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 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1 and 10 – 19 have been entered.
Examination has been moved from art unit 2845 to art unit 3648.
The Restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 9 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.
It is not clear from the claims whether the computing device comprises the computer thus making it unclear as whether all the active limitations with respect to the camera would constitute infringement. For example, it is not clear whether the limitation “the camera captures images in a direction in which signals are received by an antenna device from a satellite” would receive any patentable weight. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined.
35 USC § 101 Considered
Many of the limitations are directed to selecting a region of an image and determining whether there is obstruction may have constituted a mental process except for the fact that a person would not be able to determine a line-of-sight from the satellite. Thus, the claims are considered eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 1 – 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, Zlogar (US 20170045623 A1) discloses a computing device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer instructions; and
a processor (Para. 164) configured to execute the computer instructions to:
receive an image from a camera (Para. 29 “The LOS sensor may be camera …” LOS stands for line-of-sight.), the camera captures images in a direction in which signals are received by an antenna device from a satellite;
select a first region in the image (This part of this feature is not taught.) associated with a signal collection system of the antenna device from a satellite (Para. 38 “An LOS sensor may be mounted on the satellite antenna 130 and may capture image data (e.g., optical, IR, etc.) within an FOV of the LOS sensor.” see also Fig. 4A see also Para. 62 “Thus, the alignment device may detect a misalignment or obstruction of the satellite antenna based on a comparison of the LOS sensor data from the second time to the LOS sensor data from the first time.”);
analyze the image to detect an object within the image (Id.);
determine if an object is at least partially positioned within the first region of the image(Id.); and
in response to determining that the object is at least partially positioned within the first region, identify the object as a possible obstruction to the signals received by the antenna device from the satellite (Id.).
Indepenet claims 10 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 1. The dependent claims would be allowable for being dependent on allowed based claims.
The Examiner is interpreting “select a first region in the image” as the first image being a sub-image section of the total image. Zlogar teaches “The FOV of a sensor may be determined by specifics of the sensor. For example, if the sensor is a camera, the FOV of the camera is determined by a focal length of a lens of the camera and an image sensor capture area of the camera (e.g., aperture) (Para. 38).” It appears Zlogar that Zlogar designs the camera and satellite receiving antenna to overlap in coverage field-of-views. The Examiner was unable to find another reference to teach this missing feature and that would be reasonable to modify with the invention of Zlogar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights