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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-18 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C 112 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed June 30, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed October 20, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kerst et al. (US 20210409655 A1). The Non-Final Rejection filed June 30, 2025 has been retracted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6-7, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haspel et al. (US 20190072392 A1), hereinafter Haspel, in view of Kerst et al. (US 20210409655 A1), hereinafter Kerst.
Regarding claim 1, Haspel teaches a method of determining at least one position in a scene, comprising reference elements of known geographic coordinates (para. 12, “In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention there is provided a system for self-geoposition an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV], the system includes a memory for storing an accurate map data and/or an aerial photography of a ground region. A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region. Angles differences measuring module, measures included/inscribed angles within the camera's FOV by counting pixels in the image of the camera to find the included angles of pairs of landmarks in respect to the camera. A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”), by an optronic system comprising:
a digital imager (para. 12, “A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. […] A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”),
a memory storing, for at least each reference element of the scene, an indicator representative of a point associated with the geographic coordinates (para. 51, “In step 152 an accurate map and/or aerial photography of the ground region is stored in the memory 14. In step 154 data about coordinates of objects and landmarks in the map region and/or in the aerial photography region is stored in memory 14.”),
a display displaying the indicators stored in the memory (para. 12, “A display is used to display the landmarks and the calculated current position/coordinates of the UAV on a map data and/or on aerial map/photography of the ground region.”),
a measurement module comprising at least one element chosen from among a compass, a goniometer and a telemeter (para. 31, “Other onboard navigation equipment may be used to remove ambiguities and improve accuracy including fusing of data. Thus, the system may further include a compass 42 that shows direction relative to the geographic cardinal directions.”), and
a calculation unit (para. 12, “A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”), the method comprising:
collecting data relative to at least one reference element of the scene (para. 12, “A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view (FOV) of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region.”), comprising, for each reference element:
pointing, by the digital imager, the reference element in the scene (para. 12, “Angles differences measuring module, measures included/inscribed angles within the camera's FOV by counting pixels in the image of the camera to find the included angles of pairs of landmarks in respect to the camera. A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”),
acquiring, by the measurement module, at least one measurement relative to the reference element pointed in the scene in response to receiving a first acquisition command (para. 12, “A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region. Angles differences measuring module, measures included/inscribed angles within the camera's FOV by counting pixels in the image of the camera to find the included angles of pairs of landmarks in respect to the camera.”),
acquiring, by the calculation unit, of the geographic coordinates associated with the pointed indicator in response to receiving a second acquisition command (para. 12, “A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”), and
storing a reference datum comprising the at least one acquired measurement and the acquired geographic coordinates (para. 12, “A display is used to display the landmarks and the calculated current position/coordinates of the UAV on a map data and/or on aerial map/photography of the ground region.”; the displayed data is implicitly stored in a memory), and
determining the position of the optronic system as a function of the reference data stored for the at least one reference element (para. 12, “A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”), but fails to teach
pointing, on the display element, from among the stored indicators, to an indicator representative of the reference element pointed in the scene.
However, Kerst teaches
pointing, on the display element, from among the stored indicators, to an indicator representative of the reference element pointed in the scene (para. 3, “An object detection system includes a first camera having a first field of view and a second camera having a second field of view that overlaps with the first field of view. The object detection system includes object detection logic configured to receive a first image from the first camera and a second image from the second camera and identify an object in both the first and second image. The object detection system further includes object mapping logic configured to identify a location of the object based on the first and second image. The object detection system also includes display logic configured to display the location of the object.”; para. 104, “Interface 1500 may be zoomed in or out, panned, and rotated. Additionally, moving a cursor around interface 1500 may optionally display the locational coordinates corresponding to the position of the cursor. In some embodiments, clicking on a detected object 1504-1504F may open an additional interface window displaying information on the particular detected object. Interface 1500 further includes interface tools 1510 which allow customization and editing by the operator.”).
Haspel and Kerst are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel with the teachings of Kerst with the motivation of improving usability of the display device by a user.
Regarding claim 2, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the indicators stored in the memory are points geo-referenced on geographic data, the geographic data comprising at least one element from among an orthoimage of the scene, a digital terrain model of the scene, a cartography of the scene, and a digital elevation model of the scene (Haspel; para. 12, “In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention there is provided a system for self-geoposition an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV], the system includes a memory for storing an accurate map data and/or an aerial photography of a ground region. A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region.“; para. 23, “The system 10 further includes landmarks/objects correlation module 24 which uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks seen on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera 20, with objects/landmarks on an accurate map. The methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks seen on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera 20 may be similar to orthophotography.”).
Regarding claim 3, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein said pointing to an indicator comprises displaying on the display element the image of the scene comprising the reference element pointed by the digital imager, and indicators stored in the memory.
However, Kerst teaches
wherein said pointing to an indicator comprises displaying on the display element the image of the scene comprising the reference element pointed by the digital imager, and indicators stored in the memory (para. 3, “An object detection system includes a first camera having a first field of view and a second camera having a second field of view that overlaps with the first field of view. The object detection system includes object detection logic configured to receive a first image from the first camera and a second image from the second camera and identify an object in both the first and second image. The object detection system further includes object mapping logic configured to identify a location of the object based on the first and second image. The object detection system also includes display logic configured to display the location of the object.”; para. 104, “Interface 1500 may be zoomed in or out, panned, and rotated. Additionally, moving a cursor around interface 1500 may optionally display the locational coordinates corresponding to the position of the cursor. In some embodiments, clicking on a detected object 1504-1504F may open an additional interface window displaying information on the particular detected object. Interface 1500 further includes interface tools 1510 which allow customization and editing by the operator.”).
Haspel and Kerst are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel with the teachings of Kerst with the motivation of improving usability of the display device by a user.
Regarding claim 6, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein said determining comprises calculating an approximate position of the optronic system as a function of stored reference data and calculating an optimum position of the optronic system from the approximate position and the set of reference data (Haspel; para. 45, “When the two landmarks are identified on the map the length of the chord can be easily computed and the midpoint of the chord on the map and the perpendicular from the chord center can easily be drawn. Since we have the inscribed angle as an input by counting pixels in the image to find the included angles of two landmarks in respect to the camera, the central angle is known as double the inscribed angle. It is easy to find a point located on the perpendicular line which has an angle to the two landmarks equal to the computed central angle. As we have seen, there are two such points along the perpendicular line as shown in FIG. 4. These two points are candidates for the center of the circle. We can often discard one of them, as mentioned above. Once this is done we have the center of the circle and the radius, as given from the center of the circle to either one of the two landmarks. Once we have generated two retained circles for example 84 and 82, we can find the two intersections of these circles. Often only one of the intersections is declared viable and this is declared to be the true position of the UAV.”).
Regarding claim 7, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 6,
wherein said determining comprises evaluating the calculated optimum position (Haspel; para. 32, “To reduce error and increase accuracy of the camera position the system may further include a navigation aid such as an inertial navigation system [INS] 43 that uses a computer, motion sensors [accelerometers] and rotation sensors [gyroscopes] to continuously calculate via dead reckoning the position, orientation, and velocity [direction and speed of movement] of the camera. The system may further include Kalman filter module or any suitable tracking module 36 to improve accuracy by using past history of the flight. Motion of the UAV can be used to reduce error and remove ambiguity.”), but Haspel fails to teach
wherein said determining comprises evaluating integrity of the reference data and determining a position having integrity as a function of only the reference data evaluated as being of integrity.
However, Kerst teaches
wherein said determining comprises evaluating integrity of the reference data and determining a position having integrity as a function of only the reference data evaluated as being of integrity (para. 55, “In some examples, calculating the intersection includes producing a confidence metric on the estimated geolocation of the target object(s), the confidence metric being indicative of the relative accuracy and/or confidence level of the estimated geolocation. The confidence metric may be, for example, a score to be compared to some threshold. In one embodiment, the confidence metric is a Z value comprising a chi squared random variable [wherein the lower Z value correlates to a more accurate geolocation]. Once the intersection is calculated, an output is computed and outputted for the target object(s) that resolved to a solution in the intersection calculation. The output may include, for example, the locational coordinates [e.g., latitude, longitude, and/or altitude] and/or one or more confidence metrics.”).
Haspel and Kerst are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel with the teachings of Kerst with the motivation of obtaining more accurate positioning data.
Regarding claim 14, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the optronic system is selected from among a pair of optronic binoculars and an optronic camera (Haspel; para. 12, “A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. […] A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”; see Simon para. 261 for evidence of an optronic system that includes either binoculars or a camera).
Regarding claim 16, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches an optronic system for determining at least one position in a scene, the scene comprising reference elements of known geographic coordinates (Haspel; para. 12, “In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention there is provided a system for self-geoposition an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV], the system includes a memory for storing an accurate map data and/or an aerial photography of a ground region. A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region. Angles differences measuring module, measures included/inscribed angles within the camera's FOV by counting pixels in the image of the camera to find the included angles of pairs of landmarks in respect to the camera. A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”), the optronic system comprising:
a digital imager (para. 12, “A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. […] A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”),
a memory storing, for at least each reference element of the scene, an indicator representative of said point associated with the geographic coordinates of a point (para. 51, “In step 152 an accurate map and/or aerial photography of the ground region is stored in the memory 14. In step 154 data about coordinates of objects and landmarks in the map region and/or in the aerial photography region is stored in memory 14.”),
a display displaying the indicators stored in the memory (para. 12, “A display is used to display the landmarks and the calculated current position/coordinates of the UAV on a map data and/or on aerial map/photography of the ground region.”),
a measurement module comprising at least one element chosen from among a compass, a goniometer and a telemeter (para. 31, “Other onboard navigation equipment may be used to remove ambiguities and improve accuracy including fusing of data. Thus, the system may further include a compass 42 that shows direction relative to the geographic cardinal directions.”), and
a calculation unit (para. 12, “A camera geo-position calculation module calculates the self geo-position of the UAV by using the landmarks position and the included/inscribed angles.”),
the optronic system implementing a method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Haspel teaches the method according to claim 2
wherein the memory further stores, in addition to the indicators of the reference elements, the indicators of all the points geo-referenced on the geographic data (Haspel; para. 12, “In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention there is provided a system for self-geoposition an unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV], the system includes a memory for storing an accurate map data and/or an aerial photography of a ground region. A camera is mounted on the UAV and is able to record in real time or during the UAV flight images and streaming video that is stored in the memory. A landmarks/objects correlation module uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks optically detected on the field-of-view (FOV) of the camera, with objects/landmarks in the aerial photography region.“; para. 23, “The system 10 further includes landmarks/objects correlation module 24 which uses methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks seen on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera 20, with objects/landmarks on an accurate map. The methods and techniques for identification and association/correlation of objects/landmarks seen on the field-of-view [FOV] of the camera 20 may be similar to orthophotography.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Xu et al. (US 20220011448 A1), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 4, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein said determining comprises selecting, by the calculation unit, a position determination technique from among a set of position determination techniques as a function of the nature of the element or elements of the measurement module having acquired the at least one measurement corresponding to the reference data, the position of the optronic system being determined on the basis of the selected position determination technique.
However, Xu teaches
wherein said determining comprises selecting, by the calculation unit, a position determination technique from among a set of position determination techniques as a function of the nature of the element or elements of the measurement module having acquired the at least one measurement corresponding to the reference data, the position of the optronic system being determined on the basis of the selected position determination technique (para. 10, “If the solution of the present disclosure is applied in an autonomous driving process, when a vehicle leaves an area with high satellite signal quality and enters an area with low satellite signal quality, in the area with the low satellite signal quality, a positioning result of the vehicle obtained based on positioning data collected by a further selected sensor, which is different from a GPS receiver, can be used as the positioning result of the vehicle, while a positioning result of the vehicle obtained based on positioning data collected by a sensor including a GPS receiver is no longer used as the positioning result of the vehicle. In this way, when positioning the vehicle, the GPS positioning data with low positioning accuracy can be directly discarded, thereby effectively improving the accuracy of vehicle positioning.”; para. 37, “Using positioning data collected by a vision sensor [e.g., a camera] to obtain a positioning result of a vehicle can be understood as determining information on surrounding environment of the vehicle based on an image of the surrounding environment of the vehicle collected by the camera, and matching the determined information on the surrounding environment of the vehicle with a pre-loaded on-vehicle map, to obtain positioning information corresponding to the vehicle where the camera is located.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Xu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Xu with the motivation of obtaining more accurate positioning data.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Kiyohara et al. (US 20230243657 A1), hereinafter Kiyohara.
Regarding claim 5, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein each element of the measurement module is associated with a measurement uncertainty and each geographic coordinate is associated with an uncertainty of the geographic coordinate, and wherein said determining comprises determining an uncertainty of the position determined as a function of the corresponding uncertainties on the at least one element of the measurement module and on the geographic coordinates.
However, Kiyohara teaches
wherein each element of the measurement module is associated with a measurement uncertainty and each geographic coordinate is associated with an uncertainty of the geographic coordinate, and wherein said determining comprises determining an uncertainty of the position determined as a function of the corresponding uncertainties on the at least one element of the measurement module and on the geographic coordinates (para. 72, “In Step S4, the relative position estimation unit 12 calculates the absolute position of the host vehicle, calculates the traveling direction, and calculates a reliability index for the calculated absolute position or traveling direction. […] Alternatively, in a case of external recognition using a camera, it is sufficient if a contrast ratio for an illumination environment, a frequency component for a host vehicle behavior, and linearity of an edge for a target state are set as threshold value ranges based on the illumination environment such as twilight or backlight, the host vehicle behavior such as image blurring due to high-speed traveling or sudden turning, and the target state such as contamination or blurring of the observation target, and the reliability index is defined as a function in which the reliability decreases as the number of conditions not satisfying the threshold value range increases. The output of the function defined in this manner may be output as the reliability index.”; para. 140, “In addition, a reliability index of the correction amount output by the learning unit 15 may also be output based on a time from obtaining the difference information from the difference computation unit 14, an estimated error amount of the absolute position estimation unit 11, and an estimated error amount of the relative position estimation unit 12.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Kiyohara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Kiyohara with the motivation of obtaining more accurate positioning data.
Claims 8-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Simon (US 20190383609 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the optronic system comprises a GNSS receiver for geolocation and navigation by a satellite system, the method further comprising:
further determining a GNSS position of the optronic system by the GNSS receiver, and validating the GNSS position as a function of a position of the optronic system determined via the reference data.
However, Simon teaches
wherein the optronic system comprises a GNSS receiver for geolocation and navigation by a satellite system, the method further comprising: further determining a GNSS position of the optronic system by the GNSS receiver, and validating the GNSS position as a function of a position of the optronic system determined via the reference data (para. 259, “S1 is generally equipped with ‘EMPG’ or ‘geographical position measurement apparatus’ positioning means in the form for example of a GNSS receiver 105 [GPS, GLONAS, etc.]. Unless indicated otherwise, it is considered that S1 is equipped with an EMPG.”; para. 545, “The geographical positions of the M−1 other systems are provided by the positioning means [EMPG] fitted to each optronic system. The additional measurements are distance measurements performed from the optronic systems on the objects ‘Ok’.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon through a simple substitution of the sensor system of Haspel with the GPS-based positioning system of Simon.
Regarding claim 9, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the measurement module comprises an odometric goniometer or an odometric compass, at least one measurement acquired relative to the reference elements being an orientation measurement, said acquiring by the measurement module comprising:
acquiring a series of images of the scene, the series of images comprising at least one image of the reference element, the images of the series of images overlapping in pairs, and
determining, by the odometric goniometer or odometric compass, an orientation of the reference element relative to the optronic system as a function of the series of images of the scene acquired.
However, Simon teaches
wherein the measurement module comprises an odometric goniometer or an odometric compass, at least one measurement acquired relative to the reference elements being an orientation measurement (para. 164, “According to one feature of the invention, it comprises, prior to the measurements, a step of selecting the objects of the scene using a common visibility criterion and/or a performance criterion regarding the direction of orientation.”; para. 189, “As will now be seen in more detail, the method according to the invention allows one or more optronic systems to calibrate their mechanical device or relative angle measurement apparatus [EMAR], this amounting to estimating the bearing of the system and therefore to determining the direction of the North with a predetermined desired precision. This covers the case of an optronic system that is not capable of obtaining this by itself, as well as the case of an optronic system that is able to obtain a bearing but not precisely enough. The term EMAR is used more generally to denote an apparatus having the ability to measure a relative angle. In practice, the EMAR may be a goniometer, an inertial measurement unit [IMU], a magnetic compass or any other instrument using a principle that makes it possible to evaluate a relative rotation.”), said acquiring by the measurement module comprising:
acquiring a series of images of the scene, the series of images comprising at least one image of the reference element, the images of the series of images overlapping in pairs (paras. 762-763, “Calculating the definitive attitudes of the 2 optronic systems, and if necessary the coordinates of the objects, using the ‘good matches’ that are established. The use of OMNI sensors and the large number of objects available in the images thus allows: complete automation of the method, more object searches, system pointing or specific interventions for taking measurements. robust automatic searching for pairing between images; the term ‘inlier’ is used to indicate a ‘good match’ between descriptors of the 2 images corresponding effectively to one and the same detail or object of the scene, and ‘outlier’ is used to indicate a match between pixels that does not correspond to the same detail or object of the scene.”), and
determining, by the odometric goniometer or odometric compass, an orientation of the reference element relative to the optronic system as a function of the series of images of the scene acquired (paras. 105-108, “For example, the steps of estimating the bearing [G1] of the first optronic system are performed by way of two optronic systems and for two common objects, and the additional measurements are obtained as follows by each optronic system: […] measuring the relative angle of each object by way of a relative angle measurement device fitted to each optronic system […]”; para. 189, “As will now be seen in more detail, the method according to the invention allows one or more optronic systems to calibrate their mechanical device or relative angle measurement apparatus [EMAR], this amounting to estimating the bearing of the system and therefore to determining the direction of the North with a predetermined desired precision. This covers the case of an optronic system that is not capable of obtaining this by itself, as well as the case of an optronic system that is able to obtain a bearing but not precisely enough. The term EMAR is used more generally to denote an apparatus having the ability to measure a relative angle. In practice, the EMAR may be a goniometer, an inertial measurement unit [IMU], a magnetic compass or any other instrument using a principle that makes it possible to evaluate a relative rotation.”; para. 747, “These configurations are also available working with one or more omnidirectional [OMNI] optronic sensors. The particular feature of these sensors is that of offering panoramic vision, which makes it possible to utilize the optronic image as EMAR without another hardware device for measuring relative direction. Its particular feature is that of offering simultaneous broad vision of the scene.”; para 776, “Directly locate, from its position, other objects with its EMAR calibrated in its last position. This type of calibration requires the EMAR to be recalibrated for any new movement so as to take into account the variability of the electromagnetic environment.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of obtaining more accurate position, orientation, and motion data.
Regarding claim 10, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising determining the position of an object of the scene as a function of the determined position of the optronic system, an obtained orientation of the object relative to the optronic system, and an obtained distance between the object and the optronic system.
However, Simon teaches
further comprising determining the position of an object of the scene as a function of the determined position of the optronic system, an obtained orientation of the object relative to the optronic system, and an obtained distance between the object and the optronic system (paras. 17-32, “More precisely, one subject of the invention is a method for estimating the bearing of an optronic system in a geographical reference frame, with a predetermined desired precision [PGS], the optronic system being situated at a first position and denoted first optronic system. It is primarily characterized in that it comprises the following steps: […] B) using the optronic systems of the collaborative configuration resulting from step A3), estimating a bearing [G1] of the first optronic system, which comprises the following sub-steps: B1) by way of the acquisition device of each optronic system, acquiring, in the scene, one or more objects common to said optronic systems, the direction of orientation between each optronic system and each object being unknown, B2) determining two geodetic positions from among those of said optronic systems, B3) for at least one common object: measuring the relative angle by way of the relative angle measurement device fitted to the first optronic system [S1], measuring the elevation of the object by way of the elevation measurement device fitted to the first optronic system [S1], by way of the first optronic system [S1] and of each other optronic system [S2, …, Sm, …SM], performing additional distance and/or elevation and/or relative angle and/or approximate azimuth measurements […]”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of obtaining more accurate position and orientation data.
Regarding claim 11, Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Simon teaches the method according to claim 10, but Haspel fails to teach wherein said determining the position of the object comprises:
acquiring a series of images of the scene, the series of images comprising at least one image of the object, the images of the series of images overlapping in pairs, and
determining the orientation of the object relative to the optronic system as a function of the series of images of the scene.
However, Simon teaches wherein said determining the position of the object comprises:
acquiring a series of images of the scene, the series of images comprising at least one image of the object, the images of the series of images overlapping in pairs (paras. 762-763, “Calculating the definitive attitudes of the 2 optronic systems, and if necessary the coordinates of the objects, using the ‘good matches’ that are established. The use of OMNI sensors and the large number of objects available in the images thus allows: complete automation of the method, more object searches, system pointing or specific interventions for taking measurements. robust automatic searching for pairing between images; the term ‘inlier’ is used to indicate a ‘good match’ between descriptors of the 2 images corresponding effectively to one and the same detail or object of the scene, and ‘outlier’ is used to indicate a match between pixels that does not correspond to the same detail or object of the scene.”), and
determining the orientation of the object relative to the optronic system as a function of the series of images of the scene (paras. 105-108, “For example, the steps of estimating the bearing [G1] of the first optronic system are performed by way of two optronic systems and for two common objects, and the additional measurements are obtained as follows by each optronic system: […] measuring the relative angle of each object by way of a relative angle measurement device fitted to each optronic system […]”; para. 189, “As will now be seen in more detail, the method according to the invention allows one or more optronic systems to calibrate their mechanical device or relative angle measurement apparatus [EMAR], this amounting to estimating the bearing of the system and therefore to determining the direction of the North with a predetermined desired precision. This covers the case of an optronic system that is not capable of obtaining this by itself, as well as the case of an optronic system that is able to obtain a bearing but not precisely enough. The term EMAR is used more generally to denote an apparatus having the ability to measure a relative angle. In practice, the EMAR may be a goniometer, an inertial measurement unit [IMU], a magnetic compass or any other instrument using a principle that makes it possible to evaluate a relative rotation.”; para. 747, “These configurations are also available working with one or more omnidirectional [OMNI] optronic sensors. The particular feature of these sensors is that of offering panoramic vision, which makes it possible to utilize the optronic image as EMAR without another hardware device for measuring relative direction. Its particular feature is that of offering simultaneous broad vision of the scene.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of obtaining more accurate position and orientation data.
Regarding claim 12, Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Simon teaches the method according to claim 10, but Haspel fails to teach
wherein the measurement module of the optronic system comprises at least one compass, said determining the orientation being obtained by a measurement acquired by the compass when the object is pointed to by the digital imager.
However, Simon teaches
wherein the measurement module of the optronic system comprises at least one compass, said determining the orientation being obtained by a measurement acquired by the compass when the object is pointed to by the digital imager (para. 341, “An optronic system S1 receiving the approximate position of an object is able to identify it more easily since, as it has its position S1 and the approximate position of the object, S1 is able to determine: the approximate azimuth of the object at which it is able to point itself within a field of the order of the degree if it has a magnetic compass, the approximate elevation of the object that it is observing in order to bring the object close to the center of its imager by inclining its LoS, the approximate distance of the object that it is able to measure on the object to be shared by way of the EMED.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of being able to determine the orientation of an object.
Regarding claim 13, Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Simon teaches the method according to claim 10, but Haspel fails to teach wherein:
at least one element of the measurement module of the optronic system is a telemeter, the distance between the object and the optronic system being obtained by a measurement acquired by the telemeter when the object is pointed by the digital imager, or
the distance between the object and the optronic system is the distance between the determined position of the optronic system and an intersection of a predetermined straight line with the ground of a digital terrain model, the predetermined straight line passing through the determined position of the optronic system and having as its orientation the obtained orientation of the object relative to the optronic system.
However, Simon teaches wherein:
at least one element of the measurement module of the optronic system is a telemeter, the distance between the object and the optronic system being obtained by a measurement acquired by the telemeter when the object is pointed by the digital imager (para. 318, “And the second optronic system S2 furthermore comprises an EMED of telemeter type with an emitter 206 and a receiver 207, whose direction is aligned with the axis of the acquisition device 201 of S2, and that is able to provide the distance R2k between S2 and the object Ok. It is noted that, without a precise EMAR [a goniometer for example], S2 may in this case be a lightweight system of camera or portable binoculars type.”), or
the distance between the object and the optronic system is the distance between the determined position of the optronic system and an intersection of a predetermined straight line with the ground of a digital terrain model, the predetermined straight line passing through the determined position of the optronic system and having as its orientation the obtained orientation of the object relative to the optronic system.
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of obtaining more accurate position and orientation data.
Regarding claim 15, Haspel in view of Kerst teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein at least one element of the measurement module is a magnetic compass, the method further comprising automatically calibrating declination, measurements, and boresighting of the magnetic compass by measurements acquired for at least two reference elements, when the reference elements are pointed to by the digital imager.
However, Simon teaches
wherein at least one element of the measurement module is a magnetic compass, the method further comprising automatically calibrating declination, measurements, and boresighting of the magnetic compass by measurements acquired for at least two reference elements, when the reference elements are pointed to by the digital imager (para. 14, “It involves determining, by way of optronic systems, geographical directions and possibly geographical locations of objects of a scene, with an aim of high accuracy [better than one milliradian], quickly [within a few seconds] and without accessing a spatial reference, such as landmark coordinates, measurements or directions of objects visible in the scene, and doing so by way of a lightweight additional device of little cost.”; para. 163, “When a magnetic compass is used, it may be calibrated by way of measurements on one or/and several objects.”; paras. 688-691, “The magnetic compass allows, besides its absolute measurement, a relative measurement of orientation with a quality that may reach a few mrd in an unpolluted magnetic environment and after calibration of the internal parameters aimed in particular at estimating the biases and scale factors of the components internal to the compass [accelerometers and magnetometers]. The performance of an azimuth measurement difference by a compass is automatically better that its absolute measurement performance, since: it eliminates the error in the declination knowledge, it reduces measurement defects inherent to bias compasses, it removes alignment bias defects (in the form of small angular values characterizing its installation on the system) from the axes of the compass with axes linked to the structure of the system; here the reference axis of the LoS of the optronic system for example.”; paras. 783-784, “The magnetic compass 108 of 100 may be calibrated, as indicated above, in order to facilitate if necessary the reacquisition of the objects upon subsequent stationing. All of the information is then utilized when the system is completely installed to determine the bearing of the EMAR 120.”).
Haspel, Kerst, and Simon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optronic geopositioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haspel in view of Kerst with the teachings of Simon with the motivation of obtaining more accurate position and orientation data.
Regarding claim 18, Haspel in view of Kerst and further in view of Simon teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising,
when the GNSS position has been validated, merging the GNSS position with the position of the optronic system determined via the reference data used for comparison so as to obtain a definitive position for the optronic system (para. 347, “The Cartesian coordinates of S1 and S2 are obtained starting from their geodetic coordinates (generally in WGS84) […]”; para. 352, “To this end and generally speaking, it is possible to amend the relative position of the 2 systems S1 and S2 [or of 2 optronic systems chosen from among N], and/or the choice of an object situated in a spatial region in which the overall configuration [object and optronic system] makes it possible to achieve the allocated performance.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648