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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are blurry reproductions. Clearer copies of the figures, such as a digital reproduction from the original, overcomes this objection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 (all claims not specific to non-neuromorphic cameras) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-15 (all claims not specific to neuromorphic cameras) of copending Application No. 19130711 in view of the prior art as applied below.
Both the pending claims and the conflicting application are all directed to identifying drones based on repeating frequencies. Therefore, all of the conflicting patents are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with the conflicting application for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Limiting this application to non-neuromorphic and limiting copending Application No. 19130711 to neuromorphic overcomes this rejection. Otherwise, the claims are broad enough to read on each other (because terms like “fingerprint” and “signature” have significant overlap of their broadest reasonable interpretations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “detecting in said images, for at least one pixel of said camera, a fingerprint characteristic that corresponds to said distinct propeller rotation speed.” However, this claim limitation extends to all methods of accomplishing this, as opposed to being limited to those disclosed by the specification, and is thus unlimited functional claiming. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 1 and 10 are broad enough to include use of event based cameras (compare with claims 9 and 17), but the specification only discloses use of non-event based cameras. See, e.g., the specification’s field of the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “high performance camera,” but the specification only discusses use of a high speed camera. Thus, other types of high performance (e.g., high resolution) lack evidence of possession. Claims 8 and 16 overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-17 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “detecting a drone having a propeller with a distinct propellor rotation speed.” The plain meaning of this is that various drones can be distinguished based on their propeller rotation speed. However, the technology disclosed in the specification serves to “confirm each flying entity as being a drone or not.” See the abstract from the IEEE paper that corresponds to this application from the IDS of February 24, 2025. This same statement appears on page 9 of the specification.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “corresponds,” but this is subjective because different people can have different opinions as to whether not there is a correspondence. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). Reciting an objective standard overcomes this rejection.
Claims 3 and 11 recite “peak detection fitting,” but this is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a). Note that “fitting” and “detection” are usually different functions.
Claims 4 and 12 recite “a highest peak of the fingerprint,” but the claimed fingerprint is not defined as something that has peaks, and thus it is unclear how to determine a highest peak.
Claim 10 recites a “detector,” but this term is being used in a manner inconsistent with its ordinary meaning and has not been redefined in the specification. MPEP 2173.05(a)(III). Here, the claim recites particular steps that are not part of a known detector. Reciting a processor with instructions to perform various steps is expected to overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1-17 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara N, Jiang M, Takaki T, Ishii I, Shimasaki K. Super-telephoto drone tracking using HFR-video-based vibration source localization. In2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) 2019 Dec 6 (pp. 2239-2244). IEEE. (“Fujiwara”)
1. A method of detecting a drone having a propeller with a distinct propellor rotation speed comprising:
imaging a plurality of images of a scene with a high performance camera, (Fujiwara, abstract “By constructing a mirror-drive high-speed pan-tilt control system with a super-telephoto camera lens … high-frame-rate video”)
detecting in said images, for at least one pixel of said camera, a fingerprint characteristic that corresponds to said distinct propeller rotation speed. (Fujiwara, abstract “detect fast-rotating drone-propellers in an high-frame-rate video”)
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said fingerprint is a series of integer multiples of a base rotation speed. (Fujiwara, section IV, “When it flies, its propellers rotate in the range of 80–110 rpm. The target frequency was set to ft = 190 Hz and δft = 30 Hz corresponding to twice the revolution speed of the propellers because the propellers are dual-blade.” Fujiwara’s “twice the revolution speed” teaches the claimed series of integer multiples (i.e., a series of two’s))
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said detection is performed by a peak detection fitting algorithm. (Fujiwara, section III.C, “The region of the drone’s propellers was extracted by evaluating whether there is a high peak frequency around the target frequency domain.”)
4. The method of claim 3 wherein a highest peak of the fingerprint is used in determining the rotation speed. (Fujiwara, section III.C, “(c) Computation of peak frequency image and its spectrum image”)
5. The method of claim 1 further including the step of tracking any motion of said drone across said plurality of images. (Fujiwara, abstract “we propose a super-telephoto drone surveillance system that can search and track a flying drone at a 1 km distance or more within an area spanning hundreds of square meters.”)
6. The method of claim 1 wherein detection comprises static background subtraction. (Fujiwara, Fig. 1, the image labeled “Target vibration extraction”)
7. The method of claim 1 wherein detection comprises a voting consensus to reconcile pixels of various propellors and drone body. (Fujiwara, Fig. 6, the graph labeled “the number of detected pixels” Fujiwara’s technique corresponds to Specification, p. 14, algorithm 1. For Fujiwara, time 0-5 seconds, there is no drone because there are not enough pixels detected. The increase in detected pixels starting at time 7s teaches the claimed consensus.)
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the high-performance camera is a high speed camera (Fujiwara, abstract “high-frame-rate video”)
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the high-performance camera is a non-neuromorphic event-based camera. (Fujiwara, abstract “By constructing a mirror-drive high-speed pan-tilt control system with a super-telephoto camera lens”)
Claims 10-17 are rejected as per claims 1-9. Additionally, Fujiwara, Fig. 2 teaches the claimed apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights