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 Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 09/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection as detailed below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180367728 A1 (“Roberts”) in view of US 10915673 B2 (“Novak”).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts discloses one or more image sensors; a propulsion mechanism; and one or more processors (see at least [0025])
determine an update to a three-dimensional (3D) model corresponding to a scan target to scan according to a scan plan (see at least [0029]);
based at least on the update to the 3D model, determine a set of one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model that are not covered by the scan plan (see at least [0047]), wherein
determine an updated scan plan based at least on determining one or more poses to include in the scan plan for scanning the one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model (see at least [0029]); and
control the propulsion mechanism to cause the UAV to navigate while scanning the scan target with the one or more image sensors according to the updated scan plan (see at least [0043]).
Roberts is not explicit on determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose, however,
Novak discloses determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model (see at least Col. 6 lines 36-46)
determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose (see at least Col. 8 lines 54-65).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Roberts with the system for generating optimal scanning trajectories for 3D scenes disclosed by Novak because current methods are very time consuming, as they require an assessor to physically climb onto rooftops and perform the measurements at each potential location of a solar site (Novak, Col. 1 lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts discloses navigate the UAV to a plurality of positions in relation to the scan target; capture, using the one or more image sensors, a first image of the scan target from a first position of the plurality of positions, and a second image of the scan target from a second position of the plurality of positions (see at least [0025]); and
determine the update to the 3D model based at least on the first image and the second image (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Roberts discloses determine the update to the 3D model based at least on using distance information determined based on a disparity determined between the first image and the second image for determining respective locations in 3D space of one or more points of the 3D model, the one or more points representative of a surface of the scan target and including at least one of the uncovered points (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, one or more processors to determine the update to the 3D model based at least in part on at least one of multi-view stereo analysis of the two or more images including at least the first image and the second image; or performing Truncated Signed Distance Function (TSDF) fusion for a plurality of images of the scan target including at least the first image and the second image (see at least [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts discloses navigate the UAV in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target, the indication of the scan target including at least one of an indication of a 2D shape forming a boundary within which at least a portion of the scan target is located; an indication of a shape corresponding to a surface of the scan target; or an indication of a volume within which at least a portion of the scan target is located (see at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts discloses navigate the UAV in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target via a user interface of a computing device in communication with the UAV while the UAV is in flight, wherein the indication of the scan target is based at least in part on an image of the scan target transmitted by the aerial vehicle UAV to the computing device (see at least [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts discloses determine the updated scan plan while the UAV is in flight (see at least [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Roberts discloses determining, by one or more processors of an aerial vehicle including one or more image sensors, an update to a three-dimensional (3D) model corresponding to a scan target to scan according to a scan plan (see at least [0029]);
based at least on the update to the 3D model, determining, by the one or more processors, a set of one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model that are not covered by the scan plan (see at least [0047])
determining, by the one or more processors, an updated scan plan based at least on determining one or more poses to include in the scan plan for scanning the one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model (see at least [0046]); and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the aerial vehicle to scan the scan target with the one or more image sensors according to the updated scan plan (see at least [0043]).
Roberts is not explicit on determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose, however,
Kirk discloses determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model (see at least Col. 6 lines 36-46);
determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose (see at least Col. 8 lines 54-65).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Roberts with the system for generating optimal scanning trajectories for 3D scenes disclosed by Novak because current methods are very time consuming, as they require an assessor to physically climb onto rooftops and perform the measurements at each potential location of a solar site (Novak, Col. 1 lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 9, Roberts discloses navigating the aerial vehicle to a plurality of positions in relation to the scan target (see at least [0025]);
capturing, using the one or more image sensors, a first image of the scan target from a first position of the plurality of positions, and a second image of the scan target from a second position of the plurality of positions; and determining the update to the 3D model based at least on the first image and the second image (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Roberts discloses determining the update to the 3D model based at least on using distance information determined based on a disparity determined between the first image and the second image for determining respective locations in 3D space of one or more points of the 3D model, the one or more points representative of a surface of the scan target and including at least one of the uncovered points (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Roberts discloses determining the update to the 3D model based at least in part on at least one of: multi-view stereo analysis of the two or more images including at least the first image and the second image (see at least [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Roberts discloses navigating the aerial vehicle in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target, the indication of the scan target an indication of a 2D shape forming a boundary within which at least a portion of the scan target is located; an indication of a shape corresponding to a surface of the scan target; or an indication of a volume within which at least a portion of the scan target is located (see at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Roberts discloses navigating the aerial vehicle in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target via a user interface of a computing device in communication with the aerial vehicle while the aerial vehicle is in flight, wherein the indication of the scan target is based at least in part on an image of the scan target transmitted by the aerial vehicle to the computing device (see at least [0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Roberts discloses determining the updated scan plan while the aerial vehicle is in flight (see at least [0064]).
Regarding claim 15, Roberts discloses one or more image sensors; and one or more processors configured by executable instructions (see at least [0025])
determine an update to a three-dimensional (3D) model corresponding to a scan target to scan according to a scan plan (see at least [0029]);
based at least on the update to the 3D model, determine a set of one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model that are not covered by the scan plan (see at least 0047])
determine an updated scan plan based at least on determining one or more poses to include in the scan plan for scanning the one or more uncovered points of the updated 3D model (see at least 0046]); and
control the aerial vehicle to scan the scan target with the one or more image sensors according to the updated scan plan (see at least [0043]).
Roberts is not explicit on determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose, however,
Kirk discloses determining the set of one or more uncovered points includes assessing points of the updated 3D model (see at least Col. 6 lines 36-46)
determining that the point under assessment is occluded with respect to an expected location of the one or more image sensors for the pose (see at least Col. 8 lines 54-65).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the system disclosed by Roberts with the system for generating optimal scanning trajectories for 3D scenes disclosed by Novak because current methods are very time consuming, as they require an assessor to physically climb onto rooftops and perform the measurements at each potential location of a solar site (Novak, Col. 1 lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 16, Roberts discloses navigate the aerial vehicle to a plurality of positions in relation to the scan target (see at least [0025]);
capture, using the one or more image sensors, a first image of the scan target from a first position of the plurality of positions, and a second image of the scan target from a second position of the plurality of positions; and determine the update to the 3D model based at least on the first image and the second image (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Roberts discloses determine the update to the 3D model based at least on using distance information determined based on a disparity determined between the first image and the second image for determining respective locations in 3D space of one or more points of the 3D model, the one or more points representative of a surface of the scan target and including at least one of the uncovered points (see at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Roberts discloses determine the update to the 3D model based at least in part on at least one of multi-view stereo analysis of the two or more images including at least the first image and the second image (see at least [0029]);
performing Truncated Signed Distance Function (TSDF) fusion for a plurality of images of the scan target including at least the first image and the second image (see at least [0029]).
Regarding claim 19, Roberts discloses navigate the aerial vehicle in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target, the indication of the scan target including at least one of an indication of a 2D shape forming a boundary within which at least a portion of the scan target is located; an indication of a shape corresponding to a surface of the scan target; or an indication of a volume within which at least a portion of the scan target is located (see at least [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Roberts discloses navigate the aerial vehicle in relation to the scan target based at least in part on receiving an indication of the scan target via a user interface of a computing device in communication with the aerial vehicle while the aerial vehicle is in flight, wherein the indication of the scan target is based at least in part on an image of the scan target transmitted by the aerial vehicle to the computing device (see at least [0042]).
Conclusion
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 MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON whose telephone number is (408)918-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 - 5:00 PST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/MATHEW FRANKLIN GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
