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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 15, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 19-20, “enabling to identify whether” should be “enabling identification of whether”
In claim 2, “representing an area that is unknown whether” should be “representing an area where it is unknown whether”
In claim 11, “wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that a camera selecting unit selects” should be “wherein the imaging direction control step is a step wherein a camera selecting unit selects”
In claim 12, “wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that the camera” should be “wherein the imaging direction control step is a step wherein the camera”
In claim 15, “the imaging direction control step is a step that the image area selecting unit” should be “the imaging direction control step is a step wherein the image area selecting unit”
In claim 15, “in accordance with the localization success rate” should be “in accordance with [[the]] a localization success rate”
In claim 19, “wherein the self-control unit executes a camera imaging direction control process” should be “wherein the control unit executes a camera imaging direction control process”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Given the above discussion, the following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
“imaging direction control step” to control a camera imaging direction in claims 1, 3-4, 6-17, and 20
“control unit” or “self-control unit” configured to control direction of a camera in claims 1, 6-7, and 19-20
“localization processing step” to localize the mobile body in claims 1 and 19-20
“self-position estimating unit” to estimate a position of the mobile body in claims 1 and 19-20
“movement plan generating step” to generate a movement path for a mobile body in claims 5 and 18
“movement planning unit” to generate a movement path for a mobile body in claims 5-7 and 18
“drone control unit” to control a drone in claim 9
“camera control unit” to control a camera direction in claim 10
“camera selecting unit” to select a camera in claims 11-13
“image area selecting unit” to select an image area in claims 14-16
“mobile body control device” to control a mobile body in claims 19-20
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals that the various units and processes may be implement by hardware in the form of a computer executing code (See at least paragraphs [0583-0584] in the specification). This is adequate structure to performed the claimed functions, so no 112 rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with respect to the above 112(f) interpretation.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It recites “A program”, which could be interpreted as a transitory signal. A transitory signal is not one of the four valid statutory categories. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant can amend claim 20 as follows:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program which, when executed, causes a mobile body control device to execute a mobile body control process”
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yang and Kubie, respectively. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together for legibility. But all claims in any such group are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Yang discloses A mobile body control method executed in a mobile body control device (See at least Fig. 5 in Yang: Yang discloses a flow diagram of a method of aerial survey of a UAV for a ribbon-shaped target provided by an embodiment of the present invention, the method being applied to an aerial survey device [See at least Yang, 0044]. Yang further discloses that Exemplarily, the aerial survey device may be a remote control device for controlling a UAV [See at least Yang, 0044]), the mobile body control method comprising:
an imaging direction control step of controlling an imaging direction of a camera using a control unit (See at least Fig. 5 in Yang: Yang discloses that, as part of S102, the first route comprises first photographing waypoints, the second route comprising second photographing waypoints, the first images captured by the UAV at the first photographing waypoint and the second images captured by the UAV at the second photographing waypoint being used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0046]. Yang further discloses that A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046]); and
a localization processing step of executing a localization process estimating a self-position using a self-position estimating unit (Yang discloses that The geographic coordinates can be determined from the data collected by the relevant positioning module in the UAV [See at least Yang, 0062]),
wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to a divisional area (Yang discloses that A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046]) that can be localized by referring to localization feasibility information enabling to identify whether or not localization can be performed in units of divisional areas is executed (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
However, Yang does not explicitly teach the method wherein the self-position is estimated using a captured image of the camera.
However, Kubie does teach a method wherein the self-position is estimated using a captured image of the camera (Kubie teaches that The estimating the location of the UAV 100 may include extracting features of interest from the location image, matching the features of interest to features on the map and estimating a location of the UAV 100 based on the matched features of interest [See at least Kubie, 0039]). Both Kubie and Yang teach methods for determining positions of UAVs in flight. However, only Kubie explicitly teaches where those positions are determined based on captured camera image data.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position-determination method of Yang to also determine the positions based on captured camera image data, as in Kubie. Doing so improves accuracy of the position data.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1, wherein the localization feasibility information is information set to one of (a) to (c) in units of the divisional areas.
(a) a localization possible area representing an area that can be localized (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints)
(b) a localization impossible area representing an area that cannot be localized
(c) a localization possibility/impossibility unknown area representing an area that is unknown whether localization can be performed or not.
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 2, wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction (Yang discloses that A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046]) of the camera to a divisional area set as the localization possible area by referring to the localization feasibility information is executed (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1, further comprising a movement plan generating step of generating a movement path of a mobile body using a movement planning unit (See at least Fig. 5 in Yang: Yang discloses that In step S102, according to the positional information of the ribbon target, planning a photographing route for photographing the ribbon target, the photographing route comprising a first route and a second route [See at least Yang, 0046]), wherein, in the movement plan generating step, camera imaging direction setting information for imaging the divisional area that can be localized is generated for each of relay points on the movement path (Yang further discloses that, as part of step S102, the first route comprises first photographing waypoints, the second route comprising second photographing waypoints, the first images captured by the UAV at the first photographing waypoint and the second images captured by the UAV at the second photographing waypoint being used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0046]. Yang further discloses A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 5, wherein the movement planning unit executes a camera imaging direction determining process enabling a localization possible area to be imaged at each of the relay points (Yang further discloses that, as part of step S102, the first route comprises first photographing waypoints, the second route comprising second photographing waypoints, the first images captured by the UAV at the first photographing waypoint and the second images captured by the UAV at the second photographing waypoint being used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0046]), and wherein, in the imaging direction control step, the control unit executes a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to a camera imaging direction corresponding to each of the relay points that is determined by the movement planning unit (Yang further discloses A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046])).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1, wherein the camera is a camera fixed to a mobile body (See at least Fig. 4 in Yang: Yang discloses that the UAV 200 is provided with a photographing device 201 [See at least Yang, 0041]), and wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a direction of the mobile body is controlled to direct the imaging direction of the camera to the divisional area that can be localized by referring to the localization feasibility information (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
Regarding claim 9, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 8, wherein the mobile body is a drone (See at least Fig. 4 in Yang: Yang discloses the UAV 200 [See at least Yang, 0041]), and wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a drone control unit controls a direction of the drone to direct the imaging direction of the camera to the divisional area (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]) that can be localized by referring to the localization feasibility information (See at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1, wherein the camera is a camera that is able to perform imaging direction control independently from a mobile body using control of a camera control unit (Yang discloses that the UAV is provided with a gimbal, and during the flight of the UAV in accordance with the photographing route, the gimbal may be rotated by controlling the gimbal to make the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive element of the photographing device on the horizontal plane in the first route different from the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive element of the photographing device on the horizontal plane in the second route [See at least Yang, 0070]), and wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that the camera control unit controls the imaging direction of the camera to direct the imaging direction of the camera (Yang discloses that the UAV is provided with a gimbal, and during the flight of the UAV in accordance with the photographing route, the gimbal may be rotated by controlling the gimbal to make the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive element of the photographing device on the horizontal plane in the first route different from the orientation of the projection of the photosensitive element of the photographing device on the horizontal plane in the second route [See at least Yang, 0070]) to the divisional area that can be localized by referring to the localization feasibility information (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1) in further view of Sainio et al. (US 20230415786 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sainio.
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1, wherein the camera is configured using a plurality of cameras mounted in a mobile body, and wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that a camera selecting unit selects a camera to image the divisional area that can be localized (Sainio teaches that The present disclosure enables detection and localization of ultraviolet radiations, along with other anomalous phenomena, such as dead trees, rust spots on the assets, non-standard material used, missing bolts, broken components and so forth [See at least Sainio, 0054]. Sainio further teaches that The present disclosure is able to perform said detection and localization either in real-time, or after a vehicle completes its aerial surveillance of the assets present in the real-world environment [See at least Sainio, 0054]. Sainio further teaches that Herein, images captured by the at least one primary camera can be used to decide requirement of the at least one secondary camera at any given moment while the vehicle is conducting the aerial surveillance [See at least Sainio, 0054]) as a camera imaging a localization processing image by referring to the localization feasibility information (Sainio further teaches that Herein, images captured by the at least one primary camera can be used to decide requirement of the at least one secondary camera at any given moment while the vehicle is conducting the aerial surveillance [See at least Sainio, 0054]). Both Sainio and Yang teach methods for operating aerial surveillance drones equipped with cameras. However, only Sainio explicitly teaches where the drone may have multiple cameras and make a selection to activate one or more of the cameras based on feasibility concerns detected during aerial surveillance.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerial surveillance method of Yang so that the drone also has multiple cameras and makes a selection to activate one or more of the cameras based on feasibility concerns detected during aerial surveillance, as in Sainio. Doing so improves efficiency of the aerial surveillance system (With regard to this reasoning, Sainio teaches that As a technical effect, this saves an amount of data that needs to be stored and transferred [See at least Sainio, 0054]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1) in further view of Bauer et al. (US 20220148445 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bauer.
Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1,
wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that an image area selecting unit selects a camera imaging an image area that can be localized as a camera capturing a localization processing image (Yang discloses that A projection of a photosensitive element of the photographing device on a horizontal plane corresponding to the first image is oriented differently from a projection of the photosensitive element on the horizontal plane corresponding to the second image [See at least Yang, 0046]. This may be regarded as selecting the camera because the system is choosing to direct the camera in a certain direction) by referring to the localization feasibility information (Yang discloses that it is possible, for example, to set the angle between the orientation of the photographing device of the UAV and the direction of gravity when flying along the first route and the angle between the orientation of photographing device orientation and the direction of gravity when flying along the second route to be opposite numbers to each other [See at least Yang, 0081]. Also see at least Figs. 10A-10B in Yang: Yang further discloses that the first route comprises first photographing waypoints and the second route comprises second photographing waypoints, wherein the first images taken by the UAV at the first photographing waypoints and the second images taken by the UAV at the second photographing waypoints are used to generate an aerial survey result of the ribbon target [See at least Yang, 0052]. The waypoints may be regarded as units of divisional areas, and the images that are taken at each waypoint may be regarded as an indication that localization is feasible, since the images are taken upon reaching the waypoints).
However, Yang does not explicitly teach the method wherein the camera is a camera including a wide-angle lens mounted in a mobile body.
However, Bauer does teach a method wherein the camera is a camera including a wide-angle lens mounted in a mobile body (Bauer teaches that the initial flight operation can be performed with a first sensor included with the UAV (e.g. a camera with a wide-angle lens, such as an effective full-frame focal length of 16 mm, 20 mm, 24 mm, 35 mm) [See at least Bauer, 0029]). Both Bauer and Yang teach methods of imaging using a UAV. However, only Bauer explicitly teaches where the imaging may be performed using a camera which has a wide-angle lens.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UAV of Yang to also have a wide-angle lens, as in Bauer. Doing so improves imaging capabilities of the UAV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 12-13, and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record for claims 4, 7, and 17-18 is Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 2.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to the localization possibility/impossibility unknown area by referring to the localization feasibility information is executed in a case in which there is no divisional area set as the localization possible area.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route, which does indicate that the area being imaged can “feasibly” be imaged (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering areas where it is not clear whether or not an area can be imaged and where there is not yet a division set. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 4 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 5.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein, in a case in which the localization possible area cannot be imaged at a relay point, the movement planning unit executes a camera imaging direction determining process enabling a localization possibility/impossibility unknown area to be imaged, and wherein, in the imaging direction control step, the control unit executes a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to a camera imaging direction corresponding to each of the relay points that is determined by the movement planning unit.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering areas which can be localized but cannot be imaged at a certain point along a route, and instead imaging a second area at the certain point where it is unknown whether or not the second area can be localized. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 7 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, Yang inv view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein, in the imaging direction control step, a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to a localization possible area is executed in a case that a setting mode of a mobile body is a success rate-focused mode, and a camera imaging direction control process of directing the imaging direction of the camera to a localization possibility/impossibility unknown area is executed in a case that the setting mode of the mobile body is a map enlargement-focused mode.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function or an enlargement mode in order to choose a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 17 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, Yang in view of Kubie teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 1.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests further comprising a movement plan generating step of generating a movement path of a mobile body using a movement planning unit, wherein, in the movement plan generating step, camera imaging direction setting information for imaging a localization possible area at each of relay points on the movement path is generated in a case that a setting mode of the mobile body is a success rate-focused mode, and camera imaging direction setting information for imaging a localization possibility/impossibility unknown area at each of the relay points on the movement path is generated in a case that the setting mode of the mobile body is a map enlargement-focused mode.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function or an enlargement mode in order to choose a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 18 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record for claims 12-13 is Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1) in further view of Sainio et al. (US 20230415786 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Kubie in further view of Sainio teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 11.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that the camera selecting unit selects a camera to image in a direction in which a localization success rate is high as a camera imaging a localization processing image in accordance with a localization success rate corresponding to the camera imaging direction.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function for a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 12 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, Yang in view of Kubie in further view of Sainio teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 11.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein, in the imaging direction control step, the camera selecting unit:
selects a camera imaging in a localization possible direction of which a localization success rate is high as a camera capturing a localization processing image in a case that there is a localization possible direction; and
selects a camera imaging in a localization possibility/impossibility unknown direction of which a localization success rate is high as a camera capturing a localization processing image in a case that there is no localization possible direction.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function for a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 13 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record for claims 15-16 is Yang et al. (US 20240338041 A1) in view of Kubie et al. (US 20210150917 A1) in further view of Bauer et al. (US 20220148445 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Kubie in further view of Bauer teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 14.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein the imaging direction control step is a step that the image area selecting unit selects an image area of which a localization success rate is high as an image area of a localization processing image in accordance with the localization success rate corresponding to a captured image area.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function for a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 15 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Kubie in further view of Bauer teaches The mobile body control method according to claim 14.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein, in the imaging direction control step, the image area selecting unit:
selects an image area in a localization possible direction of which a localization success rate is high as an image area of a localization processing image in a case that there is a localization possible direction; and
selects an image area in a localization possibility/impossibility unknown direction of which a localization success rate is high as an image area of a localization processing image in a case that there is no localization possible direction.
While Yang does discuss changing the orientation of a camera based on the location of a drone along a route (See at least [Yang, 0046 and 0081]), this is not the same as considering a success rate of a localization function for a certain direction of the camera in order to decide how to direct or orient the camera. This would constitute a completely different trigger for the change in direction of the camera than Yang. None of the other prior art of record resolves the deficiencies of Yang in this respect.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 16 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights