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
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1,
(1) applicant states that “An "onboard atlas of reference images," as described in Hunter, is a passive, static collection of images. It is analogous to a digital map or a simple database of pictures for a geographic area. In contrast, the claimed "image dataset associated with a trained model" represents a far more specific and technically distinct concept. This language requires a dataset that is not merely a collection of images, but one that has been specifically curated, pre-processed, annotated, and structured for the explicit purpose of training or being used by a machine learning model. This process often involves feature extraction, normalization, and formatting that is intrinsically linked to the architecture of the associated model. Hunter provides no teaching of such a specialized dataset or its association with a "trained model." The "trained model" itself is a further limitation not taught or suggested by Hunter's system, which appears to rely on more direct image-matching techniques rather than a model that has learned to identify features or patterns from a training process.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. The claim language does not specify the model to be a machine learning model. In the broadest interpretation, “a trained model” can mean a model that is prepared for a certain task. Hunter teaches an image dataset associated with a trained model (FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of a process (which reads on “a trained model”) for referencing a ground point positioning (GPP) image to an atlas image (which reads on “an image dataset”.), according to another embodiment. [0015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 6,
(1) applicant states that “Hunter's "atlas covering the area of interest" is a pre-compiled, exhaustive dataset. The claimed invention is fundamentally different, reciting a dynamic and context-specific action: defining a subset of data for a particular flight. This suggests an intelligent, on-the-fly, or mission-specific curation process where only the most relevant data is selected from a larger repository based on the specific flight plan and expected terrain. Hunter's system appears to search against its entire atlas. The claimed method, however, is more efficient and targeted, creating a tailored data package for the specific task at hand. This dynamic selection and processing based on "expected overflight terrain" is a specific, active step that Hunter's static atlas simply does not disclose.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Hunter teaches creating a tailored data package for the specific task at hand (At this point, we acquire and preprocess the atlas image, 7003. [0051]. a section of the atlas centered on the nominal platform location and with extents determined by GPP image size and uncertainties is selected from the atlas. [0051]) on-the-fly (An airborne platform 201 equipped with an image sensor 202 capable of capturing an image of the ground 203. [0033].
PNG
media_image2.png
492
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 2,
(1) applicant states that “1. No Motivation to Combine: There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a POSITA to combine these references. Hunter is directed to localization via image matching against an atlas. Liu, conversely, is directed to an entirely different technical problem: super-resolution imaging, i.e., generating a high-resolution image from a low-resolution one using a deep convolutional neural network. A POSITA seeking to improve Hunter's localization system would not be motivated to look to a reference on image resolution enhancement. The problems addressed are fundamentally different. 2. No Reasonable Expectation of Success/Undue Experimentation: Even if a motivation existed, the proposed integration is not a simple or predictable substitution. It would require undue experimentation. Liu's deep network is a complex architecture designed for a specific, computationally intensive task. Integrating this into Hunter's real-time or near-real-time navigation framework would present significant, non-trivial challenges related to processing power, latency, data pipeline compatibility, and model adaptation. A POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of successfully integrating these two disparate systems without a substantial research and development effort.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Liu teaches wherein the image comparator comprises a neural network (With K-stage deep network 221 to 222, the output super-resolution images 230 including L multi-spectral images 231 are compared with the corresponding high-resolution images 250, including L multispectral images 251 (i.e., the retrieved images). [0054].
PNG
media_image3.png
598
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
). Hunter and Liu share the same goal of comparing images, even though their applications are in different fields. Hunter also does not have to utilize the same neural network architecture as Liu’s. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hunter to incorporate the teachings of Liu to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success (TSM Rationale G).
Regarding claim 5,
(1) applicant states that “The respective sensing modalities are used for entirely different purposes. Millimeter-wave imaging, as suggested in Hunter, is valuable for its ability to penetrate obscurants like fog, dust, or smoke. UV imaging, as taught by Richards, is typically used for specialized applications like detecting corona discharge on power lines or identifying certain gas plumes. A POSITA would have no reason to combine these two highly specialized and functionally distinct sensor types for a general-purpose navigation system.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Richards teaches acquiring ultraviolet images for flying navigation system (In various embodiments, such additional sensors may include a remote sensor system configured to capture sensor data of the survey area from which two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional spatial maps of the survey area may be generated. For example, the navigation system may include one or more visible spectrum, infrared, and/or ultraviolet cameras and/or other remote sensor systems coupled to the mobile platform. The mobile platform may generally be a flying platform (e.g., manned aircraft, UAS, and/or other flying platforms), a land platform (e.g., a motor vehicle), a water platform (e.g., a ship or submarine). Page 3 7th paragraph) in order to provide reliable scene assessment for use with navigation of mobile platforms. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Hunter to incorporate the teachings of Richards to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success (TSM Rationale G).
Regarding claim 10,
(1) applicant states that “For this rejection to be proper, the Office must articulate a clear reason why a person of ordinary skill, faced with the problem of localization in GPS-denied environments, would have selected these four specific references (Hunter, Liu, Richards, and Acar)—each addressing different technical niches—and combined their teachings in the precise manner recited by the claims.”. Examiner disagrees with this statement. Regarding claim 10, Richards teaches wherein the first and second spectral regions comprise respective portions of visible, infrared, and ultraviolet spectral regions (In various embodiments, such additional sensors may include a remote sensor system configured to capture sensor data of the survey area from which two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional spatial maps of the survey area may be generated. For example, the navigation system may include one or more visible spectrum, infrared, and/or ultraviolet cameras and/or other remote sensor systems coupled to the mobile platform. The mobile platform may generally be a flying platform (e.g., manned aircraft, UAS, and/or other flying platforms), a land platform (e.g., a motor vehicle), a water platform (e.g., a ship or submarine). Page 3 7th paragraph) in order to provide reliable scene assessment for use with navigation of mobile platforms. Acar further teaches utilizing color-infrared spectral regions (Automatic Extraction of Oblique Roofs for Buildings from Point Clouds Produced by High Resolution Color-infrared Aerial Images. Title) in order to provide reliable scene assessment. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Richards and Acar to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success (TSM Rationale G).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12 and 15, unamended and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2017/0023365 A1). The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
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.
Claim 2-3, 7-9, 13-14 and 16-18, unamended and are rejected based on the combination of Hunter (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2017/0023365 A1), hereinafter Hunter, in view of Liu (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2019/0287216 A1), hereinafter Liu. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Claim 5, unamended and is rejected based on the combination of Hunter (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2017/0023365 A1), hereinafter Hunter, in view of Richards (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 114729804 A), hereinafter Richards. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20, unamended and are rejected based on the combination of Hunter (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2017/0023365 A1), hereinafter Hunter, in view of Liu (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2019/0287216 A1), hereinafter Liu, further in view of Richards (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 114729804 A), hereinafter Richards, further in view of Acar (Automatic Extraction of Oblique Roofs for Buildings from Point Clouds Produced by High Resolution Color-infrared Aerial Images, FIG Working Week 2017, Helsinki, Finland, May 29–June 2, 2017), hereinafter Acar. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights