DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received 31 March 2026. Claims 1 - 17 are currently pending.
The amendment to the claims filed on 31 March 2026 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because claim 9 does not include proper markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims, see lines 2 - 3 of claim 9. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6 - 7 of claim 1 recite, in part, “and converts the images to first position data within a stage-fixed coordinate frame and without requiring active infrared beacons” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --and converts the images to first position data within a stage-fixed coordinate frame [[and]] without requiring active infrared beacons-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 8 recites, in part, “identify one or more identified moveable objects on the stage” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identify one or more. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 and lines 4 - 5 of claim 8 recite, in part, “each identified moveable object” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending line 3 of claim 8 and lines 4 - 5 of claim 8 to --each identified moveable object of the one or more moveable objects-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7 - 8 of claim 13 recite, in part, “converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions on the stage and determined without reliance on” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions on the stage. Appropriate correction is required.
The objections to claims 5, 6, 11 and 17, due to minor informalities, are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 31 March 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a master control system… to provide” in claims 7 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 - 17 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 1 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 system “the system” recited on line 9 is referencing. Is it referring to the “system” recited on line 1 of claim 1 or the “processor-based control system” recited on line 8 of claim 1? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the system” recited on line 9 of claim 1 as referencing the “processor-based control system” recited on line 8 of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the stage-fixed reference object(s) used for position determination" (emphasis added) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 13 recites the limitation "the position of a mobile element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 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 “the computer vision camera images” recited on line 7 are referencing. Are they referring to the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 or the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 and the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13 are the same images or different images. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the computer vision camera images” recited on line 7 of claim 13 as referencing either of the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 and the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the location of objects on the stage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 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 “the images” recited on line 2 are referencing. Are they referring to the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 or the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 and the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13 are the same images or different images. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the images” recited on line 2 of claim 16 as referencing either of the “images” recited on line 3 of claim 13 and the “images” recited on line 6 of claim 13.
Claims 3, 5 - 9, 11, 12, 14 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 - 9, 11 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 21 - 22 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 2 and 3 “are not rendered obvious by Densham and Hu or their combination”. The Applicant’s Representative argues that combining “Hu with Densham would require discarding Densham's IR-camera-based architecture and substituting a vision-based, onboard camera system, which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that there “is no suggestion in Hsu [sic] to replace the active infrared markers of Densham with Applicant's passive computer vision of Applicant's claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 2 and 3 are allowable over the previously cited prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner notes that instant claims 2 and 3 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify their teachings with the teachings of Hu et al. For example, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. In addition, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Sullivan et al. that their system can compute the location of a camera based on the position of markers captured by the camera and that movement of a camera can be tracked based on markers positioned in one or more stationary locations, see at least page 3 paragraph 0028 and page 6 paragraphs 0047 - 0048 and 0052 of Sullivan et al. Thus, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify the teachings of Densham et al. and/or combine the teachings of Densham et al. with Sullivan et al. and Hu et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 3. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al. disclose the invention as claimed in instant claims 2 and 3.
On pages 25 - 26 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 4 and 5 “are not rendered obvious by Densham, Hu, and Sullivan, or their combinations”. The Applicant’s Representative argues that combining “Hu with Densham would require discarding Densham's IR-camera-based architecture and substituting a vision-based, onboard camera system, which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that there “is no suggestion in Hsu [sic] or Sullivan to replace the active infrared markers of Densham with Applicant's passive computer vision of Applicant's claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 4 and 5 are allowable over the previously cited prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner notes that instant claims 4 and 5 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify their teachings with the teachings of Hu et al. For example, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. In addition, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Sullivan et al. that their system can compute the location of a camera based on the position of markers captured by the camera and that movement of a camera can be tracked based on markers positioned in one or more stationary locations, see at least page 3 paragraph 0028 and page 6 paragraphs 0047 - 0048 and 0052 of Sullivan et al. Thus, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify the teachings of Densham et al. and/or combine the teachings of Densham et al. with Sullivan et al. and Hu et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 5. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al. disclose the invention as claimed in instant claims 2 and 3.
On pages 28 - 29 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that claim 10 “is not rendered obvious by Densham, and Sullivan, or their combinations”. The Applicant’s Representative argues that there “is no suggestion in Sullivan [sic] calibration method to replace the active infrared markers of Densham with Applicant's passive computer vision for real-time mobile element control of Applicant's claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that claim 10 is allowable over the previously cited prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify their teachings with the teachings of Sullivan et al. For example, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060 of Densham et al. Thus, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. provide some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify their teachings and/or combine their teachings with Sullivan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the invention as claimed in instant claim 10.
On page 33 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 13 and 14 are allowable over the previously cited prior art. The Applicant’s Representative argues that combining “Hu with Densham would require discarding Densham's IR-camera-based architecture and substituting a vision-based, onboard camera system, which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that there “is no suggestion in Hsu [sic] to replace the active infrared markers of Densham with Applicant's passive computer vision of Applicant's claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 13 and 14 are allowable over the previously cited prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner notes that instant claims 13 and 14 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify their teachings with the teachings of Hu et al. For example, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. In addition, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Sullivan et al. that their system can compute the location of a camera based on the position of markers captured by the camera and that movement of a camera can be tracked based on markers positioned in one or more stationary locations, see at least page 3 paragraph 0028 and page 6 paragraphs 0047 - 0048 and 0052 of Sullivan et al. Thus, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify the teachings of Densham et al. and/or combine the teachings of Densham et al. with Hu et al. and Sullivan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 13 and 14. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that that Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the invention as claimed in instant claims 13 and 14.
On page 37 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 15 - 17 are allowable over the previously cited prior art. The Applicant’s Representative argues that combining “Hu with Densham would require discarding Densham's IR-camera-based architecture and substituting a vision-based, onboard camera system, which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that there “is no suggestion in Sullivan to replace the active infrared markers of Densham with Applicant's passive computer vision of Applicant's claimed invention.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that claims 15 - 17 are allowable over the previously cited prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify their teachings with the teachings of Hu et al. For example, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. In addition, the Examiner asserts that this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Sullivan et al. that their system can compute the location of a camera based on the position of markers captured by the camera and that movement of a camera can be tracked based on markers positioned in one or more stationary locations, see at least page 3 paragraph 0028 and page 6 paragraphs 0047 - 0048 and 0052 of Sullivan et al. Thus, the Examiner asserts that at least Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. provide some teachings, suggestions, or motivations to modify the teachings of Densham et al. and/or combine the teachings of Densham et al. with Hu et al. and Sullivan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 15 - 17. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that that Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the invention as claimed in instant claims 15 - 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejections to claims 1, 6 - 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 31 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 6 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0120080 A1 in view of Sullivan et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0164862 A1.
- With regards to claim 1, Densham et al. disclose a system for monitoring a real-time position of a single mobile element on a performance stage (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 17, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0039 and 0045, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056 and 0059 - 0061, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) comprising: the mobile element; (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 16, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0039, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056, 0058 and 0061, Pg. 4 ¶ 0066 - 0067, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0102, Pg. 8 ¶ 0104 and 0114 - 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) a computer vision camera (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4 & 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, Pg. 11 ¶ 0139) that captures images of the stage and reference object(s) while the mobile element moves into multiple positions about the stage (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 and 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) and converts the images to first position data within a stage-fixed coordinate frame; (Densham et al., Figs. 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, 9, 11 - 13, 19, 26a & 26b, Pg. 2 ¶ 0039, 0044 - 0045 and 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 - 0099 and 0102, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, 0108 - 0112 and 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132 [“tracking system 8 tracks the movement (e.g. position, timing, speed, acceleration, etc.) of a beacon 6 as it traverses a path 4 in physical space. In an example embodiment, the position is tracked using X,Y,Z coordinates”, “tracking system 8 may include one or more IR cameras to monitor the position the one or more IR LEDs on the beacon 6”, “tracking system also includes two or more IR cameras which can be used to determine the 3D coordinates of the IR light's position”, “At block 240, the user's control commands are sent to an actuator to move a physical object corresponding to the 3D model of the object. At block 242, the spatial and temporal attributes of the path are tracked or measured using a tracking system. For example, there may be a beacon 6 located on the physical object that allows it to be tracked” and “referring to block 262, the computing device 50 uses or transmits the control commands to move a physical object corresponding to the 3D model of the object. At block 264, the tracking system 8 tracks and records the spatial and temporal attributes of the path taken by the moving physical object”]) and a processor-based control system comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 22a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, 0054 - 0056 and 0058 - 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 and 0066 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0081 - 0083 and 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0099 - 0100, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0123 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) to direct movement of the mobile element using the first position data. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 & 16, Pg. 2 ¶ 0039, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056 and 0058, Pg. 4 ¶ 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0082, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 7 ¶ 0100 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114 - 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0123 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132, Pg. 11 ¶ 0138 - 0144) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly stage-fixed reference object(s) and converting the images to first position data without requiring active infrared beacons or marker emissions. Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose a system for monitoring a real-time position of a single mobile element on a performance stage (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0052, Pg. 7 ¶ 0054 - 0059) comprising: the mobile element; (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048) and a computer vision camera that captures images of the stage and stage-fixed reference object(s) while the mobile element moves into multiple positions about the stage (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 and 0019 - 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048) and converts the images to first position data within a stage-fixed coordinate frame and without requiring active infrared beacons or marker emissions. (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0007 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0028, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052) Densham et al. and Sullivan et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that monitor the position of a moveable object on a stage. 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 Densham et al. with the teachings of Sullivan et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Densham et al. with the well-known and applicable technique(s) Sullivan et al. applied to a comparable device. Monitoring a position of a mobile element on a stage using a stage-fixed reference object(s) and without requiring active infrared beacons or marker emissions, as taught by Sullivan et al., would enhance the base device of Densham et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably determine the position of the mobile element relative to the stage as well as enable a global position of the mobile element in world coordinates to be determined since it would be able to reference and utilize the known fixed position of the stage-fixed reference object(s) when determining the position of the mobile element. Furthermore, this modification would enhance the base device of Densham et al. by reducing its overall cost and simplifying its use since end-users would not need to additionally acquire specialized equipment, such as active infrared beacons or markers, to implement the base device of Densham et al. but may instead may rely upon a wide variety of objects readily available to them thereby increasing its overall appeal to potential end-users. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060 of Densham et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the position of the mobile element would be monitored using a stage-fixed reference object(s) without requiring active infrared beacons or marker emissions so as to improve the ability of the base device of Densham et al. to accurately and reliably determine the position of the mobile element relative to the stage, enable a global position of the mobile element in world coordinates to be determined and allow for the base device of Densham et al. to be implemented at a reduced cost to end-users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Densham et al. with Sullivan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
- With regards to claim 6, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the control system receives input data defining a movement plan (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4, 6 - 9 & 12 - 15, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 - 0058, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 and 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0072, Pg. 5 ¶ 0074, Pg. 6 ¶ 0089 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0093, Pg. 7 ¶ 0096 - 0103, Pg. 8 ¶ 0107 - 0108, Pg. 10 ¶ 0134, Pg. 11 ¶ 0141 - 0144) and the control system compares the first position data to the movement plan to direct movement of the mobile element consistent with the movement plan. (Densham et al., Figs. 6 & 9, Pg. 2 ¶ 0044, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, 0067 and 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0082, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132)
- With regards to claim 7, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 6, further comprising a master control system (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 22a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, 0054 - 0056 and 0059, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0081 - 0083, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0099 - 0100, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0122 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0131) communicatively coupled to the control system to provide the movement plan to the control system. (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 22a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0054 - 0056 and 0058 - 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 and 0066 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0081 - 0083 and 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0099 - 0100, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0123 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132)
- With regards to claim 8, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to identify one or more identified moveable objects on the stage from the images, (Densham et al., Pg. 3 ¶ 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062, Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073 and 0076 - 0079, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144 [“tracking system 8 may include one or more IR cameras to monitor the position the one or more IR LEDs on the beacon 6”, “tracking system also includes two or more IR cameras which can be used to determine the 3D coordinates of the IR light's position” and “The position and motion of the first actor 164 and a second actor 174 can be monitored by the tracking system 8”]) determine second position data for each identified moveable object in relation to the mobile element, (Densham et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144) and direct mobile element movement to avoid unintended contact with each identified moveable object. (Densham et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144)
- With regards to claim 9, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the computer vision camera is disposed on the stage and the captured images are viewing the mobile element and the reference object(s). (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4 - 6, 11, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 and 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly the stage-fixed reference object(s). Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose wherein the computer vision camera is disposed on the stage (Sullivan et al., Fig. 2, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048 and 0052) and the captured images are viewing the mobile element and the stage-fixed reference object(s). (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0007 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052)
- With regards to claim 10, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 9, further comprising an object located at a position on the stage, (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 and 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) the computer vision camera converting images of the object into reference-object position data indicative of the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4 - 6, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0044 - 0045 and 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 005 ¶ 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105 and 0108 - 0112, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly an object located at a known fixed position. Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose an object located at a known fixed position on the stage, (Sullivan et al., Fig. 2, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048 [“placing tracking markers on a fixed surface of the environment (e.g., a wall 214, shown in FIG. 2) within the camera's field of view, the position of the markers can be estimated from frame-to-frame. By measuring the fixed markers and the inertial data, movement of the camera 206 can be tracked, thereby assisting with the calibrating of the camera location” and “Markers may also be positioned in other locations to assist with camera calibration, for example, markers may be positioned in one or more stationary locations (e.g., fixed surfaces, rigid objects, etc.) and captured in images to determine the position of the camera or another object”]) the computer vision camera converting images of the object into reference-object position data indicative of the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame. (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0007 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052)
- With regards to claim 11, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 9, wherein the control system receives input data defining a movement plan (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4, 6 - 9 & 12 - 15, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 - 0058, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 and 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0072, Pg. 5 ¶ 0074, Pg. 6 ¶ 0089 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0093, Pg. 7 ¶ 0096 - 0103, Pg. 8 ¶ 0107 - 0108, Pg. 10 ¶ 0134, Pg. 11 ¶ 0141 - 0144) and the control system compares the first position data to the movement plan to direct movement of the mobile element consistent with the movement plan. (Densham et al., Figs. 6 & 9, Pg. 2 ¶ 0044, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, 0067 and 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0082, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132)
- With regards to claim 12, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 11, further comprising a master control system (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 22a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, 0054 - 0056 and 0059, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0081 - 0083, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0099 - 0100, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0122 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0131) communicatively coupled to the control system to provide the movement plan to the control system. (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 22a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0054 - 0056 and 0058 - 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 and 0066 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0081 - 0083 and 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097 and 0099 - 0100, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0123 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132)
Claims 2 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0120080 A1 in view of Sullivan et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0164862 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. U.S. Publication No. 2018/0246529 A1.
- With regards to claim 2, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the captured images include views of the stage and the reference object(s) used for position determination. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 and 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the computer vision camera is disposed on the mobile element for movement therewith and the captured images include the stage-fixed reference object(s). Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose wherein the captured images include views of the stage and the stage-fixed reference object(s) used for position determination. (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0006 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052) Sullivan et al. fail to disclose expressly wherein the computer vision camera is disposed on the mobile element for movement therewith. Pertaining to analogous art, Hu et al. disclose wherein the computer vision camera is disposed on the mobile element for movement therewith. (Hu et al., Figs. 1, 2 & 12, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 5 ¶ 0060 - 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078 - 0080, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0093 - 0097) Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. and Hu et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that monitor the position of a moveable object. 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 Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. with the teachings of Hu et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Hu et al. applied to a similar device. Mounting the camera on the mobile element for movement therewith, as taught by Hu et al., would enhance the combined base device by making it more compact, by increasing its maneuverability and by reducing the number of individual components required to implement the combined base device since an additional externally located camera(s) for tracking the mobile element would not be required. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Sullivan et al. that their system can compute the location of a camera based on the position of markers captured by the camera and that movement of a camera can be tracked based on markers positioned in one or more stationary locations, see at least page 3 paragraph 0028 and page 6 paragraphs 0047 - 0048 and 0052 of Sullivan et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the computer vision camera of the combined base device would be mounted on the mobile element for movement therewith so as to make the combined base device more compact, increase its maneuverability and reduce the number of individual components required to implement the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. with Hu et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
- With regards to claim 3, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al. disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the computer vision camera comprises at least two computer vision cameras. (Densham et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062) In addition, analogous art Hu et al. disclose wherein the computer vision camera comprises at least two computer vision cameras. (Hu et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180, Pg. 19 ¶ 0183)
- With regards to claim 4, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al. disclose the system of claim 3, further comprising an object located on the stage, (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 5, 11, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062 and 0066 - 0067, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) the computer vision camera converting images of the object into reference-object position data indicative of the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4 - 6, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0044 - 0045 and 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 005 ¶ 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105 and 0108 - 0112, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly an object located at a known fixed position. Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose an object located at a known fixed position on the stage, (Sullivan et al., Fig. 2, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048 [“placing tracking markers on a fixed surface of the environment (e.g., a wall 214, shown in FIG. 2) within the camera's field of view, the position of the markers can be estimated from frame-to-frame. By measuring the fixed markers and the inertial data, movement of the camera 206 can be tracked, thereby assisting with the calibrating of the camera location” and “Markers may also be positioned in other locations to assist with camera calibration, for example, markers may be positioned in one or more stationary locations (e.g., fixed surfaces, rigid objects, etc.) and captured in images to determine the position of the camera or another object”]) the computer vision camera converting images of the object into reference-object position data indicative of the mobile element position relative to the stage in the stage-fixed coordinate frame. (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0007 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052)
- With regards to claim 5, Densham et al. in view of Sullivan et al. in view of Hu et al. disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the object is selected from the list of: an object of known shape and size, and a light source. (Densham et al., Figs. 5 & 17, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053, Pg. 3 ¶ 0061 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0062, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105) In addition, analogous art Sullivan et al. disclose wherein the object is selected from the list of: an object of known shape and size, and a light source. (Sullivan et al., Figs. 1, 2 & 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0024)
Claims 13 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Densham et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0120080 A1 in view of Hu et al. U.S. Publication No. 2018/0246529 A1 in view of Sullivan et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0164862 A1.
- With regards to claim 13, Densham et al. disclose a method for monitoring the position of a mobile element on a performance stage (Densham et al., Abstract, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 17, 21a - 23 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0039 and 0045, Pg. 2 ¶ 0047 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056 and 0059 - 0061, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132) comprising the steps of: mounting a computer vision camera on the mobile element that captures images of objects on the stage and of reference object(s); (Densham et al., Figs. 5, 16 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0038 and 0045, Pg. 4 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 7 ¶ 0102 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0104, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132, Pg. 11 ¶ 0139) moving the mobile element into multiple positions on the stage as the computer vision camera captures images of objects on the stage; (Densham et al., Figs. 5, 16 & 26a - 27, Pg. 2 ¶ 0038 and 0045, Pg. 4 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 7 ¶ 0102 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0104, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132, Pg. 11 ¶ 0139) and converting images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions on the stage. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4 - 6, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0044 - 0045 and 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 - 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 005 ¶ 0073 and 0078, Pg. 6 ¶ 0091, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105 and 0108 - 0112, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 - 0123, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132 [“tracking system 8 tracks the movement (e.g. position, timing, speed, acceleration, etc.) of a beacon 6 as it traverses a path 4 in physical space. In an example embodiment, the position is tracked using X,Y,Z coordinates”, “tracking system 8 may include one or more IR cameras to monitor the position the one or more IR LEDs on the beacon 6”, “tracking system also includes two or more IR cameras which can be used to determine the 3D coordinates of the IR light's position”, “At block 240, the user's control commands are sent to an actuator to move a physical object corresponding to the 3D model of the object. At block 242, the spatial and temporal attributes of the path are tracked or measured using a tracking system. For example, there may be a beacon 6 located on the physical object that allows it to be tracked” and “referring to block 262, the computing device 50 uses or transmits the control commands to move a physical object corresponding to the 3D model of the object. At block 264, the tracking system 8 tracks and records the spatial and temporal attributes of the path taken by the moving physical object”]) Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly stage-fixed reference object(s); and converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions without reliance on active infrared beacons or active marker emissions. Pertaining to analogous art, Hu et al. disclose a method for monitoring the position of a mobile element (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0094 - 0098, Pg. 10 ¶ 0104 - 0105, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0187, Pg. 20 ¶ 0195, Pg. 21 ¶ 0201, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0205, Pg. 23 ¶ 0215 - 0218, Pg. 26 ¶ 0244 and 0246) comprising the steps of: mounting a computer vision camera on the mobile element that captures images of objects; (Hu et al., Figs. 1, 2, 12 & 18 - 20, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 5 ¶ 0060 - 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078 - 0080, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0093 - 0097, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0184, Pg. 20 ¶ 0195, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0205 and 0210, Pg. 23 ¶ 0215 - 0218) moving the mobile element into multiple positions as the computer vision camera captures images of objects; (Hu et al., Figs. 2, 7, 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 5 ¶ 0060 - 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0077 - 0078, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0094 - 0097, Pg. 10 ¶ 0104 - 0105, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0189, Pg. 20 ¶ 0191 - 0198, Pg. 21 ¶ 0200 - 0202, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0205 and 0210, Pg. 23 ¶ 0215 - 0218) and converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions and determined without reliance on active infrared beacons or active marker emissions. (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078 - 0081, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0094 - 0097, Pg. 10 ¶ 0104 - 0105, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0187, Pg. 20 ¶ 0193 - 0198, Pg. 21 ¶ 0200 - 0202, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0213, Pg. 23 ¶ 0216 - 0218) Hu et al. fail to disclose expressly stage-fixed reference object(s). Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose a method for monitoring the position of a mobile element on a performance stage (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0029, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0052, Pg. 7 ¶ 0054 - 0059) comprising the steps of: a computer vision camera that captures images of objects on the stage and of stage-fixed reference object(s); (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 and 0019 - 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 and 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0047 - 0048) and converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions on the stage and determined without reliance on active infrared beacons or active marker emissions. (Sullivan et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 and 0007 - 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0021, Pg. 3 ¶ 0023 - 0024 and 0027 - 0028, Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045, 0047 - 0048 and 0052) Densham et al. and Hu et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that monitor the position of a moveable object. 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 Densham et al. with the teachings of Hu et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Densham et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Hu et al. applied to a similar device. Converting the computer vision camera images to first position data corresponding to the multiple positions without reliance on active infrared beacons or active marker emissions, as taught by Hu et al., would enhance the base device of Densham et al. by allowing for the mobile element to be tracked based on images captured by the camera mounted thereon so as to make the base device of Densham et al. more compact and reduce the number of individual components required to implement the base device of Densham et al. since an additional externally located camera(s) for tracking the mobile element and specialized equipment, such as active infrared beacons or markers, would not be required. Furthermore, this modification would enhance the base device of Densham et al. by reducing its overall cost and simplifying its use since end-users would not need to additionally acquire an additional externally located camera(s) or specialized equipment, such as active infrared beacons or markers, to implement the base device of Densham et al. but may instead may rely upon a wide variety of objects readily available to them thereby increasing its overall appeal to potential end-users. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that the moveable object that is tracked may be a camera, such as a flying camera, and that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 2 paragraph 0038, page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060, page 4 paragraph 0067, page 7 paragraph 0102 - page 8 paragraph 0104 and page 11 paragraph 0139 of Densham et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that images captured by the computer vision camera mounted on the mobile element of the base device of Densham et al. would be converted to first position data without reliance on active infrared beacons or active marker emissions so as to allow for the mobile element to be tracked without the use of an additional externally located camera(s) or specialized equipment, such as active infrared beacons or markers, thereby reducing the overall cost and number of individual components required to implement the base device of Densham et al. In addition, Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. and Sullivan et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that monitor the position of a moveable object. 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 Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. with the teachings of Sullivan et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Sullivan et al. applied to a comparable device. Monitoring a position of a mobile element on a stage using a stage-fixed reference object(s), as taught by Sullivan et al., would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to accurately and reliably determine the position of the mobile element relative to the stage as well as enable a global position of the mobile element in world coordinates to be determined since it would be able to reference and utilize the known fixed position of the stage-fixed reference object(s) when determining the position of the mobile element. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Densham et al. that various other types of devices and methods can be used to perform position tracking, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0053 and 0060 of Densham et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the position of the mobile element would be monitored using a stage-fixed reference object(s) so as to improve the ability of the combined base device to accurately and reliably determine the position of the mobile element relative to the stage as well as enable a global position of the mobile element in world coordinates to be determined. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Densham et al. with Hu et al. and Sullivan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
- With regards to claim 14, Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising the step of: providing a processor-based control system configured to receive the first position data and determine an instruction to cause a desired movement of the mobile element. (Densham et al., Figs. 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 & 16, Pg. 2 ¶ 0039, Pg. 3 ¶ 0055 - 0056 and 0058, Pg. 4 ¶ 0066 - 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0073, Pg. 6 ¶ 0080 - 0082, Pg. 7 ¶ 0097, Pg. 7 ¶ 0100 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0105, Pg. 8 ¶ 0114 - 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0123 and 0125, Pg. 10 ¶ 0130 - 0132, Pg. 11 ¶ 0138 - 0144) In addition, analogous art Hu et al. disclose providing a processor-based control system configured to receive the first position data and determine an instruction to cause a desired movement of the mobile element. (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0015 - 0017, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 4 ¶ 0057, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0185, Pg. 19 ¶ 0188, Pg. 23 ¶ 0216 - 0218, Pg. 27 ¶ 0250 - 0253)
- With regards to claim 15, Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the method of claim 14. Densham et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the location of objects on the stage is known and includes one or more stage-fixed reference object(s) having known geometry. Pertaining to analogous art, Sullivan et al. disclose wherein the location of objects on the stage is known and includes one or more stage-fixed reference object(s) having known geometry. (Sullivan et al., Figs. 2 & 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0017 - 0018, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0028, Pg. 6 ¶ 0045 and 0047 - 0048 [“placing tracking markers on a fixed surface of the environment (e.g., a wall 214, shown in FIG. 2) within the camera's field of view, the position of the markers can be estimated from frame-to-frame. By measuring the fixed markers and the inertial data, movement of the camera 206 can be tracked, thereby assisting with the calibrating of the camera location” and “Markers may also be positioned in other locations to assist with camera calibration, for example, markers may be positioned in one or more stationary locations (e.g., fixed surfaces, rigid objects, etc.) and captured in images to determine the position of the camera or another object”])
- With regards to claim 16, Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the method of claim 15, further comprising the step of: configuring the control system to identify from the images a moveable object on the stage, (Densham et al., Pg. 3 ¶ 0053, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062, Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073 and 0076 - 0079, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144 [“tracking system 8 may include one or more IR cameras to monitor the position the one or more IR LEDs on the beacon 6”, “tracking system also includes two or more IR cameras which can be used to determine the 3D coordinates of the IR light's position” and “The position and motion of the first actor 164 and a second actor 174 can be monitored by the tracking system 8”]) determine second position data for the moveable object in relation to the mobile element, (Densham et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144) and direct mobile element movement to avoid unintended contact with the moveable object. (Densham et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0072 - 0073, Pg. 7 ¶ 0092 - 0094, Pg. 8 ¶ 0115, Pg. 9 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 11 ¶ 0143 - 0144) In addition, analogous art Hu et al. disclose configuring the control system to identify from the images a moveable object, (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 5 ¶ 0060 - 0063, Pg. 8 ¶ 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0094 - 0096, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0184, Pg. 20 ¶ 0195, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0205 and 0210, Pg. 23 ¶ 0215 - 0218) determine second position data for the moveable object in relation to the mobile element, (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 9 ¶ 0094 - 0098, Pg. 10 ¶ 0104 - 0105, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0187, Pg. 20 ¶ 0195, Pg. 21 ¶ 0201, Pg. 22 ¶ 0204 - 0205, Pg. 23 ¶ 0215 - 0218, Pg. 26 ¶ 0244 and 0246) and direct mobile element movement to avoid unintended contact with the moveable object. (Hu et al., Figs. 12 - 17, 19 & 20, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0015, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180 - Pg. 19 ¶ 0185, Pg. 19 ¶ 0188, Pg. 23 ¶ 0216 - 0218)
- With regards to claim 17, Densham et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Sullivan et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the computer vision camera comprises two or more computer vision cameras. (Densham et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 3 ¶ 0053 and 0060, Pg. 4 ¶ 0062) In addition, analogous art Hu et al. disclose wherein the computer vision camera comprises two or more computer vision cameras. (Hu et al., Pg. 5 ¶ 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0078, Pg. 8 ¶ 0087 - 0089, Pg. 18 ¶ 0180, Pg. 19 ¶ 0183)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights