DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 and 33-34 are currently pending.
Claims 19-32 have been canceled.
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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fixed image acquisition device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of determining a water level in a disaster area without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites mental steps “determining a disaster range using a change in a ground surface that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result by a ground surface measurement device”, “ extracting an investigation region based on the disaster range”, and “determining a first water level in the investigation region using the acquired image.” These steps could practically be performed in the mind of a skilled individual evaluating images taken of an area struck by a disaster. Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional element “acquiring an image acquired by an image acquisition device in the investigation region.” This amounts to mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea. Under step 2B, the claim recites additional elements of “a memory” and “at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor performing operations.” These amount to generic computer processing components and fail to remedy the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 33, the method follows the same logic as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 34, the claim follows the same logic as claim 1 above with additional element “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program causing a computer to execute”, this amounts to generic computer processing and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim adds the use of map information, this amounts to a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim adds the limitation of a region through which a vehicle is configured to pass, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim adds a limitation of a region related to a predetermined facility, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding 5, the claim adds the limitation of a water level observation and a water gate, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim adds extracting a region using a ground surface type, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim adds the types of ground cover, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim adds the limitation of the types of imaging devices, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim adds limitation of determining a water level based on a trace, this is a mental process an fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim adds a limitation of a trace on a structure, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim adds the limitation of a vertical surface, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim adds the limitation of the type of trace, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 13, the claim adds the limitation of determining a trace using image recognition, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim adds the limitation of different types of traces, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim adds limitation of determining an accuracy of the image recognition, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim adds limitation of determining a rank of the accuracy, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim adds limitation of determining a water level using an elevation, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim adds limitation of a statistical process, this a mathematical operation and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, 17, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haoting (“The Design of Air-space Integrative Calamity Information Analysis and Rescue System”) in view of Forbes (“Using Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Measuring Post-Flood High-Water Marks and Streambed Elevations”).
Regarding claim 1, Haoting teaches:
A disaster investigation assistance device comprising:
a memory; (Haoting, See Figure 1, Ground Command Center and Ground Center with data processing computers)and
at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor performing operations, the operations comprising: (Haoting, See Figure 1, Ground Command Center and Ground Center with data processing computers)
determining a disaster range using a change in a ground surface that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result by a ground surface measurement device; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
extracting an investigation region based on the disaster range; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
acquiring an image acquired by an image acquisition device in the investigation region; (Haoting, page 2000, After that, the fixed wing UAV will make a flight task along these lines by the navigation method of the GPS or Beidou satellite system.)
Haoting fails to teach:
determining a first water level in the investigation region using the acquired image.
Forbes teaches:
determining a first water level in the investigation region using the acquired image. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
extracting the investigation region using map information. (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
extracting investigation region through which a vehicle is configured to pass. (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to any one of claims claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
extracting investigation region related to a predetermined facility. (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
extracting investigation region using a type of a ground surface. (Forbes, page 2, HWMS (high water marks…. a trace) left by floods are debris lines, wash lines, cut lines, and mud lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 6, wherein the type of the ground surface includes at least any one of a water surface, mud, garbage, dry soil, a grassland, a forest, and snow cover. (Forbes, page 2, HWMS (high water marks…. a trace) left by floods are debris lines, wash lines, cut lines, and mud lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
acquiring image from at least any one of the fixed image acquisition device and the image acquisition device mounted on a vehicle. (Haoting, page 2000, After that, the fixed wing UAV will make a flight task along these lines by the navigation method of the GPS or Beidou satellite system.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the first water level using a trace included in the image acquired in the investigation region. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 9,wherein the trace includes at least any one of mud, garbage, grass, driftwood, a rock, and a trace of earth and sand that have flowed out. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 9,wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the trace using image recognition. (Forbes Section 2.3, Photographs at both sites that were collected by the sUAS were processed in Agisoft Metahape to develp a three dimensional point cloud model, a DTM, an orthorectified mosaiked image)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 13, wherein the trace includes a plurality of types of the traces, and wherein the operations further comprise:
determining traces using the image recognition related to the plurality of respective types of the traces. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the first water level using an elevation. (Forbes page 4, Imagery collected in a specific manner employing photogrammetric techniques using sUAS can be post processed to generate accurate DTMs which can be used to map the location and elevation of the visually identified HWMs and the terrain features that were inundated)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
A disaster investigation assistance method comprising:
determining a disaster range using a change in a ground surface that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result by a ground surface measurement device; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
extracting an investigation region based on the disaster range; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
acquiring an image acquired by an image acquisition device in the investigation region; (Haoting, page 2000, After that, the fixed wing UAV will make a flight task along these lines by the navigation method of the GPS or Beidou satellite system.) and
determining a first water level in the investigation region using the acquired image. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Haoting and Forbes teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute: (Haoting, See Figure 1, Ground Command Center and Ground Center with data processing computers)
determining a disaster range using a change in a ground surface that is a result of an analysis using a measurement result by a ground surface measurement device; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
extracting an investigation region based on the disaster range; (Haoting page 2000, When a calamity happens, for example an earthquake broken out, the road, the railway, and the river may all be destroy; thus we can use the RSS to capture the remote image of the area and use the remote image change detection technique to find the destroy level of these lines)
acquiring an image acquired by an image acquisition device in the investigation region; (Haoting, page 2000, After that, the fixed wing UAV will make a flight task along these lines by the navigation method of the GPS or Beidou satellite system.) and
determining a first water level in the investigation region using the acquired image. (Forbes, Section 3.1 At Underwood Creek, HWMs (high water marks) were identified along the margin of the flood on both banks by the color change caused by vegetation that had been laid down and in some locations by debris lines)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the water level determination of Forbes with the disaster investigation of Haoting. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of disaster investigation. The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the time and cost associated with acquiring flood data. See Forbes, abstract.
Claims 5, 10-11, 15-16, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoating and Forbes as applied to claims 4, 9, and 14 above, respectively, and further in view of Ridolfi (“Water Level Measurements from Drones: A Pilot Study at a Dam Site”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haoting and Forbes fails to teach:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 4, wherein the facility includes at least any one of a water level observation station and a water gate.
Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 4, wherein the facility includes at least any one of a water level observation station and a water gate. (Ridolfi, Section 2.3, Images were shot at a distance of about 15m from the dam …. See also Section 2.4 The waterline can be described as the demarcation line (trace) between the water and everything else that is above the water)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dam monitoring of Ridofli to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to reduce risk of dam failures. See Ridolfi page 2.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Haoting, Forbes, and Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 9, wherein at least part of the image acquired in the investigation region includes the trace on a predetermined structure. (Ridolfi, Section 2.3, Images were shot at a distance of about 15m from the dam (predetermined structure)…. See also Section 2.4 The waterline can be described as the demarcation line (trace) between the water and everything else that is above the water)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dam monitoring of Ridolfi to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to reduce risk of dam failures. See Ridolfi page 2.
Regarding claim 11, the combination Haoting, Forbes, and Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined structure is a structure including a vertical face. (Ridolfi, Section 2.3, Images were shot at a distance of about 15m from the dam (predetermined structure)…. See also Figure 4)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dam monitoring of Ridofli to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water monitoring. The motivation to combine the reference is to reduce risk of dam failures. See Ridolfi page 2.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Haoting, Forbes, and Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining accuracy of the image recognition. (Ridolfi Figure 4, boxplot of errors between estimated and observed water levels from the four control points)
Before the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the statistical analysis of Ridolfi to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water management. The motivation for the combination is to reduce the uncertainty affecting water level edge detection. See Ridolfi Section 3.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Haoting, Forbes, and Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a rank of the accuracy. (Ridolfi Figure 4, boxplot of errors between estimated and observed water levels from the four control points)
Before the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the statistical analysis of Ridolfi to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water management. The motivation for the combination is to reduce the uncertainty affecting water level edge detection. See Ridolfi Section 3.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Haoting, Forbes, and Ridolfi teaches:
The disaster investigation assistance device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the first water level using a statistical process using a plurality of the images. (Ridolfi Figure 4, boxplot of errors between estimated and observed water levels from the four control points)
Before the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the statistical analysis of Ridolfi to the flood management system of Haoting and Forbes. The inventions lie in the same field of endeavor of water management. The motivation for the combination is to reduce the uncertainty affecting water level edge detection. See Ridolfi Section 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666