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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 14 March 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference sign “116b” mentioned in line 9 on page 18 of the instant specification, reference sign “314a” mentioned in line 7 on page 23 of the instant specification, reference sign “314b” mentioned in line 7 on page 23 of the instant specification, reference sign “861b” mentioned in line 16 on page 26 of the instant specification, reference sign “1258a” mentioned in line 17 on page 28 of the instant specification, reference sign “1258b” mentioned in line 17 on page 28 of the instant specification and reference sign “1156” mentioned in line 13 on page 35 of the instant specification are not included in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character “180” in figure 2A, reference characters “312a”, “312b”, “318a” and “318b” in figure 3, reference character “863b” in figure 8, reference characters “1285a” and “1285b” in figure 12B, reference character “1658” in figure 16 and reference character “2408” in figure 24 are not mentioned in the instant specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 29 on page 14 of the instant specification recites, in part, “(e.g., as illustrated in FIG .3C). This may” which appears to contain minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the instant specification to --(e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 3). This may-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the instant disclosure.
Line 2 on page 23 of the instant specification recites “nadir camera in FIG. 3C.” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the instant specification to --nadir camera in FIG. [[3C]] 2B.-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the instant disclosure.
Line 24 on page 42 of the instant specification recites, in part, “FIG. 25A is a perspective view” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the instant specification to --FIG. 25[[A]] is a perspective view-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the instant disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7 - 8 of claim 1 recite, in part, “a first axis of sweeping; a second mirror” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --a first axis of sweeping; and a second mirror-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 3 recite, in part, “both the first mirror and second mirror” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --both the first mirror and the second mirror-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of claim 4 recites, in part, “system of claim 2, at least one point” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --system of claim 2, wherein at least one point-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3 - 4 of claim 5 recite, in part, “the axis of sweeping of the first mirror and the axis of sweeping of the second mirror” which appears to contain inconsistent claim terminology and/or minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --the first axis of sweeping second axis of sweeping. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 7 recites, in part, “third cameral at an angle between” which appears to contain a typographical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --third camera at an angle between-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 9 recite, in part, “exactly one nadir camera exactly one oblique camera” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --exactly one nadir camera and exactly one oblique camera-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 of claim 9 recites, in part, “for simultaneously for sweeping a field of view” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --for simultaneously [[for]] sweeping a field of view-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 10 - 11 of claim 9 recite, in part, “axis of the aircraft; a processor configured to” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --axis of the aircraft; and a processor configured to-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 12 - 13 of claim 9 recite, in part, “wherein said on each of said parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes” which appears to contain a grammatical error, a typographical error, inconsistent claim terminology and/or minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --wherein plurality of parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes-- in order to maintain consistency with line 12 of claim 9 and to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 14 - 15 of claim 9 recite, in part, “on each of said plurality of parallel line of flight” which appears to contain inconsistent claim terminology and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --on each of said plurality of parallel lines of flight-- in order to maintain consistency with line 12 of claim 9 and to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 14 recite, in part, “height adjustable to relative to the aircraft” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --height adjustable [[to]] relative to the aircraft-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 15 recites, in part, “other than longitudinal direction of said nadir” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --other than a longitudinal direction of said nadir-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 17 recites, in part, “exactly one of a first set three oblique” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --exactly one of a first set of three oblique-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3 - 5 of claim 17 recite, in part, “and a second sets of three oblique directions wherein a first set of three oblique directions consists of forward left, forward right and directly forward and wherein a second set of three oblique directions” which appears to contain grammatical errors and/or minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --and a second set[[s]] of three oblique directions wherein [[a]] the first set of three oblique directions consists of forward left, forward right and directly forward and wherein [[a]] the second set of three oblique directions-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 20 recite, in part, “from said forward or backwards oblique and nadir direction are produced” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --from said forward or backwards oblique and nadir directions are produced-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said field of view of said oblique camera" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because the Examiner cannot ascertain the scope of the claim since the Examiner cannot understand what is meant by “wherein the system does not include any oblique camera facing in a longitudinal direction other than longitudinal direction of said nadir camera.” Clarification and appropriate correction are required. The Examiner asserts that lines 4 - 5 and 9 - 10 of claim 9 disclose that the nadir camera faces in a direction nearly perpendicular to a single axis of sweeping that is parallel to a longitudinal axis (direction) of the aircraft and thus appear to indicate that the nadir camera does not face in a longitudinal direction. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the metes and bounds of the disclosed and claimed invention cannot be determined based on the wording of the claim. For purposes of examination the Examiner will treat the claim as requiring that said oblique camera faces in a single longitudinal direction and the system does not include any oblique camera facing in a longitudinal direction other than the single longitudinal direction.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said single longitudinal direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention because it is unclear as to which images “said images” recited on line 10 are referencing. Are they referring to the “images” recited on line 4 of claim 19, the “overlapping images” recited on lines 7 - 8 of claim 19 or the “images” recited on line 8 of claim 19? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “images” recited on line 4 of claim 19, the “overlapping images” recited on lines 7 - 8 of claim 19 and the “images” recited on line 8 of claim 19 are the same set of images or are different sets of images. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “said images” recited on line 10 of claim 19 as referencing the “images” recited on line 8 of claim 19 and suggests amending lines 9 - 10 of claim 19 to --direction while passing over said region of interest on said LoF’s and sweeping [[the]] a FOV of said images taken in said nadir direction transversely to form overlapping images from 3 directions,--.
Claims 10 - 14, 17, 18 and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cope et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0244880 A1.
- With regards to claim 1, Cope et al. disclose a system for three-dimensional mapping (Cope et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4, 13, 24, 29, 31 & 32, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 and 0015 - 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0043 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100, Pg. 7 ¶ 0147 - 0149 [The Examiner notes that “for three-dimensional mapping” is an intended use limitation and that intended use limitations are not given patentable weight, see at least MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2111.04.]) comprising: a first camera imaging through a first lens of at least 180 mm focal length; (Cope et al., Figs. 4 - 6, 13 & 24, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027, 0031 - 0034 and 0036, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0107, Pg. 5 ¶ 0111 - 0114, Pg. 6 ¶ 0136 - 0138 and 0141, Pg. 7 ¶ 0146 [“the lens assembly 36 of the ortho camera assembly 30 has a focal length of about 376 mm”]) a second camera imaging through a second lens of at least 300 mm focal length, (Cope et al., Figs. 4 - 6, 13 & 24, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028 - 0031, 0036 and 0044 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0107, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0114, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0138 and 0141, Pg. 7 ¶ 0146 [“the lens assembly 36 of the ortho camera assembly 30 has a focal length of about 376 mm” and “the focal length of the lens assembly 36 of each oblique camera assembly is 40% longer than the focal length of the lens assembly 36 of the ortho camera assembly 30”]) wherein a focal length of said second lens is greater than a focal length of said first lens; (Cope et al., Pg. 2 ¶ 0036, Pg. 5 ¶ 0114 [“the focal length of the lens assembly 36 of each oblique camera assembly is 40% longer than the focal length of the lens assembly 36 of the ortho camera assembly 30”]) a first mirror sweeping a field of view of said first camera in a direction between 80 to 90 degrees of a first axis of sweeping; (Cope et al., Figs. 3 - 6, 9 - 12, 14 & 27 - 32, Pg. 1 ¶ 0017 and 0021 - 0024, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027, 0032 - 0034, 0037 - 0038 and 0040 - 0042, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0054, Pg. 4 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108, 0111 and 0115 - 0118, Pg. 5 ¶ 0126 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0136, Pg. 6 ¶ 0140 - 0142, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 - 0152 and 0156 - 0157, Pg. 10 ¶ 0212 - Pg. 11 ¶ 0220) a second mirror sweeping a field of view of said second camera in a direction between 45 to 80 degrees of a second axis of sweeping (Cope et al., Figs. 3 - 6, 9 - 12, 14 & 27 - 32, Pg. 1 ¶ 0017 and 0021 - 0024, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028 - 0030, 0035, 0037 - 0038 and 0040 - 0042, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0054, Pg. 4 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108 - 0111 and 0115 - 0118, Pg. 5 ¶ 0126 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0136, Pg. 6 ¶ 0140 - 0142, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 - 0152 and 0156 - 0157, Pg. 10 ¶ 0212 - Pg. 11 ¶ 0220) wherein said first axis of sweeping and said second axis of sweeping are at least one of parallel and colinear; (Cope et al., Figs. 4 - 6 & 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0017 and 0021 - 0023, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031, 0036 - 0038, 0040 - 0041 and 0044 - 0049, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0110 - 0111 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0133 - 0136 and 0140 - 0142, Pg. 10 ¶ 0212 - Pg. 11 ¶ 0220) wherein sweeping of said first mirror and said second mirror are synchronized. (Cope et al., Abstract, Figs. 4 - 6 & 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0017 and 0019 - 0023, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031, 0036 - 0038, 0040 - 0041 and 0044 - 0049, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0110 - 0111, 0121, 0123 and 0126 - 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0133 - 0136 and 0140 - 0142, Pg. 10 ¶ 0203, Pg. 10 ¶ 0212 - Pg. 11 ¶ 0220)
- With regards to claim 8, Cope et al. disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising an aircraft (Cope et al., Figs. 1, 29 & 31, Pg. 1 ¶ 0022 and 0025, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027 - 0029, 0033 - 0034 and 0038 - 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0060 and 0065, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121, Pg. 6 ¶ 0129 - 0132 and 0136, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148, Pg. 10 ¶ 0212 - 0217, Pg. 11 ¶ 0219 - 0220) and wherein said first axis of sweeping is parallel to a line of flight of the aircraft. (Cope et al., Figs. 1 - 4 & 9 - 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0017 and 0021 - 0023, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0041, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0104, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0133 - 0136 and 0140 - 0142 [“the system is arranged to rotate the at least one camera about an axis substantially parallel to the direction of movement of the survey aircraft”])
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 - 13 and 15 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cope et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0244880 A1 in view of Reece U.S. Patent No. 8,687,062 in view of Murai et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0063299 A1.
- With regards to claim 9, Cope et al. disclose an imaging system for aerial 3D mapping (Cope et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4, 13, 24, 29, 31 & 32, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 and 0015 - 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0043 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100, Pg. 7 ¶ 0147 - 0149 [The Examiner notes that “for aerial 3D mapping” is an intended use limitation and that intended use limitations are not given patentable weight, see at least MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2111.04.])comprising: a camera bracket configured to hold exactly one nadir camera [and] exactly one oblique camera rigidly immobile with respect to each other; (Cope et al., Figs. 1 - 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0021 - 0022, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 - 0028, 0030 - 0031, 0040 and 0044 - 0045, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 and 0121 - 0123, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0135) an actuator configured for simultaneously for sweeping a field of view of said nadir camera with respect to a single axis of said sweeping and said oblique camera with respect to said single axis of sweeping thereby sweeping said field of view of said nadir camera over three directions and said field of view of said oblique camera over three directions; (Cope et al., Figs. 4, 5, 9, 13, 18 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003 and 0021 - 0024, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 and 0030 - 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 - 0123 and 0126 - 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0131 - 0140 and 0142, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 and 0156 - 0157, Pg. 8 ¶ 0180 [“An example ground coverage footprint 70 illustrating regions of the ground that are covered by an ortho camera assembly 30 and oblique camera assemblies 32, 34 is shown in FIG. 9. As shown, images are captured using the ortho 30 and oblique 32, 34 camera assemblies during an entire sweep of the camera tube 18 and across a current survey aircraft flight path 72 and first and second adjacent flight paths 74, 76 in an ortho ground coverage region 78, a front oblique ground coverage region 80 and a rear oblique ground coverage region 82”]) a servo bracket holding said actuator and said camera bracket to an aircraft with said single axis of sweeping fixed parallel to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft; (Cope et al., Figs. 4, 5, 13 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0022 - 0024, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0104, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 - 0123, Pg. 6 ¶ 0131 - 0136, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 and 0156 [“the camera tube assembly 14 includes a camera tube 18 arranged to rotate about a central longitudinal axis 19, in this example relative to an axle bulkhead 20 mounted relative to the survey aircraft 10” and “camera tube 18 is connected to a ring frame 22 and the ring frame 22 is fixed to an axle 24 that engages with a circular bearing 26 arranged to facilitate rotation of the axle 24 about the central longitudinal axis 19. Rotation of the camera tube 18 is effected by a motor, in this example a servo motor 28, and the servo motor 28 is controlled such that the rotational position of the camera tube 18 relative to the axle bulkhead 20 is controlled”]) a processor configured to control said sweeping (Cope et al., Figs. 7 - 9, 13 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 - 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0132 - 0136, Pg. 7 ¶ 0145 - 0157, Pg. 8 ¶ 0180, Pg. 9 ¶ 0191 - 0198) as said aircraft passes over a region on a plurality of parallel lines of flight (Cope et al., Figs. 4, 5, 9, 13, 18 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003 and 0021 - 0024, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 and 0030 - 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 - 0123 and 0126 - 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0131 - 0140 and 0142, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 and 0156 - 0157, Pg. 8 ¶ 0180 [“An example ground coverage footprint 70 illustrating regions of the ground that are covered by an ortho camera assembly 30 and oblique camera assemblies 32, 34 is shown in FIG. 9. As shown, images are captured using the ortho 30 and oblique 32, 34 camera assemblies during an entire sweep of the camera tube 18 and across a current survey aircraft flight path 72 and first and second adjacent flight paths 74, 76 in an ortho ground coverage region 78, a front oblique ground coverage region 80 and a rear oblique ground coverage region 82”]) wherein said on each of said parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes to capture overlapping images in only six directions on each of said plurality of parallel line of flight (Cope et al., Figs. 9 - 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003, 0017 - 0018 and 0021 - 0022, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0032 and 0040 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108 - 0111, 0121 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0138, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0176, Pg. 10 ¶ 0203 - 0205 and 0216 [“the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided” and “It will be understood that the ground regions covered by the ortho and oblique camera assemblies 30, 32, 34 are customisable to an extent by modifying when images are captured during rotation of the camera tube 18.” The Examiner asserts that the capturing of images in the ortho ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths and one of the front or back oblique ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths by Cope et al. corresponds to the claimed capturing overlapping images in only six directions on each of said plurality of parallel lines of flight.]) and to achieve overlapping views of said region in exactly nine directions over the plurality of lines of flight. (Cope et al., Figs. 4, 5, 9, 13, 18 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003 and 0021 - 0024, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 and 0030 - 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0121 - 0123 and 0126 - 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0131 - 0140 and 0142, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 and 0156 - 0157, Pg. 8 ¶ 0180 [“An example ground coverage footprint 70 illustrating regions of the ground that are covered by an ortho camera assembly 30 and oblique camera assemblies 32, 34 is shown in FIG. 9. As shown, images are captured using the ortho 30 and oblique 32, 34 camera assemblies during an entire sweep of the camera tube 18 and across a current survey aircraft flight path 72 and first and second adjacent flight paths 74, 76 in an ortho ground coverage region 78, a front oblique ground coverage region 80 and a rear oblique ground coverage region 82.” The Examiner asserts that Cope et al. as modified by Murai et al. to fly along adjacent parallel lines of flight in opposing directions would capture overlapping images in only six directions on parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes in one of two opposite directions, nadir left, nadir right, nadir down, oblique forward left, oblique forward right and oblique directly forward directions, and capture overlapping images in only six directions on parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes in the other of the two opposite directions, nadir left, nadir right, nadir down, oblique rearward left, oblique rearward right and oblique directly rearward directions, to achieve overlapping views of said region in exactly nine directions over the plurality of lines of flight.]) Cope et al. fail to disclose explicitly said nadir camera at an angle fixed nearly perpendicular to a single axis of said sweeping and said oblique camera at an acute angle fixed with respect to said single axis of sweeping. In addition, Cope et al. fail to disclose expressly wherein the aircraft passes only once in one of two opposite directions on each of said plurality of parallel line of flight. Pertaining to analogous art, Reece discloses an imaging system for aerial 3D mapping (Reece, Abstract, Col. 1 Lines 35 - 44, Col. 2 Lines 49 - 67, Col. 4 Lines 33 - 50, Col. 5 Lines 16 - 56 [The Examiner notes that “for aerial 3D mapping” is an intended use limitation and that intended use limitations are not given patentable weight, see at least MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2111.04.]) comprising: a camera bracket configured to hold exactly one nadir camera exactly one oblique camera rigidly immobile with respect to each other; (Reece, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 6, Col. 2 Line 49 - Col 3 Line 5, Col. 3 Lines 13 - 34, Col. 4 Line 55 - Col. 5 Line 15, Col. 7 Lines 35 - 46) and an actuator configured for simultaneously for sweeping a field of view (Reece, Abstract, Figs. 1A - 4 & 6, Col. 1 Lines 38 - 44, Col. 2 Lines 49 - 61, Col. 3 Lines 1 - 43, Col. 4 Lines 37 - 47, Col. 5 Lines 32 - 56, Col. 6 Lines 8 - 26, Col. 6 Line 61 - Col. 7 Line 20, Col. 7 Lines 35 - 46, Col. 8 Lines 27 - 44) of said nadir camera at an angle fixed nearly perpendicular to a single axis of said sweeping (Reece, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 6, Col. 2 Line 49 - Col 3 Line 5, Col. 3 Lines 13 - 34, Col. 4 Line 55 - Col. 5 Line 15, Col. 7 Lines 35 - 46) and said oblique camera at an acute angle fixed with respect to said single axis of sweeping. (Reece, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 6, Col. 2 Line 49 - Col 3 Line 5, Col. 3 Lines 13 - 34, Col. 4 Line 55 - Col. 5 Line 15, Col. 7 Lines 35 - 46) Reece fails to disclose expressly wherein the aircraft passes only once in one of two opposite directions on each of said plurality of parallel line of flight. Pertaining to analogous art, Murai et al. disclose wherein said aircraft passes over a region on a plurality of parallel lines of flight (Murai et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 8 and 10 - 16, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 and 0050 - 0051, Pg. 5 ¶ 0057 - 0058 and 0066, Pg. 7 ¶ 0080 - 0081) wherein said on each of said parallel lines of flight the aircraft passes only once in one of two opposite directions to capture overlapping images on each of said plurality of parallel line of flight (Murai et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 8 and 10 - 16, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 and 0050 - 0051, Pg. 5 ¶ 0057 - 0058 and 0066, Pg. 7 ¶ 0080 - 0081) and to achieve overlapping views of said region in exactly nine directions over the plurality of lines of flight. (Murai et al., Figs. 1, 5 - 8 & 10 - 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 and 0009 - 0011, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 and 0050, Pg. 5 ¶ 0058 - 0063, Pg. 6 ¶ 0072 - 0075, Pg. 7 ¶ 0081 and 0089 - 0091, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094 and 0099 - 0101, Pg. 9 ¶ 0107 - 0110 and 0114) Cope et al. and Reece are combinable because they are both directed towards aerial imaging camera systems capable of changing the field of view of a camera(s) and capturing images in a plurality of different directions with respect to an aircraft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cope et al. with the teachings of Reece. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Cope et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Reece applied to a comparable device. Having the cameras fixed in an orientation directed at their respectively desired imaging angles, as taught by Reece, would enhance the base device of Cope et al. by eliminating its need for mirrors, and associated components, to direct the cameras fields of view to their desired imaging angles thereby simplifying its construction, reducing its number of potential points of failure, lowering its cost of production and improving the quality of its captured images since light from the regions being imaged would not be distorted by any imperfections present in the mirrors and/or its associated components. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the cameras of the base device of Cope et al. would be fixedly held by the camera bracket at their respectively desired imaging angles so that their fields of view are directly oriented in line with the regions they intend to image in order to simplify its construction, reduce costs associated with its production and improve its overall reliability and robustness. In addition, Cope et al. in view of Reece and Murai et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards capturing images in a plurality of different directions with respect to an aircraft as the aircraft travels along a plurality of parallel lines of flight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Cope et al. in view of Reece with the teachings of Murai et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Cope et al. in view of Reece with the well-known and applicable techniques Murai et al. applied to a similar device. Passing the aircraft only once in one of two opposite directions on each of said plurality of lines of flight, as taught by Murai et al., would enhance the combined base device by ensuring that the aircraft travels over a region of interest in an economical and fuel-efficient manner thereby reducing costs associated with the capture of images of ground features in the region of interest. Furthermore, this modification would facilitate achieving overlapping views of said region in the nine directions desired by Cope et al. with the alternatively disclosed and suggested imaging system of Cope et al. that comprises exactly one nadir camera and exactly one oblique camera. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the imaging system of the combined base device would travel in opposite directions over adjacent lines of flight so as to ensure that the aircraft travels over a region of interest in an economical and fuel-efficient manner in order to help reduce costs associated with its operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cope et al. with Reece and Murai et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
- With regards to claim 10, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the field of view of said nadir camera is directed by said camera bracket at an angle of between 80 to 100 degrees to said single axis of sweeping. (Cope et al., Abstract, Fig. 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 - 0027 and 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0106, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0136) Cope et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein said nadir camera is held by said camera bracket at an angle of between 80 to 100 degrees to said single axis of sweeping. Pertaining to analogous art, Reece discloses wherein said nadir camera is held by said camera bracket at an angle of between 80 to 100 degrees to said single axis of sweeping. (Reece, Figs. 1A - 1B, 3 & 6 - 7, Col. 1 Lines 9 - 15, Col. 2 Lines 53 - 67, Col. 3 Lines 26 - 34 and 44 - 61, Col. 5 Lines 1 - 15 and Lines 32 - 35, Col. 6 Lines 35 - 37, Col. 7 Lines 47 - 57)
- With regards to claim 11, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 10, wherein the field of view of said oblique camera is directed at an oblique angle to said single axis of sweeping of between 15 to 75 degrees. (Cope et al., Abstract, Fig. 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026 - 0028 and 0044 - 0045, Pg. 4 ¶ 0101 - 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0136) Cope et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein said oblique camera is held at an oblique angle to said single axis of sweeping. Pertaining to analogous art, Reece discloses wherein said oblique camera is held at an oblique angle to said single axis of sweeping of between 15 to 75 degrees. (Reece, Figs. 1A - 1B, 3 - 4 & 6 - 7, Col. 3 Lines 13 - 34, Col. 3 Line 49 - Col. 4 Line 4, Col. 4 Lines 26 - 32, Col. 5 Lines 1 - 15)
- With regards to claim 12, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein said camera bracket further holds a lens of at least one camera of said oblique camera and said nadir camera immobile with respect to a body of said at least one camera. (Cope et al., Figs. 4, 6 & 15, Pg. 5 ¶ 0111 and 0116, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 [“lens assembly 36, the sensor assembly 38 and the steering mirror assembly 40 are mounted on a base 46 so that the lens assembly 36, the sensor assembly 38 and the steering mirror assembly 40 are correctly oriented and positioned relative to each other”])
- With regards to claim 13, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein said servo bracket is mounted to an underside of said aircraft. (Cope et al., Figs. 1, 3 - 5, 13 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0024, Pg. 4 ¶ 0100 - 0104, Pg. 6 ¶ 0131, Pg. 7 ¶ 0148 and 0156)
- With regards to claim 15, [As Best Understood by the Examiner] Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein [said oblique camera faces in a single longitudinal direction] (Cope et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028 - 0029 and 0031, Pg. 4 ¶ 0103 - 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 and 0121, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0135 [“the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided”]) and the system does not include any oblique camera facing in a longitudinal direction other than longitudinal direction of said nadir camera [other than said single longitudinal direction]. (Cope et al., Figs. 4 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027 - 0031 and 0044 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 [“the system comprises at least one oblique camera arranged to capture oblique images representative of a ground area that is not located substantially directly beneath the survey aircraft. The or each oblique camera may be arranged such that the field of view of the oblique camera is directed at an angle approximately 20° from vertical” and “the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided.” The Examiner asserts that Cope et al. disclose that any number of oblique camera assemblies may be provided, i.e., only one oblique camera assembly may be provided.])
- With regards to claim 16, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the system does not include any oblique camera facing in a longitudinal direction opposite said single longitudinal direction. (Cope et al., Figs. 4 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0027 - 0031 and 0044 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 [“the system comprises at least one oblique camera arranged to capture oblique images representative of a ground area that is not located substantially directly beneath the survey aircraft. The or each oblique camera may be arranged such that the field of view of the oblique camera is directed at an angle approximately 20° from vertical” and “the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided.” The Examiner asserts that Cope et al. disclose that any number of oblique camera assemblies may be provided, i.e., only one oblique camera assembly may be provided.])
- With regards to claim 17, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein said only six directions consist of three nadir left, nadir right and nadir directly down and exactly one of a first set three oblique directions and a second sets of three oblique directions wherein a first set of three oblique directions consists of forward left, forward right and directly forward and wherein a second set of three oblique directions consists of rearward left, rearward right and directly rearward. (Cope et al., Figs. 9 - 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003, 0017 - 0018 and 0021 - 0022, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0032 and 0040 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108 - 0111, 0121 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0138, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0176, Pg. 10 ¶ 0203 - 0205 and 0216 [“the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided” and “It will be understood that the ground regions covered by the ortho and oblique camera assemblies 30, 32, 34 are customisable to an extent by modifying when images are captured during rotation of the camera tube 18.” The Examiner asserts that the capturing of images in the ortho ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths and one of the front or back oblique ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths by Cope et al. corresponds to the claimed said only six directions.])
- With regards to claim 18, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein on a line of flight in a first direction the system captures images from three directions consisting of nadir left, nadir right, nadir directly down, in a given direction left, in the given direction right and angled down straight in the given direction (Cope et al., Figs. 9 - 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003, 0017 - 0018 and 0021 - 0022, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0032 and 0040 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108 - 0111, 0121 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0138, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0176, Pg. 10 ¶ 0203 - 0205 and 0216 [“the camera tube 18 includes an ortho camera assembly 30 and at least one oblique camera assembly, in this example a rear oblique camera assembly 32 and a forward oblique camera assembly 34. However, it will be understood that any number of ortho and oblique camera assemblies may be provided” and “It will be understood that the ground regions covered by the ortho and oblique camera assemblies 30, 32, 34 are customisable to an extent by modifying when images are captured during rotation of the camera tube 18.” The Examiner asserts that the capturing of images in the ortho ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths and one of the front or back oblique ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths on a current line of flight by Cope et al. corresponds to the claimed capturing of images from the claimed directions on a light of flight in a first direction.]) and wherein on a line of flight in a direction opposite said first direction the system captures images from nadir left, nadir right, nadir directly down, in a direction opposite the given direction left, in the direction opposite the given direction right and angled down straight in the direction opposite the given direction. (Cope et al., Figs. 9 - 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 - 0003, 0017 - 0018 and 0021 - 0022, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0032 and 0040 - 0046, Pg. 4 ¶ 0105 - 0106, Pg. 5 ¶ 0108 - 0111, 0121 and 0128, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134 - 0138, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0176, Pg. 10 ¶ 0203 - 0205 and 0216 [The Examiner asserts that Cope et al. as modified by Murai et al. to fly along adjacent parallel lines of flight in opposing directions would capture images from the claimed directions, in the ortho ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths and the other of the one of the front or back oblique ground coverage region across the current and first and second adjacent flight paths, on a light of flight in a direction opposite the first direction.])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cope et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0244880 A1 in view of Reece U.S. Patent No. 8,687,062 in view of Murai et al. U.S. Publication No. 2008/0063299 A1 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Peters, III U.S. Publication No. 2004/0041914 A1.
- With regards to claim 14, Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. disclose the system of claim 9. Cope et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the camera bracket is height adjustable to relative to the aircraft. Pertaining to analogous art, Peters, III discloses wherein the camera bracket is height adjustable to relative to the aircraft. (Peters, III, Fig. 2, Pg. 2 ¶ 0014, Pg. 3 ¶ 0029 - 0030, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036 and 0038 - 0039 [“If a change in the position of assembly 100, with respect to the host craft or housing 104, is desired, system 206 provides notification of the desired change to system 202 via link 210, which communicates the necessary adjustment to assembly 100 via link 212. Link 212 may comprise a communicative link (e.g., cable, wireless transceivers) that notifies assembly 100 of the desired change (e.g., raise, lower, rotate), leaving assembly 100 to actuate the change via internal or externally associated mechanical systems (e.g., hydraulics). Alternatively, link 212 may comprise a mechanical link that directly effects the desired change itself.”]) Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. and Peters, III are combinable because they are all directed towards aerial imaging systems capable of capturing images in a plurality of different directions with respect to an aircraft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. with the teachings of Peters, III. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Peters, III applied to a comparable device. Incorporating a feature to make the camera bracket height adjustable relative to the aircraft, as taught by Peters, III, would enhance the combined base device by ensuring that the cameras of the combined base device have sufficient clearance from the aircraft and a clear field of view during imaging as their positioning and orientation are changed in view of changes to the aircraft’s rotational orientation during flight so as help guarantee that usable images of high-quality are captured. Furthermore, this modification would enhance the combined base device by enabling a wider range of images to be captured without obstruction and by allowing for the combined base device to be mounted to and utilized with a wider variety of host craft since it would be able to compensate for and avoid differing structures present on the underside of various host crafts potentially obstructing its installation and operation. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the camera bracket of the combined base device would be configured in a manner so as to be height adjustable relative to the aircraft in order to ensure that the cameras of the combined base device are able to maintain clear fields of view of the areas to be imaged during movements of the aircraft during flights and facilitate the proper installation and operation of the combined base device on a wider variety of potential host crafts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cope et al. in view of Reece in view of Murai et al. with Peters, III to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reece