 teaches systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicle navigation.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights