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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues as was agreed during the interview, Barnea (US 20200210676) does not teach the newly amended feature of determining coverage while traveling including determining unacceptable images as recited, and that Estrada (US 20170061249) does not remedy this feature because it does not perform such features while the aerial vehicle continues traveling. Therefore, Applicant concludes the combination of Barnea and Estrada fails to disclose each and every feature in the independent claims. Applicant argues because a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established, the rejections should be withdrawn.
Indeed, Barnea and Estrada in combination are found not to teach the independent claims as amended and new reference Wagner (US 11222204) has been necessitated. Wagner teaches determining in real time the quality of survey images, which in combination with Barnea and Estrada may be determined unacceptable while the aerial vehicle travels along its flight paths. This is precisely what is required by the claim.
As such, this argument is moot.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 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. In particular, while prior art is believed to exist that reflects on the individual limitations of each of these claims, a conclusion of obviousness would not have been reached as this would require too significant of a modification to the base reference for one of ordinary skill to reach such a conclusion. As such, dependent claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 would be found to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including each and every limitation of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnea et al. (US 20200210676) in view of Estrada et al. (US 20170061249) and Wagner et al. (US 11222204).
In regards to claim 1, Barnea teaches a method of performing an adaptive aerial survey comprising: (Fig 5.)
capturing images of a target area, by at least one camera system disposed on an aerial vehicle, as the aerial vehicle travels along a flight map that includes a plurality of flight lines; (Figs 13E, 13F, [0056], [0074], [0115], [0116] cameras are swept while aircraft travels along lines of flight and images are captured by the cameras in steps 555 and 557 to particularly cover every point in a region of interest, mapping the region of interest. The sequence of flight lines form a flight map.)
determining, as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system; ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] coverage of region of interest is generated by sweeping camera as it travels along flight lines, where flight lines are found and selectively followed to optimize the coverage of the region. This determines the coverage from each image and collective coverage from the overlapping images of the region of interest as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.) and
adjusting, as the vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, the flight map and an orientation of the at least one camera system based on the coverage of the target area determined based on the images captured by the at least one camera system, ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] aircraft may skip flight lines or fill in subsequent passes with further flight lines based on coverage of region of interest, which is adjusting flight map, and motors may sweep cameras to acquire coverage of region of interest, which is performed as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.)
Barnea does not teach:
wherein determining coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system includes determining unacceptable images based on whether the images include an occlusion, are blurred, have incorrect exposure, or are erroneously directed.
However, Estrada teaches determining that clouds are present within geographic images and removing images with cloud occlusions ([0059]). This determines that images with cloud cover causing occlusions are unacceptable by removing them.
Further, Wagner teaches assessing in real time the quality of survey images from an aerial vehicle (Claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mapping method of Barnea, by incorporating the teachings of Estrada and Wagner, such that occlusions from cloud coverage within the images of Barnea are checked and the images with occluding cloud coverage are discarded, which is a determination that these images are unacceptable, and such that the quality, which is used as a metric of discarding images, is assessed in real time while the aerial vehicle travels.
The motivation to discard clouded images is that, as acknowledged by Estrada, this allows for improved determination of locations of objects within images ([0008]). The motivation to determine survey image quality is that, as acknowledged by Wagner, this allows for improved accuracy and reliability of survey imaging (Col 1 lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-10).
In regards to claim 2, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting at least one of the flight map and the orientation of the at least one camera system further includes modifying at least one of the plurality of flight lines included in the flight map. ([0096], [0108], [0116] aircraft may be controlled to set a flight path with a distance between parallel flight lines and may be controlled to skip flight lines, both of which are modifying the flight lines included in the flight map.)
In regards to claim 3, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting at least one of the flight map and the orientation of the at least one camera system further includes adding at least one flight line to the plurality of flight lines included in the flight map. ([0096], [0108], [0116] multiple passes may be performed on the edges of the region of interest and subsequent passes may be used to fill in coverage of the region, with a distance between parallel flight lines established, which are adding flight lines by performing additional flight lines at boundaries or having a smaller distance between flight lines such that more flight lines are included.)
In regards to claim 4, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting at least one of the flight map and the orientation of the at least one camera system includes controlling a gimbal on which the at least one camera system is mounted in order to adjust the orientation of the at least one camera system. ([0090], [0120] motor moves cameras to sweep through imaging range and image the region of interest while the aircraft travels along flight lines, this operates as a gimbal to control movement of the cameras.)
In regards to claim 5, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one camera system captures a plurality of images in a predetermined coverage pattern. ([0086]-[0093] cameras as swept by motor to take images every set number of degrees and capture 9 different angles of each object within the region of interest. This is a predetermined coverage patten from a captured plurality of images.)
In regards to claim 6, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of images includes at least one of oblique images and vertical images. ([0078], [0079] oblique images and nadir images, which are vertical images, are taken by the cameras of the aircraft while traveling along the flight lines.)
In regards to claim 9, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system further includes determining coverage of the target area based on at least one of vertical imagery, oblique imagery, and three-dimensional data corresponding to the target area. ([0078], [0079], [0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] coverage of region of interest is generated by sweeping camera as it travels along flight lines, where flight lines are found and selectively followed to optimize the coverage of the region and captured images are either oblique images or vertical images. This determines the coverage from each image and collective coverage from the overlapping images of the region of interest.)
In regards to claim 13, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera system includes a scanning camera. ([0055] cameras may optionally be swept while imaging, which are scanning cameras.)
In regards to claim 14, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera system includes a fixed camera. ([0055] cameras may optionally be swept while imaging, when this option is not selected, the cameras are fixed cameras.)
In regards to claim 15, Barnea, as modified by Estrada and Wagner, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera system includes a combination of a scanning camera and a fixed camera. ([0055] cameras may optionally be swept while imaging, when this option is selected for one camera, that camera is a scanning camera, and when not selected for the other camera, that camera is a fixed camera.)
In regards to claim 17, Estrada teaches determining that clouds are present within geographic images and removing images with cloud occlusions ([0059]). This determines that images with cloud cover causing occlusions are unacceptable by removing them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mapping method of Barnea, as already modified by Estrada, by further incorporating the teachings of Estrada, such that particularly cloud cover causing occlusions are determined, filtered, and removed.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Estrada in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 18, Estrada teaches determining that clouds are present within geographic images and removing images with cloud occlusions ([0059]). This determines that images with cloud cover causing occlusions are unacceptable by removing them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mapping method of Barnea, as already modified by Estrada, by further incorporating the teachings of Estrada, such that particularly cloud cover causing occlusions are determined, filtered, and removed, which is a determination that they are unacceptable.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Estrada in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 19, Barnea teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform a method comprising: ([0032] instructions for performing operations stored in memory executed by processor.)
capturing images of a target area, by at least one camera system disposed on an aerial vehicle, as the aerial vehicle travels along a flight map that includes a plurality of flight lines; (Figs 13E, 13F, [0056], [0074], [0115], [0116] cameras are swept while aircraft travels along lines of flight and images are captured by the cameras to particularly cover every point in a region of interest, mapping the region of interest. The sequence of flight lines form a flight map.)
determining, as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system; ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] coverage of region of interest is generated by sweeping camera as it travels along flight lines, where flight lines are found and selectively followed to optimize the coverage of the region. This determines the coverage from each image and collective coverage from the overlapping images of the region of interest as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.) and
adjusting, as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, the flight map and an orientation of the at least one camera system based on the coverage of the target area determined based on the images captured by the at least one camera system, ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] aircraft may skip flight lines or fill in subsequent passes with further flight lines based on coverage of region of interest, which is adjusting flight map, and motors may sweep cameras to acquire coverage of region of interest, which is performed as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.)
Barnea does not teach:
wherein determining coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system includes determining unacceptable images based on whether the images include an occlusion, are blurred, have incorrect exposure, or are erroneously directed.
However, Estrada teaches determining that clouds are present within geographic images and removing images with cloud occlusions ([0059]). This determines that images with cloud cover causing occlusions are unacceptable by removing them.
Further, Wagner teaches assessing in real time the quality of survey images from an aerial vehicle (Claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mapping instructions of Barnea, by incorporating the teachings of Estrada and Wagner, such that occlusions from cloud coverage within the images of Barnea are checked and the images with occluding cloud coverage are discarded, which is a determination that these images are unacceptable, and such that the quality, which is used as a metric of discarding images, is assessed in real time while the aerial vehicle travels.
The motivation to discard clouded images is that, as acknowledged by Estrada, this allows for improved determination of locations of objects within images ([0008]). The motivation to determine survey image quality is that, as acknowledged by Wagner, this allows for improved accuracy and reliability of survey imaging (Col 1 lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-10).
In regards to claim 20, Barnea teaches a control system for controlling adaptive aerial surveys, comprising circuitry configured to: (Fig 2.)
capture images of a target area, by at least one camera system disposed on an aerial vehicle, as the aerial vehicle travels along a flight map that includes a plurality of flight lines; (Figs 13E, 13F, [0056], [0074], [0115], [0116] cameras are swept while aircraft travels along lines of flight and images are captured by the cameras to particularly cover every point in a region of interest, mapping the region of interest. The sequence of flight lines form a flight map.)
determine, as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system; ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] coverage of region of interest is generated by sweeping camera as it travels along flight lines, where flight lines are found and selectively followed to optimize the coverage of the region. This determines the coverage from each image and collective coverage from the overlapping images of the region of interest as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.) and
adjust, as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight map, the flight map and an orientation of the at least one camera system based on the coverage of the target area determined based on the images captured by the at least one camera system, ([0086]-[0096], [0108], [0116] aircraft may skip flight lines or fill in subsequent passes with further flight lines based on coverage of region of interest, which is adjusting flight map, and motors may sweep cameras to acquire coverage of region of interest, which is performed as the aerial vehicle continues to travel along the flight lines.)
Barnea does not teach:
wherein to determine coverage of the target area based on the images captured by the at least one camera system, the circuitry determines unacceptable images based on whether the images include an occlusion, are blurred, have incorrect exposure, or are erroneously directed.
However, Estrada teaches determining that clouds are present within geographic images and removing images with cloud occlusions ([0059]). This determines that images with cloud cover causing occlusions are unacceptable by removing them.
Further, Wagner teaches assessing in real time the quality of survey images from an aerial vehicle (Claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the mapping system of Barnea, by incorporating the teachings of Estrada and Wagner, such that occlusions from cloud coverage within the images of Barnea are checked and the images with occluding cloud coverage are discarded, which is a determination that these images are unacceptable, and such that the quality, which is used as a metric of discarding images, is assessed in real time while the aerial vehicle travels.
The motivation to discard clouded images is that, as acknowledged by Estrada, this allows for improved determination of locations of objects within images ([0008]). The motivation to determine survey image quality is that, as acknowledged by Wagner, this allows for improved accuracy and reliability of survey imaging (Col 1 lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kapil et al. (US 20240263964) teaches determining the mapping coverage of different polygon areas within a mapping area and assigning a priority representing urgency to each polygon for further mapping of that polygon.
Barnea et al. (US 20240111147) teaches an aircraft used for surveying with an adjustable camera system.
Kaln et al. (US 5894323) teaches an aircraft with a downwards mounted surveying sensor to map a coverage region.
Estrada et al. (US 20170061625) teaches filtering image data to remove images with cloud caused occlusions.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights