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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 1 (and other claims) lines 3-4 the phrase “moving route” is not understood. How can a route move? The examiner will interpret this phrase to mean a route where movement occurs.
This confusing phrase is also in many other claims including independent claims 18-20.
Claim 1 line 5 the phrase “on a basis” is not clear. The examiner believes that this phrase means that movement of the second moving body is controlled by the first moving image.
Similarly, claim 12 uses “on a basis” twice. Because of the context the examiner interprets this phrase as –from--. For example, “is controlled from the control data sequentially generated from the first moving image”.
This confusing phrase is also in many other claims including independent claims 18-20.
Claim 2 phrase “in advance” is not understood. It’s not clear to what the phrase “in advance” is referring too. The examiner will interpret this phrase to mean that the control data was generated before the movement or imaging of the second moving body occurs.
Claim 4 (and similarly claim 13) phrase “is reflected” is not understood as worded in this claim. Reading the specification the examiner believes that this phrase has something to do with “reflecting an imaging intention”, “imaging intention is reflected by sequentially executing flight control while” & “control data reflecting the user's imaging intention or imaging environment”. The claim needs added limitations with the phrase “is reflected”. The examiner will interpret this phase to mean the specification phrase in paragraph ¶0026 “imaging intention or imaging environment” therefore imaging environment.
Claim 9 phrase “adapting the movement data…” is not clear. The examiner believes that this phrase means comparing and calculating new data between the estimated movement data and the imaging environment.
Similarly, claim 11 has “adapted to”. Examiner interprets this phrase to mean control data is taken from the imaging environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12 (claim 12 is identical to claim 2) (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US12019458).
A data processing (Abstract) method in which
a data processing device (col. 8 ll 41-43; fig. 8 with col. 18 ll 42-59) is configured to
generate control data (col. ll 41-45, col. 9 ll 1-5, col. 9 ll 51-56) corresponding to a moving route (“flight”, figure 5, “moving path”) of a first moving body (“first UAV”) for controlling movement (col. 13 ll 22-25, ll 47-52) of a second moving body (“second UAV”) on a basis of a first moving image captured from the first moving body (col. 2 ll 17-19, col. 2 55-57, fig. 7 & col. ll 53-63).
Claim 2 Zhou discloses that the data processing method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of movement of the second moving body or imaging from the second moving body is controlled on a basis of the control data generated in advance on a basis of the first moving image (col. 1 ll 56-60, col. 20 ll 61 to col. 21 ll 4).
Claim 12 is identical to claim 2. The examiner has added additional mapping.
Claim 12 Zhou discloses that the data processing method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of movement of the second moving body or imaging (“targets”, col. 7 47-48) from the second moving body is controlled on a basis of the control data sequentially (col. 4 ll 59-65, col. 17 ll 41-42) generated on a basis of the first moving image (col. 1 ll 57-62, col. 2 ll 5-11, fig. 7 step 720 and col. 17 ll 54-63).
Claim 18 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Motoyama et al (US11812197).
A data processing device (“information processing device 10”, fig. 4) comprising a data generation unit (col. 4 ll 47-51) that generates control data corresponding to a moving route (figures 1, 2, 7, 9, 11-14, 27-29 and others show roadways) of a first moving body for controlling movement of a second moving body (best shown in fig. 29 Notification of road hazard vehicle 2 (“moving body 2”) to vehicle 1 (“moving body 1”)) on a basis of a moving image captured from the first moving body (fig. 3 integrated view shows vehicle 1 on route; claims 19 & 20).
Claim 19 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Motoyama et al (US11812197).
A program for causing a computer to execute processing of generating control data (col. 27 ll 15-32) corresponding to a moving route of a first moving body for controlling movement of a second moving body (best shown in fig. 29 Notification of road hazard vehicle 2 (“moving body 2”) to vehicle 1 (“moving body 1”)) on a basis of a moving image captured from the first moving body (claim 19).
Claim 20 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Motoyama et al (US11812197).
A moving body control system (col. 3 ll 21-23, col. 5 ll 16-21) comprising: a data processing device that generates control data (col. 27 ll 15-32) corresponding to a moving route (figures 27-29) of a first moving body for controlling movement of a second moving body (col. 18 ll 4-8) on a basis of a moving image captured from the first moving body; and the second moving body that moves on a basis of the control data (col. 17 ll 58-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US12019458) in view Michel et al (US2019/0303982).
Zhou does not disclose editing estimated movement data.
Michel discloses movement data (fig. 1) including the moving route of the first moving body (fig. 2) is estimated on a basis of the first moving image (¶0065), and the control data is generated by editing the movement data estimated (¶0064 “…editing of values…damage estimation”, ¶0065, ¶0072 “…to edit any input…to recalculate the total estimated damage”). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the prior art to upgrade the device of Zhou with the editing estimated data process of Michel. Motivation for this process would be to improve data quality, accuracy, reliability, and the quality of decisions made from that data.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10-11, 13 (claim 13 is identical to claim 4), 16-17 (claim 17 is identical to claim 11) (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US12019458) in view Cui et al (US10497129).
Zhou discloses control data is generated (figures 2 & 3) in which an imaging environment (figures 4 & 5) of a user (operator of UAVs in fig. 5) of a second movable image of second moving body (fig. 7 & Col. 17 ll 53-63, claims 9 & 15).
Zhou however does not disclose that this imaging “is reflected”.
Cui discloses a UAV flight system with a second image being effected by reflection of light (col. 30 ll 41-44). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the prior art to upgrade the device of Zhou with the image reflection technique of Cui. A motivation for this process improvement would be to improve image capture in poor weather.
Claim 6 Zhou discloses the data processing method according to claim 4, wherein the imaging intention includes at least one of a composition or an angle of view of the second moving image (fig. 6 step 620 & col. 16 ll 65 & step 650 col. 17 ll 31-32).
Claim 10 Zhou discloses the data processing method according to claim 4, wherein (col. 17 ll 64 to col. 18 ll 30) an imaging feature parameter is extracted from the first moving image (col. 18 ll 6-10), and the control data is generated by applying the imaging feature parameter (last two sentences) extracted to the imaging intention.
Claim 11 (claims 11 and 17 are identical) Cui discloses the data processing method according to claim 4, wherein the control data (“using disparity data” col. 22 ll 30-31) adapted to the imaging environment (fig. 7 t1) is generated on a basis of the first moving image (“first image 116(1)”) (for this claim also see claim 1 of Cui).
Claim 16 Zhou discloses the data processing method according to claim 13, wherein the control data is generated by applying the imaging feature parameter (col. 17 ll 64 to col. 18 ll 30, col. 18 ll 6-10) extracted to the imaging intention.
Claim(s) 5 & 14 (claim 5 is identical to claim 14) (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US12019458) in view Cui et al (US10497129) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mori et al (US2023/0169769).
Zhou in view of Cui does not disclose use of a machine learning model.
Mori discloses an image processing system with a machine learning model using images as input (fig. 23). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to upgrade the device of Zhou in view of Cui with the well-known tool of a machine learning model as taught by Mori. A motivation for employing a machine learning model is well known and would be to speed up processing of imagery. This is an example of the KSR case law for obviousness rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658