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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because the phrase "the object to measured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filip (20170031560) in view of Korobkin (8542911).
Regarding claim 1, Filip teaches i. displaying said digital image on a digital display (pars. 47-50);
ii. displaying a cursor on said digital image on said digital display, wherein: (pars. 51-56 and Figs. 7-9, overlays object dependent cursor);
a shape of said cursor is at least partially determined by a shape of the object to be measured (pars. 55-64 and 72-73, configures cursor from object surface);
a skew of said cursor is at least partially determined by the perspective of said object when viewed from said digital image (pars. 59-61 and Figs. 10-11, conforms cursor to surface perspective); and
iii. superimposing said cursor over said object on said digital display (pars. 54-61 and Figs. 9-11, overlays cursor on imaged object).
Filip does not expressly teach that the method assists photogrammetric measurement, that cursor size is determined by a photogrammetrically established scale, or that the cursor is adjusted to match the measured object as part of that measurement.
Korobkin teaches A computer-implemented method for assisting the photogrammetric measurement of an object in a digital image, the method including, a size of said cursor is at least partially determined by a scale photogrammetrically established from said digital image (col. 5 lines 50-65 and col. 21 lines 3-10. Also see figures 17a-19); and
iv. if necessary, adjusting a shape, a size, or a skew of said cursor to match a shape, a size, or a skew of said object to be measured (Col. 21 lines 34-45 and col. 22 lines 8-10. Also see figs. 18B-19, interactively fits cursor to image).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Filip the photogrammetric cursor fitting and scale recovery taught by Korobkin. The reason is to register the object dependent cursor to imaged object geometry and obtain measurements from the fitted cursor.
Regarding claim 7, Korobkin teaches wherein a size, shape, or skew of the cursor represents a constant height, width, or depth of the object to be measured, after accounting for the perspective of the digital image (cols. 21 lines 34-45 and co. 22 lines 8-44, uses known scale perspective fitted geometry).
Regarding claim 11, Korobkin teaches wherein the shape of the cursor represents a three-dimensional outline of the object to be measured (col. 9 lines 35-52 and figure 5b, projects 3D structure outline).
Regarding claim 12, Korobkin teaches wherein the shape of the cursor represents a two-dimensional cross-section of the object to be measured (cols. 9 lines 35-52 and Fig. 5B, projects profile into image).
Regarding claim 13, Korobkin teaches wherein the object to be measured is cylindrical, and the shape of the cursor is a two-dimensional circle (col. 8 lines 27-35 and col. 9 lines 43-52 and Figs. 4A and 5B, projects circular cylinder feature).
Regarding claim 14, Korobkin teaches wherein the object to be measured is cuboidal, and the shape of the cursor is a two-dimensional rectangle (fig. 3b and 5b, col. 2 lines 15-25 and col. 10 lines 48-64, fits rectangle to box object).
Regarding claim 17, Korobkin teaches wherein: a dimension of the cursor is predetermined, and the size of the cursor is scaled according to the scale of the digital image and the predetermined dimension (col. 3-10 and col. 22 lines 29-44. Also see fig. 19. Applies known dimension and scale).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filip (20170031560) in view of Korobkin (8542911), in further view of More (20140132723).
The combination of Filip and Korobkin does not teach wherein the object is a utility pole, a transformer, a guy wire, a lamp, or a cross-arm.
Regarding claim 2, More teaches wherein the object is a utility pole, a transformer, a guy wire, a lamp, or a cross-arm (pars. 1, 3 and 6-9, measures utility poles and attachments).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Filip and Korobkin the utility structure as taught by More. The reason is to obtain field dimensions of poles and their attached equipment from digital photographs.
Regarding claim 3, see More, pars. 3, 6-9 and claim 10, measures pole and equipment dimensions.
Regarding claim 4, More teaches wherein the object is an item of infrastructure (pars. 1, 3 and 14, measures utility infrastructure from photographs).
Claims 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filip (20170031560) in view of Korobkin (8542911), in further view of Lynch (20130100114).
Regarding claim 5, Lynch teaches wherein the cursor conveys the depth of at least a portion of the digital image which the cursor is superimposed over (pars. 41, 54 and 71, draws cursor using image depth).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Filip and Korobkin the depth cursor graphics taught by Lynch. The reason is to show the operator the cursor's depth relationship to the imaged object.
Regarding claim 6, see Lynch pars. 54 and 60, varies cursor appearance with depth.
Regarding claim 15, see Lynch pars. 61-65, draws depth line at selection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filip (20170031560) in view of Korobkin (8542911), in further view of Oldroyd (20070127101).
Regarding claim 10, Oldroyd teaches wherein the digital image is an epipolar image (par. 68, uses stereo images with epipolar lines).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Filip and Korobkin the epipolar stereo images taught by Oldroyd. The reason is to support photogrammetric depth measurement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filip (20170031560) in view of Korobkin (8542911), in further view of Lynch (20130100114), and in further view of Oldroyd (20100142748).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 15 and also see Oldroyd who teaches wherein the one dimensional line is parallel with a central axis of the object to be measured (pars. 153-159 and Figs. 7-10, constrains cursor along scene).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Filip, Korobkin and Lynch vertical cursor constraint as taught by Oldroyd. The reason is to measure vertical displacement along an elongated object while accounting for image perspective.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach or suggest at least part of an outline of the perspective-corrected cursor indicating the nearest or furthest portion of the measured object, with claim 9 further requiring the outline portion to be a solid line or dashed line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ghosh (20080238916) teaches changing an orientation-indicator outline from dashed to solid when a fixed viewpoint is reached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights