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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) as the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s) as shown in the following comparisons.
Current Examined Application Claim(s)
Reference Claim(s)
Patent No. 12,229,929
1. A system comprising:
a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera, and an incident light sensor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive at least one image from the first camera;
receive at least one image from the second camera;
receive incident light data from the incident light sensor;
provide red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera;
determine at least one index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels; and
calibrate the received image from the first camera and the received image from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one index.
1. A system comprising:
a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera, and an incident light sensor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive at least one image of vegetation from the first camera;
receive at least one image of vegetation from the second camera;
receive incident light data from the incident light sensor;
provide red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera;
determine at least one vegetative index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels; and
calibrate the received image of vegetation from the first camera and the received image of vegetation from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one vegetative index.
18. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera, and an incident light sensor, at least one image from the first camera, at least one image from the second camera, and incident light data from the incident light sensor;
providing, by the processor, red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera;
determining, by the processor, at least one index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels; and
calibrating, by the processor, the received image from the first camera and the received image from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one index.
18. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera, and an incident light sensor, at least one image of vegetation from the first camera, at least one image of vegetation from the second camera, and incident light data from the incident light sensor;
providing, by the processor, red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera;
determining, by the processor, at least one vegetative index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels; and
calibrate, by the processor, the received image of vegetation from the first camera and the received image of vegetation from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one vegetative index.
Correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Achtelik et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0129879).
Regarding claim 1. Achtelik teaches a system (Achtelik, the Abstract), comprising:
a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera, and an incident light sensor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive at least one image from the first camera (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]: cameras 120);
receive at least one image from the second camera (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]: cameras 120);
receive incident light data from the incident light sensor (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [46], [50], [60]: light reflection);
provide red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [42]-[44]: colors RGB, NIR image data);
determine at least one index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [44], [50]-[51]: vegetation index, NDVI index); and
calibrate the received image from the first camera and the received image from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one index (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [44]-[45], [47]-[50]: camera calibrator calibrates collected image data).
Regarding claim 18. Achtelik teaches a method (Achtelik, the Abstract), comprising:
receiving, by a processor having addressable memory in communication with a first camera, a second camera (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]: cameras 120), and an incident light sensor, at least one image from the first camera, at least one image from the second camera, and incident light data from the incident light sensor (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [46], [50], [60]: light reflection);
providing, by the processor, red, green, and near-infrared (NIR) color channels from the received image from the first camera (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [42]-[44]: colors RGB, NIR image data);
determining, by the processor, at least one index based on the provided red, green, and NIR color channels (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [44], [50]-[51]: vegetation index, NDVI index); and
calibrating, by the processor, the received image from the first camera and the received image from the second camera after the received images are received based on the received incident light data and the determined at least one index (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [44]-[45], [47]-[50]: camera calibrator calibrates collected image data).
Regarding claim 2. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a first sensor of the first camera (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]: cameras 120); and
a second sensor of the second camera (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]: cameras 120);
wherein the incident light sensor is disposed distal from the first camera and the second camera (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [46], [50], [60]: light reflection).
Regarding claim 3. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first sensor of the first camera comprises at least red, green, and blue color channels, wherein the blue color channel is sensitive to NIR wavelengths (Achtelik, Fig. 3, pp [42]-[44]: colors RGB, NIR image data).
Regarding claim 7. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determined at least one index comprises a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (Achtelik, pp [17]-[18], [29]-[30]).
Regarding claim 8. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determined at least one index comprises a green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI) (Achtelik, pp [17]-[18], [29]-[30]).
Regarding claim 9. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an aerial vehicle comprising:
the first sensor, the second sensor, and the incident light sensor (Achtelik, pp [27]-[28]), wherein the aerial vehicle is at least one of:
a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle, a VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and a UAV (Achtelik, pp [25]-[26]).
Regarding claim 14. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the received at least one image is at least one of:
a high-resolution image and comprises wavelengths in green, red, and NIR (Achtelik, pp [42]-[43]).
Regarding claim 17. Achtelik teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive at least one image from the second camera, wherein a field of view of the first camera is substantially the same as a field of view of the second camera, wherein the first camera is disposed proximate the second camera, and wherein the received image from the first camera is captured at substantially the same time as the received image from the second camera (Achtelik, pp [27]-[29]);
provide a blue color channel from the received image from the second camera (Achtelik, pp [42]-[44]); and
determine at least one index based on the provided red, green, blue, and NIR color channels (Achtelik, pp [42]-[44]).
Regarding claim 19. Achtelik teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the determined at least one index comprises at least one of:
a normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and a green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI) (Achtelik, pp [17]-[18], [29]-[30]).
Regarding claim 20. Achtelik teaches the method of claim 19, wherein determining the NDVI further comprises:
subtracting, by the processor, spectral reflectance measurements in the red region of the received at least one image from spectral reflectance measurements in the NIR region (Achtelik, pp [46]-[49]);
adding, by the processor, spectral reflectance measurements in the red region of the received at least one image to spectral reflectance measurements in the NIR region (Achtelik, pp [46]-[49]); and
dividing, by the processor, the subtracted measurements from the added measurements (Achtelik, pp [46]-[49]).
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.
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.
10. Claim(s) 4-6, 10-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achtelik et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0129879) and further in view of Nelson (Publication No. US 2018/0307906).
Regarding claim 4. Achtelik does not teach the system of claim 3, further comprising:
a first optical filter disposed in front of the first sensor.
Nelson teaches “a first optical filter disposed in front of the first sensor” (Nelson, Fig. 2, pp [14]-[15]: optical sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Achtelik by incorporating teachings of Nelson, an image capture device may capture visible and infrared light, and image analysis may be used to generate a map of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of healthy vegetation, wherein the NDVI data focuses on red and near infrared (NIR) reflectance of plants, NDVI data may be generated using an aircraft-mounted camera with optical filtering to collect various wavelengths therefore to reduce the size, weight, complexity, and cost of the image analysis system, and thus multiband optical filters may be used to capture multiple passbands simultaneously to effectively providing accurate estimates of images under near-infrared light affects and therefore the system provides improved image capturing and analysis framework for research and analytics applications.
Regarding claim 5. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first optical filter is configured to block wavelengths below green, between red and NIR, and longer wavelength NIR (Nelson, Figs. 3 and 4, pp [16]-[19]).
Regarding claim 6. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the second sensor of the second camera comprises at least red, green, and blue color channels (Achtelik, Fig. 1, pp [27]-[28]; Fig. 3, pp [42], [44]; and Nelson, Figs. 3 and 4, pp [16]-[17]).
Regarding claim 10. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first optical filter is configured to block wavelengths under about 540 nm (Nelson, pp [18]).
Regarding claim 11. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first optical filter is configured to block wavelengths between about 680 nm and 780 nm (Nelson, Fig. 3, pp [15]-[16]).
Regarding claim 12. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first optical filter is configured to block wavelengths above around 900 nm (Nelson, Fig. 3, pp [15]-[16]).
Regarding claim 13. Achtelik, as modified by Nelson, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the first optical filter is configured to allow wavelengths between about 540 nm and 680 nm and between about 780 nm and 850 nm (Nelson, Fig. 3, pp [15]-[16]).
Regarding claim 16. Achtelik does not teach the system of claim 2, further comprising:
a second optical filter disposed in front of the second sensor, wherein the second optical filter is configured to block wavelengths in NIR.
Nelson teaches “a second optical filter disposed in front of the second sensor, wherein the second optical filter is configured to block wavelengths in NIR” (Nelson, Figs. 3 and 4, pp [15]-[19]: optical filters are used to allow precise spectral data passed for interest bandwidths and wavelengths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Achtelik by incorporating teachings of Nelson, an image capture device may capture visible and infrared light, and image analysis may be used to generate a map of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of healthy vegetation, wherein the NDVI data focuses on red and near infrared (NIR) reflectance of plants, NDVI data may be generated using an aircraft-mounted camera with optical filtering to allow and to collect various wavelengths of interest to pass for image recording, therefore to reduce the size, weight, complexity, and cost of the image analysis system, and thus multiband optical filters may be used to capture multiple passbands simultaneously to effectively providing accurate estimates of images under near-infrared light affects and therefore the system provides improved image capturing and analysis framework for research and analytics applications.
11. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achtelik et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0129879) and further in view of Olsen et al. (Publication No. US 2008/0029708).
Regarding claim 15. Achtelik does not teach the system of claim 2, wherein the first sensor comprises a Bayer filter on the first sensor.
Olsen teaches “a first sensor comprises a Bayer filter on the first sensor” (Olsen, pp [312], [408], [410]-[411]: color filter sensor array Bayer pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Achtelik and Nelson, by incorporating teachings of Olsen, a digital camera including a plurality of arrays of photo detectors, including a first array of photo detectors to sample an intensity of light of a first wavelength and a second array of photo detectors to sample an intensity of light of a second wavelength. The digital camera may include a first lens disposed in an optical path of the first array of photo detectors, wherein the first lens includes a predetermined optical response to the light of the first wavelength, and a second lens disposed in with an optical path of the second array of photo detectors wherein the second lens includes a predetermined optical response to the light of the second wavelength. In addition, the digital camera may include signal processing circuitry, coupled to the first and second arrays of photo detectors and using Bayer filter, to generate a composite image using data which is representative of the intensity of light sampled by the first array of photo detectors, and data which is representative of the intensity of light sampled by the second array of photo detectors such that the first array of photo detectors, the second array of photo detectors, and the signal processing circuitry are integrated for producing the best possible image results to improve on the fine close to real images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY C HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1108. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/HUY C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
