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
Claims 1, 4, 15, and 18 have been newly amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application. The previous objections to claims 1, 4, 15, and 18 have been withdrawn as a result of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that Yang fails to teach every limitation of newly amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant asserts that “Yang clearly fails to disclose or suggest determining parameters of a photographing device based on images [sic] and generating an aerial survey result based at least on the parameters of the photographing device [sic]. In other words, Yang fails to disclose or suggest the above-emphasized claim elements recited in amended claim 1.” Further, Applicant argues that, Yang, even in combination with Chen or Liang, would fail to teach every limitation of newly amended claim 1, specifically asserting that “The Office relies on Chen and Liang for other purposes. Chen and Liang do not cure the deficiencies of Yang because they also fail to disclose or suggest the above-emphasized claim elements recited in amended claim 1. Without acquiescing to the Office’s characterizations, Applicant respectfully submits that Yang, Chen and Liang, whether taken alone or in any combination, fail disclose or suggest ‘determining one or more parameters of the photographing device based on the first image and the second image; and generating an aerial survey result of the target based on the one or more parameters of the photographing device and at least the second image,’ [sic] as recited in amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments have not provided any substantive analysis of the differences between the cited references and the contested claim limitations. The examiner notes that Applicant has merely asserted that the cited references fail to teach the limitations, without sufficient explanation as to how the cited references differ from the claim limitations as presented. Further, the examiner asserts that the Liang reference does teach the newly amended limitations (see the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 below for further details). Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN108871288A), hereafter Yang, in view of Liang (US 20210201534 A1, previously published as WO2020061771 A1 on 02 April 2020), hereafter Liang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a method of route planning, comprising:
Obtaining positional information of a target (0048-0049, The UAV strip oblique image aerial survey method includes the following steps: Step S1: Obtain the position coordinates of the starting point A1, at least one corner point A2, and the ending point A3 of the aerial survey); and
Based on the positional information of the target, planning a photographing route for photographing the target, the photographing route comprising a first route and a second route, an extension direction of the first route and an extension direction of the second route being substantially same as an extension direction of the target, and the first route comprising a first photographing waypoint, the second route comprising a second photographing waypoint (0055, Step S3: generate a strip-shaped aerial survey area M based on the starting point A1, corner point A2, ending point A3, photography parameters, and shooting equipment parameters, 0066, Step S5, Generate a strip flight path based on aerial photography parameters, shooting equipment parameters, starting point, ending point, and strip aerial survey area, 0082, Step S55, Generate a strip flight route based on the starting point, ending point, number of flight strips, strip aerial survey area M, route takeoff point F1, route return point F2, and the position of each flight strip, 0098, The UAV first flies at the fixed takeoff and landing altitude. When it reaches the route where the starting point, each corner point, or the ending point is located, it descends to the flight altitude and continues to acquire images at each starting point, each corner point, or the ending point at the flight altitude. After acquiring images of all points, it flies back to the takeoff and landing altitude to return home);
Controlling a photographing device comprising a photosensitive structure to photograph a first image at the first photographing waypoint and a second image at the second photographing waypoint (0086-0090, Step S71, for the first sortie, the drone's nose flies along the ribbon-shaped flight path, with the gimbal pointing vertically downwards, and acquires orthophotos. Step S72: In the second sortie, the drone's nose is at an angle of 90° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path, acquiring the first oblique image. Step S73: In the third sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 270° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the second oblique image. Step S74: In the fourth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 180° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the third oblique image. Step S75: In the fifth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 0° clockwise to due north and offset from due north by the specified offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the fourth oblique image. 0092, in one embodiment, the gimble angles of the second to fifth sorties in this invention can be set as needed, 0098, The UAV first flies at the fixed takeoff and landing altitude. When it reaches the route where the starting point, each corner point, or the ending point is located, it descends to the flight altitude and continues to acquire images at each starting point, each corner point, or the ending point at the flight altitude. After acquiring images of all points, it flies back to the takeoff and landing altitude to return home), and
Generating an aerial survey result of the target (0037, The acquired tilted image, first tilted image, second tilted image, third tilted image, and fourth tilted image are stitched together to obtain the image of the area to be measured);
Wherein a first orientation of projection of the photographing device corresponding to the first image on a horizontal plane is different from a second orientation of projection of the photosensitive structure corresponding to the second image on the horizontal plane (0086-0090, Step S71, for the first sortie, the drone's nose flies along the ribbon-shaped flight path, with the gimbal pointing vertically downwards, and acquires orthophotos. Step S72: In the second sortie, the drone's nose is at an angle of 90° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path, acquiring the first oblique image. Step S73: In the third sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 270° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the second oblique image. Step S74: In the fourth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 180° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the third oblique image. Step S75: In the fifth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 0° clockwise to due north and offset from due north by the specified offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the fourth oblique image. 0092, in one embodiment, the gimble angles of the second to fifth sorties in this invention can be set as needed).
Yang fails to explicitly disclose, however, wherein the method includes:
Determining one or more parameters of the photographing device based on the first image and the second image; and
Generating an aerial survey result of the target based on the one or more parameters of the photographing device and at least the second image.
Liang, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Determining one or more parameters of the photographing device based on the first image and the second image (0081, The acquisition unit 701 may be configured to obtain the environmental image set, where the environmental image set includes a first type image and at least two second type images, and the direction of the light sensing element used when the camera captures the first type image and the second type images are different. 0082, The processing unit 702 may be configured to calculate the internal parameters of the camera based on the target object image points on the first type image and the second type images in the environmental image set.); and
Generating an aerial survey result of the target based on the one or more parameters of the photographing device and at least the second image (0089, the processing unit 702 may be further configured to generate a digital surface model based on the calculated internal parameters of the camera and the captured environmental images.).
Yang and Liang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the imaging parameter determination of Liang in order to provide a means of determining the principal point of the imaging apparatus. The motivation to combine is to provide a more accurate means of determining the image position of the principal point of the camera, increasing the accuracy of the orthophoto (see at least 0055 and 0079 of Liang).
The combination of Yang and Liang fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the length of the first route is shorter than the length of the second route. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the first route shorter than the second route, because to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner notes that there is both a design need (i.e., to ensure the survey area is fully mapped) as well as a finite number of choices (i.e., having the length of the first route be shorter than/longer than/equal to the second route).
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein the first orientation of the projection of the photosensitive structure corresponding to the first image on the horizontal plane is opposite to the second orientation of the projection of the photosensitive structure corresponding to the second image on the horizontal plane (0086-0090, Step S71, for the first sortie, the drone's nose flies along the ribbon-shaped flight path, with the gimbal pointing vertically downwards, and acquires orthophotos. Step S72: In the second sortie, the drone's nose is at an angle of 90° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path, acquiring the first oblique image. Step S73: In the third sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 270° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the second oblique image. Step S74: In the fourth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 180° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the third oblique image. Step S75: In the fifth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 0° clockwise to due north and offset from due north by the specified offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the fourth oblique image. Examiner's note: the examiner notes that the angles of the UAV between the second and third sorties, as well as between the fourth and fifth sorties, are offset by 180°, i.e., opposite).
Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 2, and Yang further teaches wherein the photographing device is mounted on a movable platform, a first heading direction of the movable platform when moving along the first route is opposite to a second heading direction of the movable platform when moving along the second route so that the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive structure corresponding to the first image on the horizontal plane is opposite to the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive structure corresponding to the second image on the horizontal plane (0086-0090, Step S71, for the first sortie, the drone's nose flies along the ribbon-shaped flight path, with the gimbal pointing vertically downwards, and acquires orthophotos. Step S72: In the second sortie, the drone's nose is at an angle of 90° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path, acquiring the first oblique image. Step S73: In the third sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 270° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the second oblique image. Step S74: In the fourth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 180° clockwise to due north, offset from due north by the offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the third oblique image. Step S75: In the fifth sortie, the UAV nose is at an angle of 0° clockwise to due north and offset from due north by the specified offset distance, and flies along a line parallel to the strip-shaped flight path to acquire the fourth oblique image. Examiner's note: the examiner notes that the angles of the UAV between the second and third sorties, as well as between the fourth and fifth sorties, are offset by 180°, i.e., opposite).
Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Liang further teaches wherein a first orientation of the photographing device when the photographing device is moved along the first route is different from a second orientation of the photographing device when the photographing device is moved along the second route (0034, In one embodiment, the first type image and the second type image can be regarded as environmental images captured when the light sensing element in the camera is in different directions. As shown in FIG. 1B, when the aircraft is flying along the path A, the top of the light sensing element can be the same as the flying direction of the aircraft. At this time, the environmental image captured by the camera can be referred to as the first type image. When the aircraft turns its nose to fly along the path B, the direction of the light sensing element may also change. The light sensing element may be adjusted by 180° in the horizontal direction, such that the upper part of the light sensing element may become the same as the flight direction of the aircraft on the path B as shown in FIG. 1B. Alternatively, the light sensing element in the horizontal direction may be adjusted to other angles, such as 90°, 120°, etc., such that the upper part of the light sensing element and the path B may form a certain angle. At this time, the environmental image captured by the camera may be referred to as the second type image. 0062, In some embodiments, if the camera is mounted on the aircraft through a gimbal, and if the camera has different imaging angles in the vertical direction when capturing the first type image and the second type image, the image processing device may control the rotation of the gimbal during the flight of the aircraft, such that the imaging angle of the camera in the vertical direction may be different before and after the gimbal is rotated. That is, during the flight of the aircraft, by controlling the rotation of the gimbal, the camera may have different imaging angles in the vertical direction when capturing the first type image and the second type image.).
Yang and Liang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing orientations of Liang in order to provide a means of determining the principal point of the imaging apparatus. The motivation to combine is to provide a more accurate means of determining the image position of the principal point of the camera, increasing the accuracy of the orthophoto (see at least 0055 of Liang).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 6, and Liang further teaches wherein a first angle between the first orientation of the photographing device and a direction of gravity when the photographing device is moved along the first route is different from a second angle between the second orientation of the photographing device and the direction of gravity when the photographing device is moved along the second route (0062, In some embodiments, if the camera is mounted on the aircraft through a gimbal, and if the camera has different imaging angles in the vertical direction when capturing the first type image and the second type image, the image processing device may control the rotation of the gimbal during the flight of the aircraft, such that the imaging angle of the camera in the vertical direction may be different before and after the gimbal is rotated. That is, during the flight of the aircraft, by controlling the rotation of the gimbal, the camera may have different imaging angles in the vertical direction when capturing the first type image and the second type image.).
Yang and Liang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing orientations of Liang in order to provide a means of determining the principal point of the imaging apparatus. The motivation to combine is to provide a more accurate means of determining the image position of the principal point of the camera, increasing the accuracy of the orthophoto (see at least 0055 of Liang).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Liang further teaches wherein an orientation of the photographing device changes gradually as the photographing device is moved along the first route (0064, In some embodiments, controlling the rotation of the gimbal on the target waypoint on the predetermined flight path may include controlling the gimbal to rotate based on a predetermined angle interval on the target waypoint. That is, an angle interval may be set in advance, such as 10°. When the aircraft flies to a target waypoint, the gimbal may be controlled to rotate 10° based on the current angle. In other embodiments, a number of target waypoints on the predetermined flight path may be first obtained, then a rotation angle may be set for each target waypoint. When a target waypoint is reached, the rotation angle corresponding to the target waypoint may be determined, and the gimbal may be controlled to rotate based on the rotation angle. Assume that the number of target waypoints on the predetermined flight path is two, the first rotation angle of the gimbal is set to 10°, and the send rotation angle of the gimbal is set to 20°. When the aircraft flies to the first target waypoint, it may determine that the rotation angle corresponding to the target waypoint is 10°, and the gimbal may be controlled to rotate 10° based on the current angle.).
Yang and Liang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing orientations of Liang in order to provide a means of determining the principal point of the imaging apparatus. The motivation to combine is to provide a more accurate means of determining the image position of the principal point of the camera, increasing the accuracy of the orthophoto (see at least 0055 of Liang).
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 8, and Liang further teaches wherein an angle value between the orientation of the photographing device and the direction of gravity becomes smaller and then larger when the photographing device is moved along the first route (0064, In some embodiments, controlling the rotation of the gimbal on the target waypoint on the predetermined flight path may include controlling the gimbal to rotate based on a predetermined angle interval on the target waypoint. That is, an angle interval may be set in advance, such as 10°. When the aircraft flies to a target waypoint, the gimbal may be controlled to rotate 10° based on the current angle. In other embodiments, a number of target waypoints on the predetermined flight path may be first obtained, then a rotation angle may be set for each target waypoint. When a target waypoint is reached, the rotation angle corresponding to the target waypoint may be determined, and the gimbal may be controlled to rotate based on the rotation angle. Assume that the number of target waypoints on the predetermined flight path is two, the first rotation angle of the gimbal is set to 10°, and the send rotation angle of the gimbal is set to 20°. When the aircraft flies to the first target waypoint, it may determine that the rotation angle corresponding to the target waypoint is 10°, and the gimbal may be controlled to rotate 10° based on the current angle. Examiner's note: given that the angle changes at an interval, if the angle were to start at, for example, -20°, and increment by +10°, the angle would get "smaller," i.e., closer to 0°, then "larger," i.e., further from 0°).
Yang and Liang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing orientations of Liang in order to provide a means of determining the principal point of the imaging apparatus. The motivation to combine is to provide a more accurate means of determining the image position of the principal point of the camera, increasing the accuracy of the orthophoto (see at least 0055 of Liang).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein a ratio between the length of the first route and the length of the second route is greater than a predetermined ratio (0070, as shown in Figure 2, the number of flight strips is 4, that is, the flight strips shown by the dashed lines are defined from top to bottom as the first flight strip, the second flight strip, the third flight strip, and the fourth flight strip, See Fig. 2, wherein each flight strip is connected by a short segment which accounts for the offset between flight strips, Examiner's note: given that the flight strips are merely offset from each other, the ratio of lengths is 1:1, i.e., is a ratio greater than 0.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein an end point of the first route is the same as a start point of the second route; or
The end point of the first route is different from the start point of the second route, the photographing route further comprises a third route comprising the end point of the first route and the start point of the second route (0070, as shown in Figure 2, the number of flight strips is 4, that is, the flight strips shown by the dashed lines are defined from top to bottom as the first flight strip, the second flight strip, the third flight strip, and the fourth flight strip, See Fig. 2, wherein each flight strip is connected by a short segment which accounts for the offset between flight strips).
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 11, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein an end point of the first route is different from a start point of the second route, the second route is located substantially directly above a centerline of the target, and the first route is located on one side of the second route (0070, as shown in Figure 2, the number of flight strips is 4, that is, the flight strips shown by the dashed lines are defined from top to bottom as the first flight strip, the second flight strip, the third flight strip, and the fourth flight strip, See Fig. 2, wherein each flight strip is connected by a short segment which accounts for the offset between flight strips, and wherein each flight strip runs parallel to the “centerline” L).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein the photographing device is mounted on a drone (0008, method for aerial surveying of strip-shaped oblique imagery using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yang further teaches wherein the target comprises a ribbon-shaped target (0008, method for aerial surveying of strip-shaped oblique imagery using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)).
Claims 4, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Liang, and further in view of Chen (US 20170337824 A1), hereafter Chen.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between two adjacent photographing waypoints in the first route is less than a distance between two adjacent photographing waypoints in the second route.
Chen, however, in analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein different flight routes may have differing distances between photographing waypoints (0091, the flight leg facility 104 can generate flight legs with different leg spacings, by applying a smaller spacing, the mission generation system 100 can enable a UAV to capture digital aerial images that overlap by a greater amount and provide greater detail with regard to the portion of the target site, 0182, Although Figs. 3B-3C illustrate a particular leg spacing, it will be appreciated that mission generation system 100 can utilize any leg spacing or multiple different leg spacings…).
Yang, Liang, and Chen are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing leg spacings of Chen in order to provide a means of altering the overlap between images while surveying. The motivation to combine is to ensure that sufficient information is gathered while surveying.
The combination of Yang, Liang, and Chen fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the distance between waypoints in the first route is less than the distance between waypoints in the second route. The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the distance between waypoints on the first route less than the distance between waypoints on the second route, because to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner notes that there is both a design need (i.e., ensuring images overlap sufficiently to fully cover the survey area) as well as a finite number of solutions (i.e., setting the distance between waypoints on the first route to be less than the distance between waypoints on the second route, setting the distance between waypoints on the first route to be greater than the distance between waypoints on the second route, and/or setting the distance between waypoints on the first route to be equal to the distance between waypoints on the second route).
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang and Liang teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein first images captured by the photographing device at the two adjacent photographing waypoints in the first route satisfy a first overlapping rate;
Second images captured by the photographing device at the two adjacent photographing waypoints in the second route satisfy a second overlapping rate; and
Wherein the first overlapping rate is greater than the second overlapping rate.
Chen, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein first images captured by the photographing device at the two adjacent photographing waypoints in the first route satisfy a first overlapping rate (0091, the flight leg facility 104 can generate flight legs with different leg spacings, by applying a smaller spacing, the mission generation system 100 can enable a UAV to capture digital aerial images that overlap by a greater amount and provide greater detail with regard to the portion of the target site); and
Second images captured by the photographing device at the two adjacent photographing waypoints in the second route satisfy a second overlapping rate (0091, the flight leg facility 104 can generate flight legs with different leg spacings, by applying a smaller spacing, the mission generation system 100 can enable a UAV to capture digital aerial images that overlap by a greater amount and provide greater detail with regard to the portion of the target site).
Yang, Liang, and Chen are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., drone-based surveying systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the differing overlapping rates of Chen in order to provide a means of altering the overlap between images while surveying. The motivation to combine is to ensure that sufficient information is gathered while surveying.
The combination of Yang, Liang, and Chen fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the first overlapping rate is greater than the second overlapping rate.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have made the first overlapping rate greater than the second overlapping rate, because to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner notes that there is both a design need (i.e., ensuring images overlap sufficiently to fully cover the survey area) as well as a finite number of solutions (i.e., setting the first overlapping rate to be greater than the second overlapping rate, setting the first overlapping rate to be less than the second overlapping rate, and/or setting the first overlapping rate to be equal to the second overlapping rate).
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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights