DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed August 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1, 3, 5-12, and 15 are amended.
Claim 16 is cancelled
Claims 1-15 are pending this application
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(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolf et al (McGraw-Hill 2014).
Regarding Claim 11, Wolf discloses method for determining an accuracy of satellite imagery, the method comprising [page 379, section 13-8 for orthophoto generation]:
obtaining a longitude, a latitude, and an altitude corresponding to a ground control point (GCP) [page 21 first paragraph for Oblique aerial photographs are exposed with the camera axis intentionally tilted away from vertical, and page 500, Section 17-11for Stereopairs of SPOT images can be acquired for a region by using the off-axis pointing capability of the satellite];
receiving an image including the GCP, wherein the image is taken at an off-nadir angle [page 270, Section 10-1, first and third paragraphs for camera axis tilted slightly from vertical];
measuring, by at least one processing unit, a building lean in the image as a function of GCP elevation [page 185, section 6-10 for Error Evaluation Answers and page 379 last paragraph, for essential inputs for the process of differential rectification are a DEM and a digital aerial photo having known exterior orientation parameters];
and comparing, by the at least one processing unit, the building lean in the image as a function of GCP elevation against an expected building lean as a function of GCP elevation to determine an accuracy of the image [page 182, figure 6.7 and first paragraph for relief displacement on the tall buildings (building lean)].
Regarding Claim 12, Wolf discloses obtaining a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) error for a region that includes the GCP, and incorporating the DEM error into the accuracy determination [page 379, section 13-8 for effects of DEM accuracy and second paragraph for orthorectified photos].
Regarding Claim 13, Wolf discloses the expected building lean as a function of GCP elevation is derived from a reference dataset or known ground truth information [page 182, first paragraph for relief displacement on the tall buildings (building lean)].
Regarding Claim 14, Wolf discloses the accuracy determination is based on a statistical analysis of the building lean measurements across multiple GCPs within the image [page 182, figure 6.7, first paragraph for relief displacement on the tall buildings (building lean)].
Regarding Claim 15, Wolf discloses the accuracy determination is used to assess quality and reliability of the image [page 494 second paragraph for using covariance and page 494 third paragraph for using standard deviation and residual for ground control points].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al (McGraw-Hill 2014) in view of Griffiths et al (US 2022/0284605 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wolf discloses a method for improving an ortho accuracy in ortho-rectified images, the method comprising [page 379, section 13-8 for orthophoto generation]:
obtaining a longitude, a latitude, and an altitude corresponding to a ground control point (GCP) [page 21 for Oblique aerial photographs are exposed with the camera axis intentionally tilted away from vertical, and page 500, Section 17-11for Stereopairs of SPOT images can be acquired for a region by using the off-axis pointing capability of the satellite];
receiving an image including the GCP, wherein the image is taken at an off-nadir angle [page 270, Section 10-1, first and third paragraphs for camera axis tilted slightly from vertical];
obtaining a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) including a region that includes the GCP [page 379 last paragraph, for essential inputs for the process of differential rectification are a DEM and a digital aerial photo with ground point],
determining, by at least one processing unit, an ortho shift equal to the DEM error multiplied by the tangent of the off-nadir angle [page 181, equation 6-11, and last two paragraphs for where d = relief displacement h = height above datum of object point whose image is displaced radial distance on photograph from principal point to displaced image];
and amending, by at least one processing unit, the image based on the determined ortho shift [page 379, last paragraph for the collinearity condition for a particular groundel point P in the DEM].
Wolf fails to explicitly teach calculating, by at least one processing unit, a DEM error as a difference between the altitude in the GCP and a DEM height of the GCP in the DEM.
Griffiths has methods of automating the generation of a correction of an estimate of an elevation of a digital elevation model (abstract) and teaches calculating, by at least one processing unit, a DEM error as a difference between the altitude in the GCP and a DEM height of the GCP in the DEM [0034 for ground point is given by: ΔE=elevation of point of closest approach−elevation of DTM at the estimated true map location].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the ortho-accuracy techniques, as disclosed by Wolf, further including the DEM height calculations as taught by Griffiths for the purpose to estimated true map location (Griffiths, 0035).
Regarding Claim 2, Wolf discloses receiving a plurality of images including the GCP, wherein each of the images of the plurality of images is taken at a corresponding off-nadir angle [page 496, Section 17-10 for three different perspectives of ground points along a strip from collection of forward, backward, and nadir scans].
Regarding Claim 3, Wolf discloses amending each of the images of the plurality of images based on the determined ortho shift, and combining the amended image and other amended images to improve the ortho accuracy [page 379, Section 13-8, last paragraph for using digital mosaics for phot rectification and having a georeferenced image, with page 266 Section 9-9, last two paragraph for using differential rectification].
Regarding Claim 4, Wolf discloses performing a bundle block adjustment to the plurality of images [page 356, second paragraph for Simultaneous Bundle Adjustment].
Regarding Claim 5, Wolf discloses the errors in the DEM are identified through a comparison between the DEM and multiple GCPs [page 449, Section 16-3 and last paragraph for stereo-model oriented in a plotter should have three horizontal and four vertical control points used for comparison].
Regarding Claim 6, Wolf discloses the adjusting pointing accuracy by modifying pointing angles, azimuth, or elevation of the image, which is a satellite image based on the DEM errors [page 255, second and fourth paragraph for using orientation fixes to resolve parameters and having exterior orientation parameters for the image].
Regarding Claim 7, Wolf discloses the adjusted pointing accuracy is applied to the satellite image by adjusting a position parameter or an orientation parameter used as an input to a satellite imaging software package [page 255, second and fourth paragraph for using orientation fixes to resolve parameters and having exterior orientation parameters for the image and equation 17-21].
Regarding Claim 8, Wolf discloses amending the image includes reprojecting the image which is a satellite image after correcting by the determined ortho shift [page 195, first paragraph for resampling is performed to obtain a digital number, which is then placed into the corresponding pixel of the digital orthophoto].
Regarding Claim 9, Wolf discloses generating an ortho-rectified product including the amended image as part of one or more mosaics [page 139, first paragraph for using digital mosaics, with page 379, second paragraph for planimetrically correct, orthophotos can be used as maps for making direct measurements of distances, angles, positions, and areas without making corrections for image displacements].
Regarding Claim 10, Wolf discloses computer program product for correcting a satellite image by accounting for errors in Digital Elevation Models (DEM), comprising computer-readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method steps [page 203, second paragraph for using computers to manipulate digital images and improve image]
obtain a longitude, a latitude, and an altitude corresponding to a ground control point (GCP) [page 21 for Oblique aerial photographs are exposed with the camera axis intentionally tilted away from vertical, and page 500, Section 17-11for Stereopairs of SPOT images can be acquired for a region by using the off-axis pointing capability of the satellite];
receive an image including the GCP, wherein the image is taken at an off-nadir angle [page 270, Section 10-1, first and third paragraphs for camera axis tilted slightly from vertical];
obtain a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) including a region that includes the GCP [page 379 last paragraph, for essential inputs for the process of differential rectification are a DEM and a digital aerial photo with ground point];
determine an ortho shift equal to the DEM error multiplied by the tangent of the off-nadir angle[page 92, section 6-8 for ground coordinates of any point are obtained];
and amend the image based on the determined ortho shift [page 155 section 10-10 for coordinates, adjusted for relief displacement, from Prob. 10-7 as control for the rectification].
Wolf fails to explicitly teach calculate a DEM error as a difference between the altitude in the GCP and a DEM height of the GCP in the DEM.
Griffiths has methods of automating the generation of a correction of an estimate of an elevation of a digital elevation model (abstract) and teaches calculate a DEM error as a difference between the altitude in the GCP and a DEM height of the GCP in the DEM [0034 for ground point is given by: ΔE=elevation of point of closest approach−elevation of DTM at the estimated true map location and claim 11].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the ortho-accuracy techniques, as disclosed by Wolf, further including the DEM height calculations as taught by Griffiths for the purpose to estimated true map location (Griffiths, 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 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.
In applicant’s arguments page 6, fourth paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that claim 1 is amended with a processing using and image based orthoshift. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments.
In applicant’s arguments page 7, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states Wolf does not disclose the calculation for the orthoshift. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Wolf teaches find the objects height from how tar the top is from the bottom shifted apart in the photo, calculating the tilt angle using the relief displacement [Wolf, page 94, section 6-11].
In applicant’s arguments page 7, fifth paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states Wolf does not indicate the photo being amended. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Wolf teaches rectification (amending) of a tilted image into a corrected image [Wolf, page 148, section 10-11].
In applicant’s arguments page 9, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states Wolf does not measure building tilt. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Wolf teaches building lean is relief displacement of the building in the image, Wolf shows the shift getting greater for a taller building (measuring building lean) [Wolf, page 92, section 6-8 and page 94, section 6-11].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights