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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action on merit. Claims 20-23, 26, 28, 34-42, 45, 47, 53-57, 95-98, after preliminary amendment, are presently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/US2023/020038, filed on 4/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 and 1/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 20-23, 26, 28, 34, 38-42, 45, 47, 53, 57, 95-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0185081 A1, Steele et al. (hereinafter Steele) in view of US 2017/0206648 A1, Marra et al. (hereinafter Marra).
1-19. (Canceled)
As to claim 20, Steele discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform a method for measuring an angle of a roof facet (Figs 5, 8), the method comprising:
initiating a flight path for an image capture device, the flight path including a launch phase and a measurement phase, wherein the launch phase initiates from a starting position and ends at a calibration position and the measurement phase initiates from the calibration positions and ends at an orthographic position above an object (Figs 6-7; pars 0016, 0023, 0043, 0114-0115, 0118-0120, drone calibration, flight path, and measurement of identified area/object being control by a remote device manually or automatically) comprising the roof facet;
detecting a first fiducial concurrent with the flight path towards the calibration position (pars 0010-0011, 0014, 0024, 0083-0084, 0121-0122, detect a set of fiducial points at designated spatial position); detecting a second fiducial concurrent with the flight path towards the orthographic position (pars 0010-0011, 0014, 0024, 0083-0084, 0121-0122);
measuring an elevation change of the image capture device between the first fiducial and second fiducial (pars 0083-0084, 0122).
Steele does not expressly disclose the set of fiducial points being corresponding to a roof or roof facet, capturing an orthographic image of the roof facet from the orthographic position, generating an outline of the roof facet from the orthographic image; and calculating a pitch of the roof from the outline of the roof facet and the elevation change generating an outline of the roof facet from the orthographic image; and calculating a pitch of the roof from the outline of the roof facet and the elevation change.
Marra, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches setting up a flight path for an image capturing with proper calibration process and measuring at an orthographic position above an object comprising the roof facet (Figs 2-5; pars 0008, 0031-0033, 0083-0084, 0088-0089, 0101, measuring roof facets for inspection of reconstruction); measuring an elevation change of the image capture device between the first fiducial and second fiducial (pars 0054, 0057-0058, 0063, 0068, 0070, 0072, 00, elevations of AOI (area of interest) and variations being determined, including the roof structure and facet slope (e.g. elevation change));
capturing an orthographic image of the roof facet from the orthographic position (Figs 4-5; pars 0083-0084, 0088-0089. 0101);
generating an outline of the roof facet from the orthographic image (Fig 1a; pars 0018-0019, 0021-0023, 0025-0026, 0083-0084, 0088-0089. 0101, generate an outline or overall structure of the roof including roof facet from the captured image; and
calculating a pitch of the roof from the outline of the roof facet and the elevation change (pars 0057, 0070, 0092, 0101).
Therefore, consider Steele and Marra’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Marra’s teachings in Steele’s method to provide comprehensive information on the roof structure for roof inspection and/or reconstruction utilizing an UAV.
As to claim 21, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the image capture device is coupled to a drone (Steele: Fig 5; pars 0019, 0026-0027; Marra: pars 0023, 0025).
As to claim 22, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein at least one of the first fiducial or the second fiducial is detected by an object recognition machine learning network (Steele: pars 0010-0011, 0014, 0020, 0022, detecting/estimating a set of fiducial points; Marra: pars 0076, 0099, using machine learning system such as a CNN).
As to claim 22, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 22, wherein the first fiducial detected by the object recognition machine learning network is:
a gutter coupled to the roof facet (Marra: par 0004); a fascia line to the roof facet (Marra: par 0089, 0101); and/or
wherein the second fiducial detected by the object recognition machine learning network is: a roof apex; or a ridge line (Marra: pars 0004, 0008, 0076, 0099, 0101, 0103).
24-25. (Canceled)
As to claim 26, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the first fiducial is detected by line detection of a horizontal line (Steele: pars 0084, 0122; Marra: pars 0098, 0101).
27. (Canceled)
As to claim 28, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein detecting the first fiducial establishes the calibration position of the flight path (Steele: pars 0090, 0103, a calibration process can be achieved automatically with respect to target positions; Marra: pars 0071, 0073, 0075, 0077, 0094).
29-33. (Canceled)
As to claim 34, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the second fiducial is a change of color intensity (Steele: Fig 5; pars 0091, 0102, 0104; Marra: pars 0075, 0085).
As to claim 38, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the image capture device is calibrated for converting pixel dimensions of features associated with the calibration position into geometric measurements from the orthographic position (Figs 4-5; Marra: pars 0083-0084, 0088-0089, claim 14, captured image (pixels) being transformed/projected to orthographic positions).
As to claim 39, it is a system claim encompassed claim 20. Rejection of claim 20 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claims 40-42, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 21-23, respectively.
43-44. (Canceled)
As to claim 45, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
46. (Canceled)
As to claim 47, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 28.
48-52. (Canceled)
As to claim 53, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 34.
As to claim 57, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 38.
58-94. (Canceled)
As to claim 97, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein to calculate the pitch the one or more hardware processors are configured by the machine-readable instructions to generate a depth perspective based on the elevation change (Marra: pars 0022-0024, 0083-0084, a three-dimensional reconstruction process for an orthographic image (e.g. including height parameters), pars 0063, 0070, 0092, 0101, 0103, the reconstruction process being corresponding to a roof, including roof facet, pitch (slope of the roof), among other variables for consideration).
As to claim 98, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 97, wherein the depth perspective is a non-visual parameter of the orthographic image (see rejection in claim 97, a three-dimensional reconstruction process and respective parameters (i.e. height or depth) for the orthographic image).
As to claims 95-96, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 97-98, respectively.
Claims 35-37, 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele in view of Marra and further in view of US 2022/0303445 A1, Skaff et al. (hereinafter Skaff).
As to claim 35-37, Steele as modified discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 20, but does not expressly teach wherein an optical axis of the image capture device is substantially parallel to the ground concurrent with the flight path prior to the calibration position, prior to detecting the second fiducial, or prior to the orthographic position. Skaff, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the optical axis of a camera in a UAV may be configured to substantially parallel to the ground surface (e.g. either prior to calibration, during flight path or capturing images) (pars 0097, 0124, 0145). Therefore, consider Steele as modified and Skaff’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Skaff’s teachings in Steele as modified’s method to adjust or configure the optical axis to be mostly in parallel with the ground surface to better capture images with minimal distortion.
As to claims 54-56, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 35-37, respectively.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qun Shen whose telephone number is (571) 270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights