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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendment/Arguments/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the drawings and claims in addition to remarks/arguments dated 17 March 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 08 December 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered at this time.
Regarding outstanding drawing objections, the examiner notes that applicant has corrected the noted informalities. All outstanding drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, the examiner notes that interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) persists, as is shown below.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that by way of claim amendment and/or cancellation, that all informalities have been addressed. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner notes that by way of persuasive argument (in the case of terms lacking sufficient structure) or amendment, all items have been addressed. All outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner notes that by way of persuasive argument or amendment, all items have been addressed. All outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding double patenting, the examiner notes that double patenting will continue to be considered as prosecution advances.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner first notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claims. However, the examiner has reviewed the arguments presented by the applicant on pages 22-24 of the remarks dated 17 March 2026 but did not find them to be persuasive. Applicant has delineated the claimed invention of the instant application from the primary prior art of note by merely specifying that the device takes sequential pictures of the target from different postures and asserts that since the primary prior art of note uses stereoscopic cameras that image simultaneously, that they reasonably do not sequentially image at different postures. The applicant further continues to state that Bao (a secondary prior art reference previously relied upon) would not be an obvious modification as use of a gimbal introduces weight and complexity, whereas the advantage of the instant invention is avoiding the use of gimbals. The examiner disagrees with the presented arguments. First, the primary prior art of note discloses use of a gimbal, and so using this as a differentiating feature from the secondary prior art is improper, as they both utilize this component. Second, the primary prior art does not teach away or preclude the use of a gimbal or use of alternative well-known/routine/conventional means of producing a stitched/panoramic image. Third, neither the claims or the specification of the instant application provide a negative limitation precluding the use of a gimbal. Fourth and finally, while applicant has provided a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art may not wish to use a gimbal, this is not made apparent in the instant application as the inventive concept, nor does the application or prior art teach away from its use. The examiner has determined that merely utilizing a single camera to stitch multiple images in lieu of a stereoscopic camera is an obvious variant, as both are well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, with further support from the prior art, are provided below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 17 March 2026. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and rejected, as noted further below.
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 limitations 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 limitations are:
Patrol device – claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-20
Target obtaining module – claim 11, 15, 17-19
Target display module – claim 11-14
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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.
Patrol "device" as recited in the independent claims is interpreted broadly and under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Specification paragraph [0027] includes examples of devices ("the patrol device 101 may be an unmanned aerial vehicle, a patrol robot, or the like") but does not explicitly limit the terminology. Using the three-prong test of MPEP 2181, first, the claim recites a generic nonce term with no specified structural meaning (a "device"). Second, the term "device" is modified by functional language including "patrol" and "patrolled by". Finally, the term "device" is not further modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the term "patrol device" is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as well. However, the specification provides a requisite for understanding what may be considered a device as shown above, and therefore a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is omitted at this time.
Regarding the modules noted above, the examiner notes that paragraphs [0027, 0034, 0046, 0052] and Figure [1] provide a requisite of understanding. While the terms are being interpreted broadly, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is omitted at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2019/0253626 A1; published 15 Aug 2019, hereinafter Li) in view of Bao et al. (US 2021/0014419 A1; published 14 Jan 2021, hereinafter Bao).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 11 (apparatus), and 20 (non-transitory memory/apparatus): Li discloses A patrol target detection method, comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0038-0040] and Figure [2, 4, 6, 8, 10], Li discloses a target tracking method) / A patrol target detection apparatus, comprising: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0038-0041] and Figure [1, 11-14], Li discloses a target tracking device) / A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, the computer program comprising program instructions, the program instructions, when executed by a processor, enabling the processor to perform a patrol target detection method, wherein the patrol target detection method comprises: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0156, 0171, 0179], Li discloses a memory (including non-transitory embodiments) containing computer program instructions to execute a method for target detection)
obtaining one or more patrol targets from a sensor connected to a patrol device, each of the one or more patrol targets being a different geographical position, said obtaining occurring at a plurality of different preset patrol positions and forming a patrol sub-area at each of the different preset patrol positions by [sequentially changing patrol postures at each of the different preset patrol positions] and obtaining data from the sensor at each of the sequential patrol postures, each of the plurality of patrol postures at each preset patrol position being different, wherein the patrol sub-areas at the plurality of different preset patrol positions forms a patrol area; and (per claim 1) / a target obtaining module configured to obtain one or more patrol targets patrolled by a patrol device, the one or more patrol targets being at different geographical positions, wherein the target obtaining module obtains data for the one or more patrol targets while the patrol device is at each of a [plurality of sequential patrol postures at each of a plurality of preset patrol positions], the plurality of sequential patrol postures at each of the plurality of preset patrol positions being different and forming a patrol sub-area at each of the plurality of preset patrol positions, wherein the plurality of patrol sub-areas forms a patrol area; and (per claim 11) / obtaining one or more patrol targets from a sensor connected to a patrol device, each of the one or more patrol targets being at a different geographical position, said obtaining occurring at a plurality of different preset patrol positions and forming a patrol sub-area at each of the different preset patrol positions by [sequentially changing patrol postures at each of the different preset patrol positions] and obtaining data from the sensor at each of the sequential patrol postures, each of the plurality of patrol postures at each preset patrol position being different, wherein the patrol sub-areas at the plurality of different preset patrol positions forms a patrol area; and (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0043-0044, 0050, 0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100] and Figure [5, 11], First, Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Further, the tracking described and the “aircraft can fly to a position represented by the positioning information”, wherein “positioning information” includes “The position information of the target object includes a position at which the target object is located… Movement track information of the target object may be determined based on the multiple pieces of position information…” reasonably reads on a plurality of positions, such as that shown in Figure [5]. Each camera obtains a different field of view of the target, the different fields of view considered “patrol sub-areas”, the combined stitched image/panoramic image constituting a “patrol area”)
displaying the one or more patrol targets at the different geographical positions in a patrol map. (per claim 1) / a target display module configured to display the patrol targets at the different geographical positions in a patrol map. (per claim 11) / displaying the one or more patrol targets at the different geographical positions in a patrol map. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0070, 0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets, including at different positions, as noted above)
The independent claims of the instant application and Li differ, then, in the recitation of sequentially changing patrol postures at each patrol position. Li produces a plurality of images at each position using stereoscopic images that are stitched together, and thus does not “change patrol posture” at each position in order to obtain the image. However, the examiner submits that this is merely an obvious variant of the disclosure of Li.
However, Bao, in a similar field of endeavor of patrol UAVs, teaches sequentially changing patrol postures at each of the different preset patrol positions (per claim 1) / plurality of sequential patrol postures at each of a plurality of preset patrol positions (per claim 11) / sequentially changing patrol postures at each of the different preset patrol positions (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0080, 0229, 0360-0362, 0417, 0419, 0425-0429, 0445], Bao teaches performing panoramic imaging patrol of an area at a desired position (the area constituting a target) in a multitude of poses, wherein the camera angle is incremented at each “pose” until a final angle is achieved. The angles constitute horizontal, vertical, etc. angles constituting roll, pitch, and yaw)
Li and Bao are in a similar field of endeavor of patrol UAVs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Li to include a single camera that stitches a plurality of views at different orientations (taught by Bao) rather than a stereoscopic camera (as disclosed by Bao) as the two methods of obtaining a panoramic image are well-known, routine, and conventional obvious alternatives.
When approaching the consideration of obviousness, the examiner contemplated how a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would approach the problem of obtaining a wide viewing area at a patrol target. Several well-known, routine, and conventional ways to do so include stereoscopic cameras (disclosed by Li), wide-angle lens cameras, and stitching cameras taking a plurality of images at different orientations/postures via gimbal or otherwise. Merely exchanging how the wider FOV image is obtained from the stereoscopic imaging of Li to the plurality of rotating images of Bao is an obvious variant, using a well-known/routine/conventional method, as detailed above. First, Li discloses that a gimbal may be used (Paragraph [0042-0043]) and thus, a “new/additional component” is not added to modify Li. Further, Li provides the advantage of using a gimbal as “The photography stability of the cameras is improved by using a gimbal connected by controlling the aircraft, so that images of higher quality can be obtained.” (Paragraph [0056]), so motivation to do so exists in the primary prior art of note. Second, Li discloses that the aircraft controls an attitude (and thus, a posture) of the at least one cameras to change, thereby further controlling the photography direction of the at least one camera to change (Paragraph [0055]); thus, including a rotating interface to change an imaging posture/orientation is also not a modification of Li. The difference, then, is the use of a single camera versus a stereoscopic camera setup.
Bao serves as a disclosure in an analogous art which performs incremental imaging at a plurality of orientations, stitching the images for the benefit of automatically obtaining a panoramic image (Bao, Paragraph [0274, 0312]) and decreasing a calculation volume (Bao, Paragraph [0471]) compared to alternative approaches.
Merely altering the disclosure of Li to rely on a single camera stitching operation (rather than stereoscopic, as taught by Bao) is an obvious variant of Li that would have been obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of success, by a person having ordinary skill in the art for the reasons above, or additionally if a user did not have access to a second camera/stereoscopic camera.
Thus, the examiner submits that the independent claims of the instant application are an obvious variant of Li (in light of Bao), as detailed above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses displaying, in response to a selection instruction acting on a first patrol target in the patrol map, a first patrol image corresponding to the first patrol target, the first patrol target being a patrol target displayed in the patrol map, the first patrol image being a patrol image obtained by the patrol device and comprising the first patrol target. (per claim 2) / wherein the target display module is configured to display, in response to a selection instruction acting on a first patrol target in the patrol map, a first patrol image corresponding to the first patrol target, the first patrol target being a patrol target displayed in the patrol map, the first patrol image being a patrol image obtained by the patrol device and comprising the first patrol target. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the tracked targets, even after a user selection of a target of interest)
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses displaying the first patrol image and a patrol target in the first patrol image. (per claim 4) / display the first patrol image and a patrol target in the first patrol image. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets)
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Parent claims 2 and 12 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li does not explicitly disclose obtaining a patrol instruction of the patrol device that shoots the first patrol image and controlling the patrol device to perform a secondary patrol on a patrol sub-area corresponding to the first patrol image in a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image. (per claim 5) / obtain a patrol instruction of the patrol device that shoots the first patrol image and controlling the patrol device to perform a secondary patrol on a patrol sub-area corresponding to the first patrol image in a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image. (per claim 15). However, merely repeating a tracking/patrol instruction is an obvious design decision and is patentably indistinct from the disclosure of Li, as Li discloses tracking of a target and moving the drone to follow as it tracks (Figure [5], for instance). Merely performing a repeat of the disclosure of Li would be beneficial to provide a user with more up to date data (rationale) and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that mere disclosure of repeating the method of Li does not deviate from the scope and spirit of the invention, and is merely an obvious design decision variant.
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses wherein the preset patrol position corresponds to a central position of the patrol area. (per claim 6) / wherein the preset patrol position corresponds to a central position of the patrol area. (per claim 16) (While not necessarily indefinite at this time, the examiner notes that “a central position of the patrol area” is broadly interpreted to include any area “within” a patrol area (as “central position” is a term of relative degree; what constitutes “central”?). Paragraph [0073] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses that the patrol positions include positions in the patrol area. “The encircling tracking mode means that the aircraft maintains a relative distance from the target object and flies by using the target object as a center of a circle and surrounding the target object in a circular track or a quasi - circular track”, for example)
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses obtaining a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target, […] (per claim 7) / obtain a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target, […] (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100], Li discloses the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Each camera obtains a different field of view, the different fields of view considered “patrol sub-areas”, the combined stitched image/panoramic image constituting a “patrol area”)
Li does not explicitly disclose processing of a patrol area by incrementing the angles of the patrol device until a final/target angle is reached.
However, Bao, in a similar field of endeavor of patrol UAVs, teaches obtaining a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target, the second patrol posture comprising a first angle and a second angle, the first angle being a heading angle, the second angle being a pitch angle, or the first angle being the pitch angle, the second angle being the heading angle; (per claim 7) / obtain a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target, the second patrol posture comprising a first angle and a second angle, the first angle being a heading angle, the second angle being a pitch angle, or the first angle being the pitch angle, the second angle being the heading angle; (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0080, 0229, 0360-0362, 0417, 0419, 0425-0429, 0445], Bao teaches performing panoramic imaging patrol of an area at a desired position (the area constituting a target) in a multitude of poses, wherein the camera angle is incremented at each “pose” until a final angle is achieved. The angles constitute horizontal, vertical, etc. angles constituting roll, pitch, and yaw)
determining whether the first angle in the second patrol posture is equal to a final first angle; and (per claim 7) / determine whether the first angle in the second patrol posture is equal to a final first angle; and (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0080, 0229, 0321-0322, 0360-0362, 0366, 0374-0376, 0391, 0402, 0425-0429, 0458, 0471] and Figure [16-17, 30-31], Bao teaches incrementing the angles until each image defined in the imaging scheme is captured, the scheme comprising maximum/minimum angles (final angles). For example, “when the imaging device 580 is oriented at a first pitch angle ( a pitch angle of zero degrees or in a horizontal direction ) , a predetermined number M , of images can be needed to cover a full horizontal rotation”. Images are taken incrementally by a predetermined step length (adjustment step size) to be stitched)
wherein when the first angle in the second patrol posture is not equal to the final first angle, updating the first angle in the second patrol posture to a sum of the first angle in the second patrol posture and a first angle adjustment step size, adjusting the patrol posture of the patrol device based on the updated first angle, and performing the operation of obtaining a patrol target from the sensor connected to the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target; or (per claim 7) / update, in a case that the first angle in the second patrol posture is not equal to the final first angle, the first angle in the second patrol posture to a sum of the first angle in the second patrol posture and a first angle adjustment step size and returning to perform the operation of obtaining a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a second patrol posture and a geographical position of the patrol target; or (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0080, 0229, 0321-0322, 0360-0362, 0366, 0374-0376, 0391, 0402, 0425-0429, 0445, 0458, 0471] and Figure [16-17, 30-31], Bao teaches that the searching scope increments the angle by a step length (the angle of concern plus the step length) until a goal angle is reached, such as a full rotation as noted above. Each of the changes in orientation comprises a posture change. The positions of the images (thus, the positions of the “targets” is determined based on the angles)
when the first angle in the second patrol posture is equal to the final first angle, updating the first angle in the second patrol posture to an initial first angle, updating the second angle in the second patrol posture to a sum of the second angle in the second patrol posture and a second angle adjustment step size, adjusting the patrol posture of the patrol device based on the updated first angle and updated second angle, and performing the operation of obtaining a patrol target from the sensor connected to the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a target posture and a geographical position of the patrol target. (per claim 7) / update, in a case that the first angle in the second patrol posture is equal to the final first angle, the first angle in the second patrol posture to an initial first angle, update the second angle in the second patrol posture to a sum of the second angle in the second patrol posture and a second angle adjustment step size and returning to perform the operation of obtaining a patrol target patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a target posture and a geographical position of the patrol target. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0080, 0229, 0321-0322, 0360-0362, 0366, 0374-0376, 0391, 0402, 0408, 0425-0429, 0445, 0458, 0471] and Figure [16-17, 30-31], Bao teaches that the searching scope increments the angle by a step length (the angle of concern plus the step length) until a goal angle is reached, such as a full rotation as noted above. Then, the pitch, for example, is changed to perform another rotation (the second angle adjustment). For example, “the gimbal 560 can rotate about the horizontal axis 555 in both directions 552 , 553 to provide the imaging device 580 with various pitch positions ( or pitch angles ) . The gimbal 560 can make a full horizontal rotation at each of the pitch positions.”)
Li and Bao are in a similar field of patrol UAVs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Li to include a segmented patrol approach as taught by Bao in order to automatically form a panoramic image of an environment (motivation, Bao, Paragraph [0006, 0274]). Thus, the examiner submits that the claimed invention is merely an obvious combination of the patrol and display system disclosed by Li with the panoramic image generation method of Bao.
Regarding claim 18: Parent claim 17 is unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses perform patrol target recognition on a second patrol image to obtain a second patrol target and first image coordinates of the second patrol target in the second patrol image, the second patrol image being a patrol image obtained by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a target patrol posture, the target patrol posture being one of the plurality of patrol postures; and (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Thus, image information obtained by any of the plurality of cameras reasonably constitutes “second patrol image”, and any of the plurality of targets shown in, for example Figure [5, 7, 9], may be the “second patrol target”)
perform coordinate conversion on the first image coordinates to obtain first geographical position coordinates of the second patrol target, the first geographical position coordinates being coordinates in a world coordinate system. (Paragraph [0057-0058, 0060, 0111], Li discloses performing coordinate conversion of the pixel coordinates to determine the target object. For example, “Further , after obtaining the two - dimensional panoramic image , the aircraft may perform space conversion on the two - dimensional panoramic image to convert the two dimensional panoramic image into a three - dimensional panoramic image . The three - dimensional panoramic image means that coordinates of a pixel in an image are three dimensional coordinates . The three - dimensional panoramic image may alternatively be understood as a spherical panoramic image”)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Bao in view of Higgins et al. (US 2023/0064675 A1; published 02 Mar 2023, hereinafter Higgins).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Parent claims 2 and 12 are unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses displaying the first patrol image [and a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image.] (per claim 3) / display the first patrol image [and a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image.] (per claim 13) (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the patrol image from the stitched points of view of the cameras)
Li does not explicitly disclose the display of the pose. While the examiner submits that mere display of pose information of the UAV is considered an obvious design decision, the examiner points to the teachings from Higgins, in an analogous field of endeavor of patrol target tracking and display, who teaches displaying the first patrol image and a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image. (per claim 3) / display the first patrol image and a first patrol posture corresponding to the first patrol image, the first patrol posture being a patrol posture at which the patrol device obtains the first patrol image. (per claim 13) (Paragraph [0061-0062] and Figure [9], Higgins teaches the display of a patrol target (the fire) in addition to the pose of the patrol device (the camera) which captures the image)
Li and Higgins are in a similar field of endeavor of patrol target tracking and display. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Li to merely display the fields of view of the cameras as taught by Higgins, as this is an obvious design choice. The benefit to the disclosure of display of pose of the camera allows the determination and presentation of a reference point of view (Higgins, Paragraph [0061-0062]). Mere display of pose information is an obvious variation constituting a design decision.
Claims 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Bao in further view of Park et al. (US 2024/0078774 A1; filed 11 May 2023, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses perform patrol target recognition on a second patrol image to obtain a second patrol target and first image coordinates of the second patrol target in the second patrol image, the second patrol image being a patrol image obtained by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in a target patrol posture, the target patrol posture being one of the plurality of patrol postures; and (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Thus, image information obtained by any of the plurality of cameras reasonably constitutes “second patrol image”, and any of the plurality of targets shown in, for example Figure [5, 7, 9], may be the “second patrol target”)
perform coordinate conversion on the first image coordinates to obtain first geographical position coordinates of the second patrol target, the first geographical position coordinates being coordinates in a world coordinate system: (Paragraph [0057-0058, 0060, 0111], Li discloses performing coordinate conversion of the pixel coordinates to determine the target object. For example, “Further , after obtaining the two - dimensional panoramic image , the aircraft may perform space conversion on the two - dimensional panoramic image to convert the two dimensional panoramic image into a three - dimensional panoramic image . The three - dimensional panoramic image means that coordinates of a pixel in an image are three dimensional coordinates . The three - dimensional panoramic image may alternatively be understood as a spherical panoramic image”)
obtaining a target sub-patrol area patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in the target patrol posture; (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100] and Figure [8-9], First, Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Each camera obtains a different field of view, the different fields of view considered “patrol sub-areas”, the combined stitched image/panoramic image constituting a “patrol area”. Finally, Li discloses selecting of target tracked objects)
[deleting a third patrol target and a geographical position of the third patrol target from a patrol target set,] the patrol target set comprising all patrol targets that the patrol device has patrolled and geographical positions of all the patrol targets, the third patrol target being a patrol target located in the target sub-patrol area in the patrol target set; and (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets)
adding the second patrol target and the first geographical position coordinates to the patrol target set; and (Paragraph [0126-0127, 0130-0132] and Figure [8-9], Li discloses selection of target objects and their relative location as shown on the figures of note)
wherein the displaying the patrol target at the geographical position in the patrol map includes displaying all the patrol targets in the patrol target set at the geographical positions corresponding to all the patrol targets in the patrol map. (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets)
Li does not explicitly disclose de-selection/removal of targets. However, this is implicit as a user may select amongst a plurality of targets, as may be seen for example in Figure [9]. Mere de-selection of a target (deletion of a target from a set) is merely an obvious design choice.
However, Park, in a similar field of endeavor of patrol systems, teaches deleting a third patrol target and a geographical position of the third patrol target from a patrol target set, (Paragraph [0134], Park teaches hiding (deleting) and adding (selecting) targets)
Li and Pare are in a similar field of endeavor of patrol systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Li to include deselection/deletion of targets as this is merely an obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to permit an operator to deselect a target in the event of faulty detection, mis-clicking a target of concern, etc. Park is merely relied upon as a reference that explicitly discloses hiding/deleting targets.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 8 is unpatentable over Li in view of Bao in view of Park. Li further discloses after the adding the second patrol target and the first geographical position coordinates to the patrol target set, further comprising: (Paragraph [0126-0127, 0130-0132] and Figure [8-9], Li discloses selection of target objects and their relative location as shown on the figures of note)
taking a next patrol posture of the target patrol posture as the target patrol posture; adjusting the patrol posture of the patrol device based on the next patrol posture, and performing the operation of obtaining a target sub-patrol area patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in the target patrol posture. (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100], First, Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Each camera obtains a different field of view, the different fields of view considered “patrol sub-areas”, the combined stitched image/panoramic image constituting a “patrol area”)
Regarding claim 19: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over Li in view of Bao. Li further discloses obtaining a target sub-patrol area patrolled by the patrol device at the preset patrol position in the target patrol posture; (Paragraph [0065, 0070, 0091-0092, 0094, 0098, 0100] and Figure [8-9], First, Li discloses obtaining position information of target objects and their relative position to the ownship aircraft, wherein the detection is performed when the aircraft is flown to a position represented by the positioning information (thus, obtaining patrol targets at a preset patrol position and obtaining the positions of the targets). Second, the obtaining of information is through multiple images at different fields of view (FOVs) of the plurality of cameras (thus, at a plurality of postures, as the posture of each camera is different through recitation of different FOVs). Each camera obtains a different field of view, the different fields of view considered “patrol sub-areas”, the combined stitched image/panoramic image constituting a “patrol area”. Finally, Li discloses selecting of target tracked objects)
[deleting a third patrol target and a geographical position of the third patrol target from a patrol target set,] the patrol target set comprising all patrol targets that the patrol device has patrolled and geographical positions of all the patrol targets, the third patrol target being a patrol target located in the target sub-patrol area in the patrol target set; and (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets)
adding the second patrol target and the first geographical position coordinates to the patrol target set; and (Paragraph [0126-0127, 0130-0132] and Figure [8-9], Li discloses selection of target objects and their relative location as shown on the figures of note)
the displaying the patrol target at the geographical position in the patrol map comprises: displaying all the patrol targets in the patrol target set at the geographical positions corresponding to all the patrol targets in the patrol map. (Paragraph [0076, 0100, 0120, 0132] and Figure [5, 7, 9], Li discloses displaying the panoramic image including the patrol area and targets)
Li does not explicitly disclose de-selection/removal of targets. However, this is implicit as a user may select amongst a plurality of targets, as may be seen for example in Figure [9]. Mere de-selection of a target (deletion of a target from a set) is merely an obvious design choice.
However, Park, in a similar field of endeavor of patrol systems, teaches deleting a third patrol target and a geographical position of the third patrol target from a patrol target set, (Paragraph [0134], Park teaches hiding (deleting) and adding (selecting) targets)
Li and Park are in a similar field of endeavor of patrol systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Li to include deselection/deletion of targets as this is merely an obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to permit an operator to deselect a target in the event of faulty detection, mis-clicking a target of concern, etc. Park is merely relied upon as a reference that explicitly discloses hiding/deleting targets.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2013/0108103 A1
Image Processing
Thueux et al.
Filed: 15 May 2012
Pub: 02 May 2013
Discusses a surveillance drone that images a sweep of a region of interest from different positions with temporal changes.
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights