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 .
Examiner Note: Claim 21 as currently written is a borderline 101. Determining, selecting, evaluating could all be considered all mental processing steps.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) “Accordingly, the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not “mental processes”, is provided below with respect to point A.”
Due to the significant amount of 35 USC 112 issues, the Examiner strongly recommends Applicant consider a detailed review of all the claims, not just the ones the Examiner listed below. Additionally, correcting the claims may lead to a double patenting rejection with one or more of the parent applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27, 30 and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “receiving a plurality of aerial images of a site and corresponding pose data of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the pose data including position and orientation information;” The Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation. Paragraph 23 states “Additionally, the yaw, pitch and roll of the UAV is logged when the UAV triggers the digital camera to take an image. Additional information may be logged by the UAV. The yaw, pitch, and roll values of the UAV are later used by the system to determine the pose or attitude of the UAV when the UAV obtained or captured a particular image.”
Claim 21 recites “selecting the subset of aerial images based on the projected location, including excluding aerial images in which the projected location is outside image boundaries;;”. The Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation. The word exclude appears only in paragraphs 90, 96, 98
Claim 21 recites “performing a second evaluation … second sampling density greater than a first sampling density”. The word “density” does not appear in the original disclosure. The word sample only appears in paragraphs 32-33. Additionally, the Examiner is unable to find a second evaluation.
Claim 21 recites “wherein pixels outside the region corresponding to the projected location are excluded from the first evaluation.”. The word “outside” appears only once in paragraph 36 of the disclosure.
Claim 27 recites “27. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein selecting the subset of aerial images further comprises selecting aerial images in which the projected location lies within a field of view of an image sensor.” The Specification fails to recite the words “field of view”
Claim 30 recites “30. (New) The method of claim 21, further comprising determining a ground sampling size associated with the ground control point based on at least one of UAV altitude, camera focal length, or sensor size.”. The word “sampling/sample” does not appear in this disclosure. It is not clear where Applicant is deriving support. While the Specification supports using all three(see paragraphs 40-43), it does not disclose computing a ground size based on at least one of …. As recited above.
Claim 31 recites “31. (New) The method of claim 30, wherein the ground sampling size is used to define a size of a region evaluated during at least one of the first evaluation or the second evaluation.” The Specification does not disclose any relationship between ground {sampling} size and the size of a region evaluated during the 1st or 2nd evaluation.
Claim 33 recites “centroid”. The word centroid does not appear in the original specification.
Claim 35 recites “frequency -domain characteristics”. While paragraph 90 does disclose determining if the image is blurry by analyzing Fourier transform and determining frequencies, it does not expressly disclose frequency-domain characteristics.
Claims 22-40 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “21. (New) A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a plurality of aerial images of a site and corresponding pose data of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the pose data including position and orientation information;
determining, based on the pose data and a geo-spatial location of a ground control point,
a projected location of the ground control point in image coordinates for at least a subset of the aerial images;
selecting the subset of aerial images based on the projected location, including excluding aerial images in which the projected location is outside image boundaries;
performing a first evaluation of pixels of the subset of aerial images, the first evaluation comprising evaluating pixels restricted to a region corresponding to the projected location, the region corresponding to the projected location defining a subset of pixels within each of the subset of aerial images, to identify one or more candidate regions;
performing a second evaluation of pixels within the candidate regions at a second sampling density greater than a first sampling density of the first evaluation; and
determining a location of a center of the ground control point in image coordinates based on outputs of the second evaluation, wherein pixels outside the region corresponding to the projected location are excluded from the first evaluation.”
Issues:
The selecting of the subset of aerial images is done after the determining a projected location of the ground control point in image coordinates, for a subset of the aerial images. In other words, you must select the subset of aerial images before processing them. Either there is two subsets or the ordering the claim must change
The “the candidate regions” should be “the one or more candidate regions”
The wherein clause should be attached to the first evaluation limitation or at least on a separate line
The second evaluation fails to output anything. It is not clear what are outputs of the second evaluation
The claim recites a ground control point for a subset of image (i.e. plural), the last limitation states “the ground control point. Since there are plural ground control points, it isn’t clear which ground control point, one of them all of them?
Claim 22 recites “a subset of pixels”. It is not clear if Applicant means “the subset of pixels” referring back to claim 21 4th limitation. Or if this is a separate subset of pixels.
Claim 23 recites “outputs corresponding to identification of the ground control point”. Which outputs are these?
Claim 28 recites “ a region of interest… based on the projected location”. Is this the region corresponding to the projected location in claim 21 or a different one?
Claim 40 recites “using evaluations” it is not clear if this is referring back to the first/second or another type of evaluation.
Claims 22-40 are rejected as dependent upon a rejected claim.
No Prior Art reads on the claims as currently written.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights