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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 3, 2025 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and therefore has been considered by the examiner and placed in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Claim limitations must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01.
BRIs for some of the claim limitations are provided below. Should Applicant believe that other interpretations are warranted, Applicant should point to the portions of the present disclosure that clearly show that a different interpretation is appropriate.
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 1-3, 5-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Publ. Appl. No. DE102018203569 A1 to Stuke et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Stuke”).
Regarding claim 1, Stuke discloses a control device (Fig. 1, control device 4 disposed on the ground and/or control device 9 disposed onboard drone 2) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, control device 4 and/or control device 9 comprise one or more processors),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information indicating a positional relationship between a work apparatus and a work target object (The BRI for the term “work apparatus”, based on Fig. 1 and para. [0013] of the present disclosure, is that it is an apparatus 20, such as an apparatus for spraying a material; the BRI for the term “work target object”, based on Fig. 1 and para. [0013] of the present disclosure, is that it is object on which the work apparatus works, such as an object to be spray painted. Stuke discloses that the drone 2 is a work apparatus that includes “a paint container” 3 that holds paint and a “paint spraying module 3” that dispenses paint. As discussed in paras. [0044]-[0050], the camera 10 acquires images of the light point P projected by position marking device 7 onto the target object (image surface B) while a distance sensor 6 determines the distance d to the image surface B using ultrasound or laser technology. The control unit 4 determines the positional relationship between the work apparatus (drone 2) and the work target object (image surface B) based on the acquired image and distance, as discussed in para. [0048]: “[t]he control unit 4 can determine a flight trajectory with a nearly constant predetermined distance d0 and a momentary predetermined spray position PO from data about an image to be sprayed and, by monitoring the distance sensor 6 and the two-dimensional position P on the image surface, can stop the spraying process and steer the drone 2 back to the predetermined flight trajectory if there is a deviation”); and
perform a control of projecting, from a projection apparatus to the work
target object, a work support image for supporting work to be performed by the work apparatus, based on the acquired information (the control device 4 and/or the onboard device 9a control the position marking device 7 to cause it to project the work support image (light spot P) onto the work target object (image surface B), as discussed in para. [0046]: “[t]he position marking device 7 advantageously comprises an LED which marks the position P of the drone in front of the image surface B, wherein a light marker with two-dimensional coordinates is projected onto the image surface B”).
Regarding claim 2, Stuke discloses that the work apparatus (drone 2) is controllable (Fig. 1, the onboard control unit 9b controls the flight path of the drone 2 and the paint spraying module 3 to control spraying of paint onto the image surface B in the desired pattern and the desired location, as discussed in para. [0045]. The control unit 4 controls positioning and steering of the drone 2 and stops the spraying process if the drone deviates from its position, as discussed in para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Stuke discloses that the processor is configured to determine at least one of a projection position or a projection size of the work support image on the work target object based on the information (Fig. 1, the control unit 4 and/or 9a determine at least the projection position P of the work support image because it controls the position of the drone 2, which, in turn, controls the projection position P. Para. [0007]: “[t]he position of the drone in front of the image surface is marked by the position marker device, wherein either the position on the image surface is marked as a projection of the actual position (of the drone), advantageously by projecting a light point or a light pattern onto the image surface and this projection being advantageously recognized by the control device, or the control device directly recognizes a light point (IR or visible light) of the position marker device as the actual position of the drone (3-dimensional).”).
Regarding claim 5, Stuke discloses that wherein an imaging apparatus is controllable, and the processor is configured to acquire the information indicating the positional relationship between the work apparatus and the work target object based on image data obtained by imaging performed by the imaging apparatus (the camera 10 and the position marking device 7 are controlled by the control unit 4 and/or by the onboard control unit 9a, and, as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1, the control unit 4 and/or 9 uses the images of the light spot projected by position marking device 7 and acquired by camera 10 along with distance information acquired by distance sensor 6 to determine the position of the drone and whether it has deviated from its flight trajectory position such that spraying needs to be halted until the drone 2 has been repositioned).
Regarding claim 6, Stuke discloses that a moving object (Fig. 1, drone 2) on which the work apparatus (Fig. 1, the drone 2 including the paint container 5 and paint spraying module 3 and configuration for controlling starting and stopping of painting) and the projection apparatus (Fig. 1, position marking device 7 is mounted on drone 2) are mounted is controllable (as indicated above in the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5, the drone is controllable by control units 4 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Stuke discloses that the projection apparatus (position marking device 7 mounted on the drone 7 and control unit(s) 4/9 for controlling the position marking device 7) changes a projection setting of the work support image based on a specific change in at least one of a posture or a position of the projection apparatus or the moving object (Paras. [0007]-[0008], the position of the position marking device 7 constitutes a projection setting since the position marking device 7 is mounted on the drone 2 and the position of the position marking P is based on the position of the drone 2, movement of which changes the position mark location. A change in the projection setting corresponding to a change in the position of the position marking device 7 is based on a change of at least one of a posture or a position of the projection apparatus caused by a change in the posture/position of the drone 2).
Regarding claim 8, Stuke discloses that the work support image (light spot projected by position marking device 7 at position P) includes an image (the light spot in image surface B) showing a target position (Fig. 1, position P of the light spot image) of the work to be performed by the work apparatus on the work target object (para. [0008]: “[t]he control unit can use optical sensors to detect the light spot or light pattern on the image surface or directly on the drone and compare it with position data of a predetermined spraying position (from data about a pattern to be sprayed onto the image surface)... If there is a deviation from the predetermined position data, for example due to a gust of wind, the control unit detects this by checking the light marker and the distance sensor and sends a command via the second communication device to correct the flight path. Flight position is assigned to the drone, and it is controlled via the first onboard control system. To avoid errors in the paint spray pattern on the image surface, the control unit can immediately stop the spraying process by sending a command to the second onboard control unit if there is a deviation from the predetermined position”).
Regarding claim 11, Stuke discloses that the work apparatus is a fluid ejection apparatus that ejects a fluid (Fig. 1, the work apparatus comprising paint can 5 and spray painting module 3 is a fluid ejection apparatus that ejects fluid (paint)).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, to the extent that claim 13 recites limitations that are also recited in claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 13. The only limitation recited in claim 13 that is not also recited in claim 1 is a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program for causing a processor to execute the process steps recited in claims 1 and 13. Stuke discloses that the control unit includes image processing software that processes the images acquired by the camera to control the drone’s position and the spraying process (paras. [0023]-[0024]). This means that the control unit includes some type of non-transitory computer readable medium for storing the instructions comprising the control program.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuke in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2019/0196306 A1 to Suzuki et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 4, Stuke does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to estimate a work result of the work apparatus for the work target object based on the acquired information or that the work support image includes an image showing the work result. Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that a processor (Fig. 1, controller 130 of projection control apparatus 100) causes a work support image (Fig. 1, the images output by projectors 200A and 200B; para. [0022]: “[t]he projection data generator 132 generates projection data indicating a projection image to be projected on a target serving as a projection target on the basis of image data stored in the storage unit 120. The generated projection data is transmitted to the projector 200.”) to be projected onto a work target object (Paras. [0016]-[0017]: “a curved surface or a surface of three-dimensional object...A target in the first example is, as described below, a component to be manufactured in the manufacturing process of an aircraft (e.g. component of the body).”; Para. [0059], Fig. 7, the target object is a helicopter body to be painted), estimates a work result of a work apparatus for the work target object based on information acquired indicating a positional relationship between the work apparatus and the work target object, and that the work support image includes an image showing the work result (Para. [0072], Fig. 7, the projection image projected onto the target object 410 can represent “a completed operation” of painting the target area with a specific color or colors; Para. [0076], Fig. 8, the work support image projected onto the target object “makes the surface of the aircraft look as if the surface of the aircraft was painted.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Stuke to use the projection process of Suzuki such that the image projected by the position marking device 7 of the drone 2 of Stuke is a work support image that represents the image to be painted as taught by Suzuki rather than a light spot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow the user to visualize the intended completed painted image before actually painting the image, which would provide the user with the opportunity to change the work support image as taught by Suzuki (Para. [0072]). The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the control unit 4 and/or 9 of Stuke to cause the position marking device 7 to project images to be painted as the work support images and to recognize the acquired work support images).
Regarding claim 9, Stuke does not explicitly disclose that the work support image projected onto the target object B by the position marking device 7 includes an image showing a work state of the work apparatus on the work target object. The BRI for this limitation, based on Fig. 13 and paras. [0079]-[0080] of the present disclosure, is that the work state support image includes an image of a portion of the target object showing the portion as it would appear in a particular work state, e.g., after completion. As indicated above in the rejection of claim 4, Suzuki discloses that the work support image projected onto the target object is an image of how a region of the target object would appear at the state of completion of painting the region (Para. [0072], Fig. 7, the projection image projected onto the target object 410 can represent “a completed operation” of painting the target area with a specific color or colors; Para. [0076], Fig. 8, the work support image projected onto the target object “makes the surface of the aircraft look as if the surface of the aircraft was painted.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system of Stuke to use the projection process of Suzuki such that the image projected by the position marking device 7 of the drone 2 of Stuke is a work support image that represents the image to be painted as it would appear in the state of completion as taught by Suzuki rather than a light spot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow the user to visualize the intended completed painted image before actually painting the image, which would provide the user with the opportunity to change the work support image as taught by Suzuki (Para. [0072]). The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying the software executed by the control unit 4 and/or 9 of Stuke to cause the position marking device 7 to project images to be painted as the work support images and to recognize the acquired work support images).
Regarding claim 10, the rejections of claims 4 and 9 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 10.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2019/0192881 A1 to Thieme-Marti et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Thieme-Marti”).
Regarding claim 14, Thieme-Marti discloses a control device (control system of the radiation therapy (RT) system 100 shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (para. [0058]-[0059] discuss a combination of software and hardware comprising a “’circuit,’ ‘module’ or ‘system’” for performing the computer processing of the system 100, which constitutes a processor configured to perform the computer processes), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information indicating a positional relationship between a work apparatus and a work target object (Fig. 2, paras. [0024] and [0028], steps 201 and 212 correspond to acquiring information indicating a spatial relationship between the work apparatus (RT system 100) and a work target object (the patient to be treated)); and
perform a control of projecting, from a projection apparatus (Fig. 1, the radiation source, optics system and electrical/mechanical configuration of the radiation therapy (RT) system 100 involved in positioning, timing and image acquisition of RT images), a work support image for supporting work to be performed by the work apparatus, based on the acquired information (Para. [0033], the projected work support image is a blended image comprising a combination of a reference beam’s eye view (BEV) image acquired before treatment and a time-of-treatment BEV image. The blending operation can be performed manually or automatically by a “blending slider”, para. [0037]);
the work support image includes a reference position image showing a reference position and a target position image that is to be projected to a target position by aligning the reference position image with a specific position of the work target object (Para. [0033], the blended work support image includes the reference BEV image, which is a reference position image, and the time-of-treatment BEV image, which is a target position image. The alignment of the reference position of the blended work support image with a specific position of the work target object (the specific anatomical feature of the patient to be treated with the x-ray treatment beam) corresponds to alignment of the target position with the target position image of the blended work support image), and
the target position is a target position of the work to be performed by the work apparatus on the work target object (Para. [0033], the target position corresponding to the beam’s eye view of the time-of-treatment BEV image is the target position of the anatomical feature of the patient that is to receive the radiation dosage).
Regarding claim 15, the BRI for the limitation “and perform notification in a case where the positional relationship between the projection apparatus and the work target object can not be specified”, based paras. [0077]-[0078] and Fig. 12, is that the user is provided with some type of information indicating to the user that the target position is not correct. As indicated above in the rejection of claim 14, Thieme-Marti discloses that the processor is configured to project the work support image including the reference position image and the target position image based on information indicating a positional relationship between the projection apparatus and the work target object.
Thieme-Marti further discloses that the processor performs notification in a case where the positional relationship between the projection apparatus and the work target object cannot be specified. In particular, Thieme-Marti discloses that the system 100 includes a match verification tool (Fig. 3, 300, para. [0037]) that performs several operations to ensure that the BEV reference image and the time-of-treatment BEV image are aligned to ensure that the treatment beam is aligned with the specific anatomical feature that is to receive the radiation dose. The match verification tool 300 includes a “[c]ouch shift indicator 307” that displays “the distance each couch axis should move to correctly position the patient for treatment”. This indication is a notification to the radiation therapist that the target position is not correct and informs the therapist of how to control shifting of the couch to align/realign the BEV reference image with the current time-of-treatment BEV image to thereby ensure that the treatment beam is aligned with the target position on the anatomical feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2015/0344136 A1 discloses systems and methods for using an aerial vehicle to perform a task on an object while in an aerial mode that includes at least one of a hover mode or a slow movement mode during a predominant phase of the task being performed. The aerial vehicle has a command and control system, a removable mobile computing device that when attached to the aerial vehicle assists in control of the aerial vehicle and when detached assists in control of the aerial vehicle with user intervention through the mobile device, wherein assist in control is further performed through the command and control system and at least one attachment attachable to the aerial vehicle for facilitating the task performed to the object by the aerial vehicle while the aerial vehicle is in the aerial mode, the at least one attachment is controlled by the removable mobile computing device.
U.S. Pat. No. 11,235,890 B1 discloses a system including an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or aerial robotic system (ARS) to perform at least one task to an object during flight of the UAV in a movement mode configured for maneuvering near a surface of the object. A task sensor configured to sense at least one parameter of the surface. An adjustable sensor arm attachable to the UAV and supporting the task sensor to facilitate the task performed to the surface of the object by the UAV during flight of the UAV. The sensor arm being resilient to impact forces caused by direct contact of the sensor or sensor arm with the surface to bend, spring or swivel relative to a contour of the surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights