DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure (specification) is objected to because paragraph [0030] is unclear. Going forward with examination, the paragraph is interpreted to be (Note that in applicant’s response, where a change is requested in the specification, an entire paragraph of the specification containing the change will be needed):
--[0030] As shown in FIG. 2, to correct a signal concerning the distance between the drone and object generated by system 100 due to the movement or hovering of a drone, the present invention may use one or both of the following methods: (1) use a camera and sensor system 210 to determine the UAS movement (2) or use one or more cameras 220-223 external to UAS 210 for filming and tracking UAS 210.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because they are unclear. Going forward with examination, the claims are interpreted to be:
--2. The system of claim 1 further including at least one camera attached to said UAS and wherein information from said at least one camera is used to correct a signal concerning the distance between said UAS and the object generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS.--
--3. The system of claim 1 further including at least one predetermined surface pattern external to said UAS and wherein information obtained from said at least one camera from said at least one predetermined surface pattern is used to correct a signal concerning the distance between said UAS and the object generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Markov (US 11,467,096 B1).
Markov teaches:
1. A system (2) that enables a non-contact real-time displacement measurement of an object 101 (which may be a bridge for example) comprising (See figs. 1, 2, reproduced and annotated below):
an unmanned aerial system (UAS 100) including at least one laser 211 (being part of an opto-electronics package 111 on-board an unmanned aerial vehicle or drone 112; Figs. 1, 2; Col. 8, lines 6-25);
at least one accelerometer 231 (Figs. 1, 2; Col. 3, lines 3-10);
at least one processor 262 (which may be disposed at a ground station 103; Figs. 1, 2; Col. 7, line 62 – Col. 8, line 5; Col. 12, line 58 – Col. 13, line 2);
wherein data from said at least one accelerometer (231) is used by said processor (262) to determine the 6-degrees of freedom that said UAS 100 experiences in flight (Col. 3, lines 4-10: “The system further may include an accelerometer [231]. The accelerometer [231] is configured to detect a motion of a mobile sensing platform [100] carrying the sensor [which may be an aspect of the laser Doppler vibrometer 211]. The accelerometer [231] is also configured to generate accelerometer data. The accelerometer data may be data on 3D acceleration of the sensing platform [100] and its orientation during a measuring cycle”); and
wherein data from said laser (211) is used by said processor (262) to determine a non-contact real-time displacement measurement of an object 101 (Col. 4, lines 31-38; Col. 11, line 61 – Col. 12, line 12; See Note below).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note: In an embodiment, as shown in figs. 1 and 2 above, the UAS 100 includes an opto-electronics package 111.
The opto-electronics package 111 has a laser Doppler vibrometer including a laser 211 to emit an array of laser beams 109 onto the structure 101 during a measurement, and a sensor 215 to receive backscattered light from the structure 101 as sensor data. This sensor data holds information on a temporal dynamic of vibration spectra, a localized velocity and/or displacement associated with a particular position on a measurement area 108 of the structure 101 (Col. 8, lines 37-61).
The opto-electronics package 111 also has an accelerometer 231 to collect data on 3D acceleration the UAS 100 as platform accelerometer data (inherently a 6-degrees of freedom that said UAS 100 experiences in flight). This platform acceleration data holds information on a temporal dynamic of motion associated with the UAS 100 (Col. 3, lines 4-10).
The opto-electronic package 111 then sends the sensor data and the platform accelerometer data to a ground station 103, for example, having a processor 262 (Fig. 2).
The processor 262 receives the sensor data and the platform accelerometer data to determine a non-contact real-time displacement measurement of the object 101. Specifically, the processor 262 uses the platform acceleration data to filter from the sensor data the platform acceleration data that is not associated with the structure 101, so that effects of acceleration/motion of the UAS 100 on the detected displacement/vibration of the structure 101 may be ameliorated. Stated differently, the system 2 (processor 262) may combine both the data corresponding to the vibration of the structure 101 (sensor data) and the platform acceleration data to cancel out vibrations that are actually resultant from the mobile nature of the UAS 100. In this manner, accuracy and precision of defect detection may be enhanced, but without necessitating use of a stationary sensing platform (Col. 4, lines 31-38; Col. 11, line 61 – Col. 12, line 12).
An exceeding by frequency and amplitude of the displacement/vibration beyond a threshold amplitude at a threshold frequency corresponds to presence of a mechanical defect in the structure 101 (Col. 5, lines 16-39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markov in view of Troy et al. (US 10,788,428 B2; hereinafter “Troy”).
Markov teaches the system of claim 1 further including at least one camera (221) attached to said UAS 100 (as shown in figs. 1, 2 above) and wherein information from said at least one camera (221) is used to capture images of inspection area 108 (Col. 10, lines 63-64) and/or to facilitate an operator and/or an automated process to determine when a desired position of the UAS 100 is achieved (Col. 14, lines 43-46).
Markov doesn’t teach: The at least one camera (221) is used to correct a signal concerning the distance between said UAS 100 and the object (101) generated by the system (2) due to the movement or hovering of said UAS 100.
Troy teaches a system that enables inspection of an object 18 (which may be a bridge for example), the system including at least one camera (130) attached to a UAS 20 and wherein information from said at least one camera (130) is used to correct a signal (from a laser range meter 138 on-board the UAS 20) concerning a distance between said UAS 20 and the object (18) generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS 20 (so as to determine a scale factor of sizes of objects appearing in captured images during an inspection; Figs. 1, 15, reproduced below; Abstract; Col. 1, lines 6-56; ; Col. 9, line 1 – Col. 10, line 67. See Note below).
PNG
media_image3.png
582
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
609
811
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: In an embodiment, Troy teaches a system that enables a non-contact real-time inspection0 of an object 18, the system comprising essentially all the features recited in claims 1 and 2, as follows:
an unmanned aerial system (UAS 20) including at least one laser 138; at least one accelerometer (being part of an inertial measurement unit 166; Col. 19, lines 26-43); at least one camera 130; and at least one processor 162; wherein the processor 162 uses data from said at least one accelerometer 166 to determine 6-degrees of freedom that said UAS 20 experiences in flight (Col. 19, lines 26-43; Col. 22, line 32 – Col. 23, line 7); data from said laser 138 to determine a coarse distance between said UAS 20 and the object 18 (Col. 19, lines 55-57: “…the distance D is measured by the laser range meter 138…”); and data from the at least one camera 130 to capture images of an inspection area to determine presence of a visible anomaly 74 on the object 18 (Col. 10. Lines 58-67).
Motion of the UAS 20 may dynamically affect distance measurements of the laser (138). Therefore, the system uses the at least one camera 130 further to correct a measurement signal (from the laser 138) concerning a distance between said UAS 20 and the object 18 generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS 20. As such, the system can capture images the object 18 as well as accurately determine a scale factor of sizes of objects (e.g., visible anomalies) appearing in the captured images during an inspection, thereby sizes of visible anomalies, for example, on the object 18 can be realized (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 6-56; ; Col. 9, line 1 – Col. 10, line 67).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Troy teaching to Markov system by having the at least one camera (221) used to correct a signal (from a laser range meter for example) concerning the distance between said UAS 100 and the object (101) generated by the system (2) due to the movement or hovering of said UAS (100). In Markov as modified, the same laser (211) of a separate laser range meter may be used. As such, the system (2) would be able to capture images the object (101) as well as accurately determine a scale factor of sizes of objects (e.g., visual anomalies/defects) appearing in the captured images during an inspection/measurement, thereby sizes of visual anomalies/defects, for example, on the object (101) would be realized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following would be a statement for indication of an allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…at least one predetermined surface pattern external to said UAS and wherein information obtained from said at least one camera from said at least one predetermined surface pattern is used to correct a signal concerning the distance between said UAS and the object generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS.”
With respect to claim 4, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…at least one multicolored light wherein said at least one multicolored light is used to maintain said UAS in a predetermined range of distance from the object.”
With respect to claim 5, prior art of record doesn’t teach, suggest, or render obvious the total combination of the recited features, including the following allowable subject matter: “…at least one camera external to said UAS and wherein information obtained from said at least one external camera is used to correct a signal concerning the distance between said UAS and the object generated by the system due to the movement or hovering of said UAS.”
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 Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uswpto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights