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 .
Response to Arguments
The indicated allowability of claims 23-24, 30-31, and 37-38 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Lawrence et al. US 2012/0019522 and Tang et al. US 20190180102.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 26-28, 33-35 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greveson et al. US 2015/0248584 in view of Omer et al. US 2012/0154584 further in view of Lawrence et al. US 2012/0019522.
As to claim 21, Greveson teaches a method comprising: receiving images of a region of interest captured by a camera of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); [fig. 1; ¶ 0033-0040] determining corresponding to a subset of the images; [¶ 0065-0074] performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images; [¶ 0088; ¶ 0090; ¶ 0123-0124]
Greveson does not explicitly teach a temporal window corresponding to a subset of images; performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; generating an aerial map of the region of interest; and generating an analysis of the aerial map.
Omer teaches a temporal window corresponding to a subset of images; [¶ 0002; ¶ 0085-0086] performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; [¶ 0085-086; ¶ 0108] generating an aerial map of the region of interest; [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059] and generating an analysis of the aerial map. [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059; ¶ 0108]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Omer with the teachings of Greveson allowing for improved image processing.
Greveson (modified by Omer) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model.
Lawrence teaches wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model. [¶ 0047; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lawrence with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer) allowing for improved interaction and visual presentation of data.
As to claim 26, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 21. Omer teaches wherein the subset of images corresponds to the most recently captured images. [¶ 0086]
As to claim 27, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 21. Greveson teaches further comprising: transmitting the map to an electronic device of a user to render the region of interest in near-real time at a display of the electronic device. [fig. 2; ¶ 0020; ¶ 0054]
As to claim 28, Greveson teaches a device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; [fig. 2; ¶ 0054-0055] and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations [fig. 2; ¶ 0043; ¶ 0054-0055] comprising: receiving images of a region of interest captured by a camera of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); [fig. 1; ¶ 0033-0040] determining a corresponding to a subset of the images; [¶ 0065-0074] performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images; [¶ 0088; ¶ 0090; ¶ 0123-0124]
Greveson does not explicitly teach determining a temporal window corresponding to a subset of the images; performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; generating an aerial map of the region of interest; and generating an analysis of the aerial map.
Omer teaches determining a temporal window corresponding to a subset of the images; [¶ 0002; ¶ 0085-0086] performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; [¶ 0085-086; ¶ 0108] generating an aerial map of the region of interest; [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059] and generating an analysis of the aerial map. [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059; ¶ 0108]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Omer with the teachings of Greveson allowing for improved image processing.
Greveson (modified by Omer) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model.
Lawrence teaches wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model. [¶ 0047; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lawrence with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer) allowing for improved interaction and visual presentation of data.
As to claim 33, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 28. Omer teaches wherein the subset of images corresponds to the most recently captured images. [¶ 0086]
As to claim 34, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 28. Greveson teaches wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting the map to an electronic device of a user to render the region of interest in near-real time at a display of the electronic device. [fig. 2; ¶ 0020; ¶ 0054]
As to claim 35, Greveson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving images of a region of interest captured by a camera of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); [fig. 1; ¶ 0033-0040] determining a temporal window corresponding to a subset of the images; performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; [¶ 0088; ¶ 0090; ¶ 0123-0124]
Greveson does not explicitly teach determining a temporal window corresponding to a subset of the images; performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; generating an aerial map of the region of interest; and generating an analysis of the aerial map.
Omer teaches determining a temporal window corresponding to a subset of the images; [¶ 0002; ¶ 0085-0086] performing a bundle adjustment operation using only the subset of the images within the temporal window; [¶ 0085-086; ¶ 0108] generating an aerial map of the region of interest; [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059] and generating an analysis of the aerial map. [¶ 0022; ¶ 0059; ¶ 0108]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Omer with the teachings of Greveson allowing for improved image processing.
Greveson (modified by Omer) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model.
Lawrence teaches wherein the analysis includes a manipulatable orthomosaic map or a manipulatable model. [¶ 0047; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lawrence with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer) allowing for improved interaction and visual presentation of data.
As to claim 40, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 35. Omer teaches wherein the subset of images corresponds to the most recently captured images. [¶ 0086]
Claim(s) 22, 25, 29, 32, 36 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greveson et al. US 2015/0248584 in view of Omer et al. US 2012/0154584 in view of Lawrence et al. US 2012/0019522 further in view of Kumar et al. US 2001/0038718.
As to claim 22, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Omer teaches the use of photogrammetric library. [¶ 0108] Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement. [¶ 0052; ¶ 0129]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
As to claim 25, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization. [¶ 0029; ¶ 0047; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
As to claim 29, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 28.
Omer teaches the use of photogrammetric library. [¶ 0108] Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement. [¶ 0052; ¶ 0129]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
As to claim 32, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 28.
Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization. [¶ 0029; ¶ 0047; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
As to claim 36, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 35.
Omer teaches the use of photogrammetric library. [¶ 0108] Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a photogrammetric measurement. [¶ 0052; ¶ 0129]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
As to claim 39, Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) teaches the limitations of claim 35.
Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) does not explicitly teach wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization.
Kumar teaches wherein the analysis further includes a layered or annotated visualization. [¶ 0029; ¶ 0047; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0076]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kumar with the teachings of Greveson (modified by Omer and Lawrence) allowing for improved image processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483