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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the use of Zhang as prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection based thereon has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed in further detail below.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
Yan teaches away from the claimed invention, because the claimed invention allows the UAV to maintain coordinates while remaining under a bridge, whereas Yan requires periodically flying out from under the bridge to correct its location.
Koo teaches away from the claimed invention, because the no-scan area of Koo instructs the UAV to ignore a “no-scan” region, rather than treating the boundary between obscured and unobscured parts as of the highest priority.
Regarding argument A: The claimed invention does not inherently require that the UAV remain only under a bridge, but rather merely that it captures an image of the bridge from below, as taught by Yan, and controls the UAV to fly along an identified calibration line as an inspection task, as taught by Jia.
Regarding argument B: The claimed invention does not inherently require that a calibration line be based on the boundary between an obstructed part and an unobstructed part, but rather merely that an image comprises the obstructed part and the unobstructed part, and separately that the calibration line is identified, without reference to how such a calibration line is identified. Koo teaches that an image can be taken and segmented into scan areas and no-scan areas (Koo – [0061]), which correspond to the obstructed part and the unobstructed part, respectively. The calibration line, meanwhile, is taught by Jia.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al. (WO 2022227097) in view of Yan et al. (CN109990777, cited in applicant IDS) in view of Jin et al. (CN 110657808) in view of Koo et al. (US 20210266461).
Claim 1.
With respect to Fig. 1 below, Jia et al. teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A route as planned by Jia et al. (originally Jia Fig. 3)
identifying a calibration line corresponding to the target
(Jia – [0076]) “the target flight path includes a starting point 11, an ending point 12, a first calibration flight path segment 13, and multiple point cloud acquisition flight path segments 14.”
controlling the unmanned vehicle to fly along the calibration line based on the image
(Jia – [0076]) “the target flight path includes a starting point 11, an ending point 12, a first calibration flight path segment 13, and multiple point cloud acquisition flight path segments 14.”
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach an upward camera device; however, Yan et al. teaches, with reference to Fig. 2 below:
an upward camera device, being configured to capture an image corresponding to a target bridge based on an upward shooting angle
(Yan – [0024]) “The drone is operated to inspect the bridge underside along the length of the line. The gimbal camera captures images of the bridge’s underside… flying a certain distance under the bridge”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a camera which captures image of a bridge from beneath the bridge would be one which has an upward shooting angle.]
corresponding to the target bridge in the image
(Yan – [0024]) “The drone is operated to inspect the bridge underside along the length of the line. The gimbal camera captures images of the bridge’s underside… flying a certain distance under the bridge”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, using the scanning method of Jia et al. together with the bridge scanning UAV of Yan et al. Both Jia et al. and Yan et al. are directed towards the use of UAVs for scanning surroundings; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined in this fashion with predictable results.
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach a latitude and longitude coordinate; however, Jin et al. teaches:
corresponding to a global positioning system
(Jin – [0038]) “The latitude and longitude acquisition module is used to determine a cooperation target point and acquire the latitude and longitude of the cooperation target point”
wherein a calibration starting point and a calibration ending point of the calibration line each correspond to a latitude and longitude coordinate of a real world
(Jin – [0038]) “The latitude and longitude acquisition module is used to determine a cooperation target point and acquire the latitude and longitude of the cooperation target point”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the scanning method of Jia et al. with the positioning method of Jin et al. Both Jia et al. and Jin et al. are directed towards the use of UAVs to scan a target; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the accuracy of the scanning method (Jin – [0006]).
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach an obscured part and an unobstructed part of an image; however, Koo et al. teaches:
wherein the image comprises an obscured part and an unobstructed part
(Koo – [0060]) “A rectangular region 17 inside the dotted region indicates a no-scan area which does not require scanning for defects.”
[Examiner’s Note: The no-scan area corresponds to the obstructed part.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the scanning method of Jia et al. with the detection system of Koo et al. Both Jia et al. and Koo et al. are directed towards the scanning of objects using a UAV; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the designation of no-scan areas could reduce the amount of time necessary to scan a bridge.
Claim 2.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., and Koo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Jia et al. further teaches:
calculating an angle between a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the calibration line and a distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the calibration line
(Jia – [0103]) “the drone is controlled to fly to one boundary point of the land parcel, and its heading angle is adjusted until the drone’s nose reference line is aligned with the boundary of the land parcel.”
adjusting the flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the angle and the distance, wherein the angle between the flight direction and the calibration line is not greater than a preset angle value, and the distance between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the calibration line is not greater than a preset distance value
(Jia – [0103]) “the drone is controlled to fly to one boundary point of the land parcel, and its heading angle is adjusted until the drone’s nose reference line is aligned with the boundary of the land parcel.”
Claim 10.
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach a bridge bottom part and a sky part of an image; however, Koo et al. teaches:
wherein the image comprises a bridge bottom part and a sky part
(Koo – [0060]) “A rectangular region 17 inside the dotted region indicates a no-scan area which does not require scanning for defects.”
[Examiner’s Note: The no-scan area corresponds to the sky part.]
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-6, 9, 12-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., and Koo et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Parker (AU 2013101142).
Claim 3.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., and Koo et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Jia et al. further teaches:
recording an actual flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle to construct a virtual map
(Jia – [0061]) “The radar device 130 of the UAV 100 is used to acquire point cloud data at least during the UAV flight point cloud acquisition flight path segments.”
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach a coordinate transformation; however, Parker teaches:
calculating a coordinate transformation matrix corresponding to the virtual map and the real world based on the actual flight path and the calibration line
(Parker – [0009]) “The generated flight path is precise and repeatable. It is also created in a virtual world that is relative to a local origin and independent of GPS coordinates. It can be converted to real-world coordinates and/or visualized at a real location using augmented reality at any time by establishing a coordinate transform between the virtual world and the real world.”
(Parker – [0029]) “the coordinate system in the GUI is mapped to the real-world by mapping its position and orientation to the physical world. … It may also be achieved by a number of other means including specifying the GPS coordinates and altitude of two points in the GUI.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the scanning method of Jia et al. with the virtual/physical mapping of Parker. Both Jia et al. and Parker et al. are directed towards control of UAVs used for inspections; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow for the generation of flight paths with a simpler and more intuitive interface (Parker – [0007]).
Claim 4.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Parker further teaches:
wherein the actual flight path corresponds to a virtual coordinate system, the calibration line corresponds to a world coordinate system, and the coordinate transformation matrix is configured to transform the virtual coordinate system to the world coordinate system
(Parker – [0009]) “The generated flight path is precise and repeatable. It is also created in a virtual world that is relative to a local origin and independent of GPS coordinates. It can be converted to real-world coordinates and/or visualized at a real location using augmented reality at any time by establishing a coordinate transform between the virtual world and the real world.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Parker further teaches:
wherein the coordinate transformation matrix comprises an alignment operation of a coordinate system orientation and a coordinate system scale
(Parker – [0012]) “The measurement units of the coordinate system can be real, as in meters, or arbitrary, as in unit-less. If the units are arbitrary they will need to be converted to real units at a later stage”
(Parker – [0029]) “the coordinate system in the GUI is mapped to the real-world by mapping its position and orientation to the physical world.”
Claim 6.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Jia et al. further teaches:
controlling, based on a plurality of virtual inspection paths and the virtual map, the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly along the virtual inspection paths
(Jia – [0076]) “the target fight path includes a starting point 11, an ending point 12, a first calibration flight path segment 13, and multiple point cloud acquisition flight path segments 14.”
recording the actual flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle to continuously construct the virtual map
(Jia – [0061]) “The radar device 130 of the UAV 100 is used to acquire point cloud data at least during the UAV flight point cloud acquisition flight path segments.”
Jia et al. does not explicitly teach a coordinate transformation; however, Parker teaches:
positioning the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the coordinate transformation matrix to generate a plurality of inspection images corresponding to the target bridge and a real coordinate value of the real world corresponding to each of the inspection images
(Parker – [0009]) “The generated flight path is precise and repeatable. It is also created in a virtual world that is relative to a local origin and independent of GPS coordinates. It can be converted to real-world coordinates and/or visualized at a real location using augmented reality at any time by establishing a coordinate transform between the virtual world and the real world.”
Claim 9.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Jin et al. further teaches:
wherein the virtual map records at least one of a camera parameter, a feature map, a coordinate sequence, a time stamp, or a combination thereof corresponding to each of a plurality of locations
(Jin – [0038]) “The latitude and longitude acquisition module is used to determine a cooperation target point and acquire the latitude and longitude of the cooperation target point”
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20200142052).
Claim 8.
The combination of Jia et al., Yan et al., Jin et al., Koo et al., and Parker teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Jia et al. does not explicitly teach the use of SLAM mapping; however, Liu et al. teaches:
wherein the virtual map is generated based on performing a visual simultaneous localization and mapping operation, and the virtual map is composed of a plurality of point clouds corresponding to a plurality of locations
(Liu – [0030]) “a laser SLAM navigation mode is adopted by the wall climbing robot to create a map in real time and correct the position of the robot”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the scanning method of Jia et al. with the SLAM-based method of Liu et al. Both Jia et al. and Liu et al. are directed towards the scanning of target locations; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these references could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this to assist in scanning in an area where it is difficult to receive GPS signals (Liu – [0010]).
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al. in view of Yan et al. in view of Jin et al.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 16: While the art of record teaches generating a coordinate transformation inverse matrix, it fails to teach transforming a plurality of real-world inspection paths to generate virtual inspection paths. The closest available art, Parker, teaches the conversion of virtual paths to real-world paths (Parker – [0009]). However, Parker does not teach the conversion of real-world paths to virtual paths, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art have found it obvious to make such a modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasao et al. (US 20190179346) teaches determining a second position based on a selected point on an image while at a first position. Furthermore, paragraph [0070] teaches use of matrix transformation to translate between two perspectives in accomplishing this process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights