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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on September 19, 2024. Claims 1-16 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads in part “(a) dividing the testing fields in a set of plots” which appears to be a typographical error and “(a) dividing the testing fields into a set of plots” was possibly intended.
Claim 9 reads in part “whereby data is obtained twice or more times” and “no data is obtained twice or more times of any area of a plot” which appears to be a typographically error where “twice or more times” was potentially intended to be “two or more times.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 8 and 9 recite the broad recitation “at most 20%,” and the claims also recite “preferably at most 10%, more preferably at most 5%, still more preferably at most 2%, most preferably the data obtained at the 3D sampling points comprise no overlap” (claim 8) and “more preferably at most 5%, still more preferably at most 2% of an area of a plot, most preferably no data is obtained twice or more times of any area of a plot” (claim 9) which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “a computer readable file.” As discussed in the specification, the computer readable file is merely information preferably stored in a Keyhole Markup Language (KML) format. Thus, the computer readable file is information or “data per se” as it is not described as a process or a machine/manufacture that has a physical or tangible form nor is it a composition of matter. See MPEP § 2106.03(I).
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: A drone monitoring method for observing and monitoring agricultural testing fields, comprising the steps of:
(a) dividing the testing fields in a set of plots, each of the plots being defined in a geographic information system, the plots being defined by coordinate information of boundaries of 2D polygons;
(b) defining at least one 2D sampling point in each plot for acquiring drone data, thereby obtaining a set of 2D sampling points;
(c) overlaying the set of 2D sampling points with a digital elevation model, thereby obtaining an altitude reference height for each of the 2D sampling points;
(d) for each 2D sampling point: determining an altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point on the basis of the altitude reference height for said 2D sampling point;
(e) for each 2D sampling point: determining a 3D sampling point by combining said 2D sampling point with the altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point, and
wherein the altitude coordinate is determined by taking into account a canopy height at the 2D sampling point.
The limitation highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of dividing a field area into plots bounded by 2D polygons, determining at least one 2D sample point for each plot to obtain a set of 2D sample points, combining altitude data in an elevation model with the set of 2D sample points, determining an altitude coordinate for each 2D sample point, and determining 3D sample points for each 2D sample point based on the altitude coordinate corresponding to the 2D sample point and a canopy height. This is the equivalent of a person mentally viewing a map of a field and dividing the field into plots bounded by 2D polygons, mentally determining a 2D sample point within each plot to obtain a set of 2D sample points, visualizing an altitude corresponding to each 2D sample point based on an elevation model and/or the person’s knowledge of terrain elevation, determining an altitude coordinate for each 2D sample point based on the visualization, and determining 3D sample points for each 2D sample point by combining 2D sample point coordinates with known altitudes and canopy heights at each 2D sample point. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites: A drone monitoring method for observing and monitoring agricultural testing fields, comprising the steps of:
(a) dividing the testing fields in a set of plots, each of the plots being defined in a geographic information system, the plots being defined by coordinate information of boundaries of 2D polygons;
(b) defining at least one 2D sampling point in each plot for acquiring drone data, thereby obtaining a set of 2D sampling points;
(c) overlaying the set of 2D sampling points with a digital elevation model, thereby obtaining an altitude reference height for each of the 2D sampling points;
(d) for each 2D sampling point: determining an altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point on the basis of the altitude reference height for said 2D sampling point;
(e) for each 2D sampling point: determining a 3D sampling point by combining said 2D sampling point with the altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point, and
wherein the altitude coordinate is determined by taking into account a canopy height at the 2D sampling point.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The step of defining plots in a geographic information system is recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of data gathering or transmitting of information) and amount to post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the method amounts to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of dividing a field, defining a sample point, overlaying data, and determining coordinates are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the structural limitations of a drone amount to an object on which the method of monitoring and observing an agricultural field operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, the use of the drone contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step and field-of-use limitation and so does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Thus, the additional structural limitations of the drone do not amount to a particular machine and do not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations including geographic information systems are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities in the field. Defining plot coordinates and utilizing a digital terrain model to access altitude data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors. See U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 in claim 1 rejection below.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 by Boland et al. (herein after “Boland”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,393,193 by Muehlfeld et al. (herein after “Muehlfeld”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0264796 by Chen (herein after “Chen 1”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, Boland discloses a drone monitoring method for observing and monitoring agricultural testing fields (Boland ¶ [0011]: The predetermined ground area includes an area to be photographed or other sensor readings needing coverage, and wherein an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is controlled to visit each of the three-dimensional grid of points), comprising the steps of:
(b) defining at least one 2D sampling point in each plot (Boland ¶ [0037]: Referring to FIG. 1, a 2D (two dimensional) geographic region is defined by the user or predetermined in a program (step 110)) for acquiring drone data (Boland ¶ [0039]: The system generates the 3D grid of points, each spaced in an arrangement to ensure sufficient coverage of the ground (e.g., for photographs or other sensor readings), should a UAV visit each point (step 132), and optionally perform some action (predetermined or other action that UAV of capable of) at each point (step 134)), thereby obtaining a set of 2D sampling points;
(c) overlaying the set of 2D sampling points with a digital elevation model, thereby obtaining an altitude reference height for each of the 2D sampling points (Boland ¶ [0038]: Then, each 2D coordinate is converted to a 3D (three-dimensional) coordinate of latitude, longitude, elevation by way of a lookup into a Geographic Information System (GIS) (step 120));
(d) for each 2D sampling point: determining an altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point on the basis of the altitude reference height for said 2D sampling point (Boland ¶ [0038]: Then, each 2D coordinate is converted to a 3D (three-dimensional) coordinate of latitude, longitude, elevation by way of a lookup into a Geographic Information System (GIS) (step 120));
(e) for each 2D sampling point: determining a 3D sampling point by combining said 2D sampling point with the altitude coordinate corresponding to said 2D sampling point (Boland ¶ [0038]: Then, each 2D coordinate is converted to a 3D (three-dimensional) coordinate of latitude, longitude, elevation by way of a lookup into a Geographic Information System (GIS) (step 120); Boland ¶ [0039]: The system then generates a 3D grid of points (step 130). Step 130 is detailed further in FIG. 2. The system generates the 3D grid of points, each spaced in an arrangement to ensure sufficient coverage of the ground (e.g., for photographs or other sensor readings), should a UAV visit each point (step 132))
.
It is noted that Boland discloses converting two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on elevation data found in a terrain model of a geographic information system (Boland ¶ [0035] and [0038]), where the three-dimensional coordinates are spaced to encompass coverage of a ground area (Boland ¶ [0039]) but fails to explicitly disclose (a) dividing the testing fields in a set of plots, each of the plots being defined in a geographic information system, the plots being defined by coordinate information of boundaries of 2D polygons; and
wherein the altitude coordinate is determined by taking into account a canopy height at the 2D sampling point.
However, Muehlfeld, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (a) dividing the testing fields in a set of plots (Muehlfeld col. 7 lines 8-18: Once the point samples 22 are generated, the management zones of the agricultural field 10 are then generated. The management zones can be generated using any suitable technique that can use the point samples 22 to separate the field into management zones or regions. One example of a technique that can be used is Voronoi tessellation or a Voronoi diagram. The Voronoi tessellation technique is well known in the art. The Voronoi tessellation technique uses each point sample 22 to generate corresponding polygons that form the management zones), each of the plots being defined in a geographic information system, the plots being defined by coordinate information of boundaries of 2D polygons (Muehlfeld col. 8 lines 25-39: Regardless of the technique used to generate the management zones, the polygon management zones can be output in a suitable file format including, but not limited to, a management zone shapefile, a GeoJSON file, a geopackage file, a geodatabase file, or the like … For example, the report can include a map of the management zones, with the point samples 22 indicated in each management zone. In addition, a table can be displayed on the zone map or separately from the zone map, that can indicate features such as: the point sample for each image along with GPS coordinates of each image; the point sample for each management zone with GPS coordinates of the zone centroid; polygon management zones in Fig. 3A); and
(b) defining at least one 2D sampling point in each plot for acquiring drone data, thereby obtaining a set of 2D sampling points (Muehlfeld: point samples 22 in Figs. 1A-1C; Muehlfeld col 7 lines 23-24: In FIG. 3A, each management zone encompasses at least one of the point samples 22).
Further, Chen 1, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the altitude coordinate is determined by taking into account a canopy height at the 2D sampling point (Chen 1 ¶ [0081]: the two-dimensional route may be identified by latitudes and longitudes, the flight position points may be represented by latitudes and longitudes, and the value of the altitude may be obtained through a three-dimensional map such as a digital surface model (DSM) map).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland to include the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to generate management zones for agricultural fields for performing analysis and future planning (Muehlfeld col. 1 lines 6-11) and to adjust a flight height for an unmanned aerial vehicle to plan a flight route over plant operation areas with great plan height fluctuations (Chen 1 ¶ [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses wherein the canopy height at the 2D sampling point is provided using a digital surface model (Chen 1 ¶ [0081]: the two-dimensional route may be identified by latitudes and longitudes, the flight position points may be represented by latitudes and longitudes, and the value of the altitude may be obtained through a three-dimensional map such as a digital surface model (DSM) map).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to explicitly include the digital surface model of Chen 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to adjust a flight height for an unmanned aerial vehicle to plan a flight route over plant operation areas with great plan height fluctuations (Chen 1 ¶ [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses wherein the altitude coordinate is determined as a minimal height above the canopy height, said minimal height being a safety minimal height (Chen 1 ¶ [0022]: Further, obtaining the planned flight height of each flight position point for the unmanned aerial vehicle includes: obtaining a two-dimensional route of the unmanned aerial vehicle in a target flight area and flight position points in the two-dimensional route; obtaining an altitude of an object at each flight position point in the two-dimensional route; and generating a planned three-dimensional route based on the two-dimensional route, the altitude of the object at each flight position point in the two-dimensional route, and a preset safe distance, in which the planned flight height of each flight position point in the planned three-dimensional route is a sum of the altitude of the object at each flight position point and the preset safe distance).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include determining a flight position height based on summing an obstacle altitude and a preset safe distance of Chen 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to adjust a flight height for an unmanned aerial vehicle to plan a flight route over plant operation areas with great plan height fluctuations (Chen 1 ¶ [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses comprising the further steps of:
(f) sending a drone to the 3D sampling points, preferably sequentially and preferably in a single data acquisitioning round (Boland ¶ [0043]: After applying the heuristics for shortest path (step 140), the result is outputted 150. The output can be provided for a control system of the UAV, such that the flight path generated is followed by the UAV), and
(g) obtaining data at each of the 3D sampling points by the drone (Boland ¶ [0039]: The system then generates a 3D grid of points (step 130). Step 130 is detailed further in FIG. 2. The system generates the 3D grid of points, each spaced in an arrangement to ensure sufficient coverage of the ground (e.g., for photographs or other sensor readings), should a UAV visit each point (step 132), and optionally perform some action (predetermined or other action that UAV of capable of) at each point (step 134)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses comprising the further step of:
(h) analyzing said data obtained by said drone (Muehlfeld col. 5 lines 32-35: the images 16 can be analyzed on the UAV 12, one by one as they obtained or collectively after all of the images 16 have been obtained), preferably by:
(h1) georeferencing the data based on sensor location (Muehlfeld col. 6 lines 41-46: The spot or point 22 is positioned at and displayed at a location corresponding to the center of its corresponding image. The geopositioning of the point samples on the field 26 is determined using known georeferencing techniques from geoposition data obtained by the UAV as it captures the images), and/or
(h2) georeferencing the data based on sensor exterior orientation parameters, sensor interior parameters and the digital elevation model (Muehlfeld col. 6 lines 41-46: The spot or point 22 is positioned at and displayed at a location corresponding to the center of its corresponding image. The geopositioning of the point samples on the field 26 is determined using known georeferencing techniques from geoposition data obtained by the UAV as it captures the images), and/or
(h3) executing an algorithm to extract plant traits from said data (Muehlfeld col. 5 lines 45-49: The analysis generates at least one point sample 22 for each image 16. Each point sample 22 can be an agronomic numeric value or quantification, or identification, relating to an agronomic feature of agronomic importance within the field of view of each image 16).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the image analysis of Muehlfeld with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to generate management zones for agricultural fields for performing analysis and future planning (Muehlfeld col. 1 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses whereby the data obtained at the 3D sampling points comprise an overlap of at most 20%, preferably at most 10%, more preferably at most 5%, still more preferably at most 2%, most preferably the data obtained at the 3D sampling points comprise no overlap (Muehlfeld col. 4 lines 39-46: The conventional mapping flight pattern is such that the entire field 10 is covered by the images 16 and the total area of the images 16 is generally equal to the total area of the field 10. The images 16 can overlap one another as illustrated, or there may be no overlap between the images 16. The UAV 12 can be controlled, automatically or manually, to fly the mapping flight pattern 18 with the images 16 being captured as the UAV 12 traverses along the flight pattern 18).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the images being captured with no overlap of Muehlfeld with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to generate management zones for agricultural fields for performing analysis and future planning (Muehlfeld col. 1 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses whereby data is obtained twice or more times of at most 20% of an area of a plot, preferably at most 10%, more preferably at most 5%, still more preferably at most 2% of an area of a plot, most preferably no data is obtained twice or more times of any area of a plot (Muehlfeld col. 4 lines 39-46: The conventional mapping flight pattern is such that the entire field 10 is covered by the images 16 and the total area of the images 16 is generally equal to the total area of the field 10. The images 16 can overlap one another as illustrated, or there may be no overlap between the images 16. The UAV 12 can be controlled, automatically or manually, to fly the mapping flight pattern 18 with the images 16 being captured as the UAV 12 traverses along the flight pattern 18).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the capturing of images of an area of a field a single time of Muehlfeld with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to generate management zones for agricultural fields for performing analysis and future planning (Muehlfeld col. 1 lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses a drone monitoring system, comprising a processing subsystem and at least one drone (Boland ¶ [0013]: In another example aspect of the disclosed invention, there is a control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), including a memory, a processor coupled to the memory), wherein the processing subsystem is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the drone is configured to move to the 3D sampling points, preferably sequentially and preferably in a single flight (Boland ¶ [0043]: After applying the heuristics for shortest path (step 140), the result is outputted 150. The output can be provided for a control system of the UAV, such that the flight path generated is followed by the UAV), and to obtain data at each of the 3D sampling points (Boland ¶ [0039]: The system then generates a 3D grid of points (step 130). Step 130 is detailed further in FIG. 2. The system generates the 3D grid of points, each spaced in an arrangement to ensure sufficient coverage of the ground (e.g., for photographs or other sensor readings), should a UAV visit each point (step 132), and optionally perform some action (predetermined or other action that UAV of capable of) at each point (step 134)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses wherein the drone is an aerial drone (Boland ¶ [0013]: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 by Boland et al. (herein after “Boland”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,393,193 by Muehlfeld et al. (herein after “Muehlfeld”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0264796 by Chen (herein after “Chen 1”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0206648 by Marra et al. (herein after “Marra”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the canopy height at the 2D sampling point is provided by user input.
However, Marra, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the canopy height at the 2D sampling point is provided by user input (Marra ¶ [0050]: The mobile computing device 101 receives user input data 140 at least in part via the user interface of device 101, from the field user 100 which includes the property bounds 200, the structure area of interest (AOI) 201, the structure AOI's height 211, and the obstacle clearance height 210; Marra ¶ [0072]: This vertical launch and landing trajectory 204 method ensures the UAV 102 reaches a safe flight altitude without running into obstacles 104 such as trees and without requiring advanced obstacle detection systems most commonly found on much more costly commercial UAVs 102).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the obstacle height input by a user of Marra with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to ensure a UAV reaches a safe flight altitude without running into obstacles and without requiring advanced obstacle detection systems (Marra ¶ [0072]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 by Boland et al. (herein after “Boland”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,393,193 by Muehlfeld et al. (herein after “Muehlfeld”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0264796 by Chen (herein after “Chen 1”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0337824 by Chen (herein after “Chen 2”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses determining a minimum flight height at each flight point (Chen 1 ¶ [0022]) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the altitude coordinate is a value between a minimal height above the canopy height and a maximal height above the canopy height, said minimal height being a safety minimal height and said maximal height being determined by a drone resolution, a required image detail, a required geometrical accuracy and/or image positional and viewing angle accuracies.
However, Chen 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the altitude coordinate is a value between a minimal height above the canopy height and a maximal height above the canopy height (Chen 2 ¶ []: the mission generator 108 adds altitude information to a mission plan so as to maintain a certain altitude from the ground. For example, the mission generator 108 can receive information that indicates a rise in elevation at a midpoint of a flight leg in a flight path. The mission generator 108 can add one or more waypoints to accommodate the rise in elevation. For instance, the mission generator 108 can add a waypoint to a flight path at a location before the jump in elevation (e.g., corresponding to a structure or other topographical feature having an abrupt change in elevation) and add a waypoint to the flight path at (or near) a location corresponding to the jump in elevation so that the altitude of the UAV approximates the jump in elevation in the target site. In additional or alternative examples, with respect to gradual elevation changes, the mission generator 108 can add a waypoint of a first altitude to a flight path at or near a first change in elevation (e.g., the bottom of an incline) and add another waypoint of second altitude to the flight path at or near a second change in elevation (e.g., the top of an incline), so that the flight of the UAV generally follows the underlying changes in elevation), said minimal height being a safety minimal height (Chen 2 ¶ [0063]: the mission generation system can also generate a mission plan that increases safety of a flight by maintaining a minimum flight altitude from horizontal surfaces such as the ground or a roof. Moreover, the mission generation system 100 can maintain the minimum flight altitude while capturing digital aerial images of positions of structures below the minimum flight altitude; Chen 2 ¶ [0245]: the mission generation system 100 can also identify an obstacle buffer spacing. In particular, the mission generation system 100 can identify an obstacle buffer spacing that describes a minimum distance from the obstacle that a UAV will maintain during flight) and said maximal height being determined by a drone resolution, a required image detail, a required geometrical accuracy and/or image positional and viewing angle accuracies (Chen 2 ¶ [0133]: the mission generator 108 maintains a certain altitude above the ground based on one or more characteristics of the UAV. For example, in one or more embodiments, the mission generator 108 may establish altitude data based on a resolution or lens angle of a camera affixed to a UAV).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the minimum and maximum flight altitude coordinates of Chen 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to generate a mission plan that takes into account elevation across a target site and allow a UAV to capture aerial images of a site (Chen 2 ¶ [0014]-[0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 by Boland et al. (herein after “Boland”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,393,193 by Muehlfeld et al. (herein after “Muehlfeld”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0264796 by Chen (herein after “Chen 1”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0303668 by King (herein after “King”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses a system and method that determines a flight path for a UAV to capture sensor data of a target area. Further, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art that this method could be executed multiple times to monitor a target area over time but it is noted that the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 fails to explicitly disclose comprising repeating the steps (d), (e) and any further steps at different times to obtain data at said different times, thereby allowing observing and monitoring the agricultural testing fields over long periods, optionally whereby step (c) is also repeated at different times in cases where said digital elevation model has been altered between said different times.
However, King, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising repeating the steps (d), (e) and any further steps at different times to obtain data at said different times, thereby allowing observing and monitoring the agricultural testing fields over long periods, optionally whereby step (c) is also repeated at different times in cases where said digital elevation model has been altered between said different times (King ¶ [0114]: the mission can specify the operation zone or the grow operation in which the UAV is to navigate. In this regard, the mission planner module 914 can provide a path for one or more of the UAVs for their respective operation zone or grow operations and/or a time/date of when the UAVs are to fly their respective paths. In one example, the mission planner module 914 may communicate with one or more visual observer devices to implement one or more paths; King ¶ [0025]: The ORB-HFA system also permits the application of computer object-recognition and computer image analysis techniques to provide a detailed analysis of each plant. For instance, each branch, leaf (or needle), root, and topology of a plant may be analyzed. Furthermore, the computer image analysis techniques can include color analysis to detect changes in color, such as the premature browning of leaves. Moreover, because each plant is being monitored, sequential analysis, or the comparison of images over time, may be applied to capture changes of the same plant over time).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the determining of flight paths to monitor a horticultural operation over time of King with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to regularly and periodically monitor a horticultural operation to collect information about the operation, to identify problems, to identify solutions to those problems, and to perform remediation (King ¶ [0021]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0162060 by Boland et al. (herein after “Boland”), in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,393,193 by Muehlfeld et al. (herein after “Muehlfeld”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0264796 by Chen (herein after “Chen 1”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0295423 by Dow et al. (herein after “Dow”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses a computer readable medium for storing instructions to execute the method of generating a flight plan for a UAV to travel along (Boland ¶ [0057]) and storing data for polygonal management zones with sampling points in a shapefile, geopackage file or geodatabase file (Muehlfeld col. 8 lines 25-44) but fails to explicitly disclose a computer readable file comprising a set of 3D sampling points obtained using a method according to claim 1.
However, Dow, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a computer readable file comprising a set of 3D sampling points obtained using a method according to claim 1 (Dow ¶ [0075]: After the transformation of the trajectory waypoints from a local Cartesian [x, y] system to a real world Cartesian [X, Y, Z] coordinate system, such as the Alabama-East State Plane Coordinate System, a readily available commercial mapping software package, such as Global Mapper, can be used to input the trajectories and export a kmz or kml file (world coordinates [Latitude/Longitude, elevation]) so that the trajectories and/or waypoints may be displayed using display software such as Google Earth for visualization and quality assurance purposes. Similarly, waypoints of the selected trajectories in the form of the kml file can be loaded into available commercial mission planning software, such as ForeFlight, for a manned aircraft mission plan).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the file for storing 3D trajectory waypoints of Dow with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to store trajectory waypoints in way that allows them to be displayed for visualization and quality assurance purposes (Dow ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld, Chen 1 and Dow discloses which is a KML file (Dow ¶ [0075]: After the transformation of the trajectory waypoints from a local Cartesian [x, y] system to a real world Cartesian [X, Y, Z] coordinate system, such as the Alabama-East State Plane Coordinate System, a readily available commercial mapping software package, such as Global Mapper, can be used to input the trajectories and export a kmz or kml file (world coordinates [Latitude/Longitude, elevation]) so that the trajectories and/or waypoints may be displayed using display software such as Google Earth for visualization and quality assurance purposes. Similarly, waypoints of the selected trajectories in the form of the kml file can be loaded into available commercial mission planning software, such as ForeFlight, for a manned aircraft mission plan).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld, the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1, and the file for storing 3D trajectory waypoints of Dow to explicitly include the KML file format of Dow with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to store trajectory waypoints in way that allows them to be displayed for visualization and quality assurance purposes (Dow ¶ [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld, Chen 1 and Dow discloses wherein the set of 3D sampling points comprise a sequential ordering which determines a path of the drone (Boland ¶ [0035]: the system can heuristically optimize the visitation order of all these points by mapping them to a Traveling Salesman problem (TSP); Boland ¶ [0043]: After applying the heuristics for shortest path (step 140), the result is outputted 150. The output can be provided for a control system of the UAV, such that the flight path generated is followed by the UAV). Examiner interprets a flight path or route to be defined as a sequence of points or edges that direct travel from an origin to a destination.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Boland, Muehlfeld and Chen 1 discloses a computer readable medium for storing instructions to execute the method of generating a flight plan for a UAV to travel along (Boland ¶ [0057]) and storing data for polygonal management zones with sampling points in a shapefile, geopackage file or geodatabase file (Muehlfeld col. 8 lines 25-44) but fails to explicitly disclose a computer readable file comprising a set of 3D sampling points obtained using a system according to claim 11.
However, Dow, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a computer readable file comprising a set of 3D sampling points obtained using a system according to claim 11 (Dow ¶ [0075]: After the transformation of the trajectory waypoints from a local Cartesian [x, y] system to a real world Cartesian [X, Y, Z] coordinate system, such as the Alabama-East State Plane Coordinate System, a readily available commercial mapping software package, such as Global Mapper, can be used to input the trajectories and export a kmz or kml file (world coordinates [Latitude/Longitude, elevation]) so that the trajectories and/or waypoints may be displayed using display software such as Google Earth for visualization and quality assurance purposes. Similarly, waypoints of the selected trajectories in the form of the kml file can be loaded into available commercial mission planning software, such as ForeFlight, for a manned aircraft mission plan).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for path planning that converts two-dimensional coordinates into three-dimensional coordinates based on an elevation lookup in a geographic information system of Boland modified by the separation of a field into regions with point samples of Muehlfeld and the determination of an altitude coordinate for a 2D coordinate based on obstacle heights in a digital surface model of Chen 1 to further include the file for storing 3D trajectory waypoints of Dow with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make these modifications in order to store trajectory waypoints in way that allows them to be displayed for visualization and quality assurance purposes (Dow ¶ [0075]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights