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 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14, 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12282989 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are anticipated by the claims of US 12282989 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 analyses for claim 1-9:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A method comprising:
determining an altitude of a camera of an aerial vehicle;
determining a field of view (FOV) of the camera;
generating a localized map;
determining a relative position of the aerial vehicle on the localized map; and
determining a relative heading of the aerial vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining an altitude, determining a field of view, generating a localized map etc. encompasses a person performing the activity using human mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are present.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are present.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
101 analyses for claim 10-16:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a vehicle. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
An aerial vehicle comprising:
a camera, a processor, and a memory, the memory including instructions that when executed cause the processor to:
determine information associated with the camera of the aerial vehicle;
generate a footprint of the camera based on the information;
determine a localized map based on the footprint;
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle on the localized map; and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating a footprint, determining a localized map etc. encompasses a person performing the activity using human mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An aerial vehicle comprising:
a camera, a processor, and a memory, the memory including instructions that when executed cause the processor to:
determine information associated with the camera of the aerial vehicle;
generate a footprint of the camera based on the information;
determine a localized map based on the footprint;
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle on the localized map; and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “a camera”, it is considered mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, the “processor” and “memory” recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic controller and computer component to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of a processor and a camera are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 11-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
101 analyses for claim 17-20:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions that, when executed, causes at least one processor to:
generate a footprint of a camera of an aerial vehicle based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera;
determine a localized map based on the footprint;
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle including the camera on the localized map; and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle on the localized map.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating a footprint, generating a localized map etc. encompasses a person performing the activity using human mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions that, when executed, causes at least one processor to:
generate a footprint of a camera of an aerial vehicle based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera;
determine a localized map based on the footprint;
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle including the camera on the localized map; and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle on the localized map.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium recited in the claim is considered as insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic controller and computer component to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong (US 20160117853 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhong teaches aerial vehicle comprising:
a camera (0008), a processor, and a memory, the memory including instructions (0252) that when executed cause the processor to:
determine information associated with the camera of the aerial vehicle (0021, 0115, “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”; “[0115] The image data captured by the image sensors can be stored in a data storage device and/or processed by one or more processors”);
generate a footprint of the camera based on the information (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated by the camera);
determine a localized map based on the footprint (Fig 7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the map based on image is provided);
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle on the localized map (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft position is provided); and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft heading is provided).
Regarding claim 14, Zhong teaches wherein the localized map includes at least one of a road network, railroad network, airport, elevation contour, coastline, boundary, or index of geographical names (0213 wherein “The map 701 can include geographical features of a region such as land, water, forest, roads, buildings, and the like”).
Regarding claim 15, Zhong teaches wherein to determine the localized map comprises to: receive images from the camera; and determine the localized map based on the images and the footprint (Fig 7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the map is generated based on image including the footprint is provided).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 20160117853 A1) in view of Gostynski (US 20120249739 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches a method comprising:
determining an altitude of an aerial vehicle (“[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”);
determining a field of view (FOV) of the camera (0021 “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”;
generating a localized map (Fig 7);
determining a relative position of the aerial vehicle on the localized map (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft position is provided); and
determining a relative heading of the aerial vehicle (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft heading is provided).
However, Zhong fails to teach the altitude is the altitude of the camera.
Gostynski teaches the altitude is the altitude of the camera during determining the footprint of an aircraft camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of determining an altitude of an aerial vehicle, generating localized map and determining position and heading information for an aerial vehicle to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the altitude is the altitude of the camera. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Zhong teaches generating a relative position of a remote controller, on the localized map, wherein the remote controller is in communication with the aerial vehicle (Fig 7, para 0213-0215 wherein “[0215] The orientation of the remote terminal indicator 704 can be shown with an orientation indicator 705”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhong teaches generating a relative heading of the remote controller on the localized map (Fig 7, para 0213-0215 wherein “[0213] The map section 700 can include a UAV icon 702, a remote terminal indicator 704, and a reference point indicator 706, all positioned on a map 701”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhong teaches receiving sensor data from the aerial vehicle (para 0118); and
determining the altitude (0118 wherein sensors are provided for UAV info such as altitude) and the FOV based on the sensor data (0021, 0048 wherein FOV information is provided by the corresponding component of the imaging device; “[0021] The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV); [0048] In some embodiments, the state information of the image capturing device further comprises a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Regarding claim 7, Zhong teaches wherein the localized map is generated based on stored images (Fig 7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the map based on image is provided).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong teaches determining the relative position of the aerial vehicle relative to an initial position of the of the aerial vehicle (Fig 7, para 0213 wherein the position of the UAV relative to the home position is provided).
Regarding claim 9, Zhong teaches wherein the initial position is associated with sensor data and images captured by the camera (Fig 7, para 0213 wherein the position of the UAV relative to the home position is provided based on sensor data including image data from camera).
Regarding claim 11, Zhong teaches all the limitations of claim 10. However, Zhong fails to teach the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information of the camera.
Zhong further teaches using altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera during the mapping process (0021, 0072, 0140 “one or more processors, collectively or individually, configured display a map that shows the UAV state information and an indicator of the FOV of the image capturing device on a remote display based on the received UAV state information and the state information of the image capturing device”; “[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”; “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Gostynski teaches the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of generating a footprint and localized map with position and heading information for an aerial vehicle to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera in order to generate a footprint of a camera of an aerial vehicle based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Zhong teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions that (0252), when executed, causes at least one processor to:
generate a footprint of a camera of an aerial vehicle (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated by the camera);
determine a localized map based on the footprint (Fig 7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the map based on image is provided);
determine a relative position of the aerial vehicle including the camera on the localized map (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft position is provided); and
determine a relative heading of the aerial vehicle on the localized map (Fig 7 wherein the aircraft heading is provided).
However, Zhong fails to teach the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera.
Zhong further teaches using altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera during the mapping process (0021, 0072, 0140 “one or more processors, collectively or individually, configured display a map that shows the UAV state information and an indicator of the FOV of the image capturing device on a remote display based on the received UAV state information and the state information of the image capturing device”; “[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”; “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Gostynski US 20120249739 A1 teaches the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of generating a footprint and localized map with position and heading information for an aerial vehicle to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera in order to generate a footprint of a camera of an aerial vehicle based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Zhong teaches generating a relative position of a remote controller, on the localized map, wherein the remote controller is in communication with the aerial vehicle (Fig 7, para 0213-0215 wherein “[0215] The orientation of the remote terminal indicator 704 can be shown with an orientation indicator 705”).
Regarding claim 20, Zhong teaches determining the relative position of the aerial vehicle relative to an initial position of the of the aerial vehicle (Fig 7, para 0213 wherein the position of the UAV relative to the home position is provided).
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 20160117853 A1) and Gostynski (US 20120249739 A1) in view of Jorquera (US 20160055400 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhong teaches generating a footprint of the camera (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated by the camera) and FOV (0021 “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
However, Zhong fails to teach wherein generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a first component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a second component of the FOV.
Zhong further teaches having the length and width of the footprint (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated with length and width dimensions) and using altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera during the mapping process (0021, 0072, 0140 “one or more processors, collectively or individually, configured display a map that shows the UAV state information and an indicator of the FOV of the image capturing device on a remote display based on the received UAV state information and the state information of the image capturing device”; “[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”; “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Gostynski teaches the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Jorquera teaches the FOV having vertical and horizontal component (0031 wherein “For a first imager having a rectangular lens, the fields of view may be described in a horizontal and a vertical direction, such as independently selected between about 60° and 180°, or between about 60° and 120°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of generating a footprint to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) and Jorquera’s teachings of the FOV having vertical and horizontal component in order for generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a first component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a second component of the FOV. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhong teaches wherein the first component comprises a horizontal component and the second component comprises a vertical component (As modified in rejection of claim 2, wherein Jorquera teaches FOV having vertical and horizontal component).
Regarding claim 12, Zhong teaches generating a footprint of the camera (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated by the camera) and FOV (0021 “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
However, Zhong fails to teach wherein generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a horizontal component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a vertical component of the FOV.
Zhong further teaches having the length and width of the footprint (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated with length and width dimensions) and using altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera during the mapping process (0021, 0072, 0140 “one or more processors, collectively or individually, configured display a map that shows the UAV state information and an indicator of the FOV of the image capturing device on a remote display based on the received UAV state information and the state information of the image capturing device”; “[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”; “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Gostynski teaches the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Jorquera teaches the FOV having vertical and horizontal component (0031 wherein “For a first imager having a rectangular lens, the fields of view may be described in a horizontal and a vertical direction, such as independently selected between about 60° and 180°, or between about 60° and 120°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of generating a footprint to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) and Jorquera’s teachings of the FOV having vertical and horizontal component in order for generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a horizontal component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a vertical component of the FOV. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Zhong teaches receiving sensor data from the aerial vehicle (para 0118); and
determining the altitude (0118 wherein sensors are provided for UAV info such as altitude) and the FOV based on the sensor data (0021, 0048 wherein FOV information is provided by the corresponding component of the imaging device; “[0021] The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV); [0048] In some embodiments, the state information of the image capturing device further comprises a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Regarding claim 18, Zhong teaches generating a footprint of the camera (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated by the camera) and FOV (0021 “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
However, Zhong fails to teach wherein generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a horizontal component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a vertical component of the FOV.
Zhong further teaches having the length and width of the footprint (Fig 5-7, para 0067, 0080 wherein the image capturing the environment is generated with length and width dimensions) and using altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera during the mapping process (0021, 0072, 0140 “one or more processors, collectively or individually, configured display a map that shows the UAV state information and an indicator of the FOV of the image capturing device on a remote display based on the received UAV state information and the state information of the image capturing device”; “[0140] The UAV state information can also include UAV position information such as GPS coordinates, latitude and/or longitude, altitude”; “The payload state information can further comprise a focal length, a zoom level, an imaging mode, an image resolution, a focus, a depth of field, an exposure, a lens speed, a film speed, or a field of view (FOV)”.
Gostynski teaches the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) information associated with the camera (0103 wherein “[0103] For a given frame, the footprint on the ground is computed by Scanning 320, where the footprint of the frame is centered on the corresponding SPI. The footprint depends on the aircraft position, the attitude of the camera (i.e. the direction of the Line of Sight (LOS) of the camera), the camera Field of View (FOV)”.
Jorquera teaches the FOV having vertical and horizontal component (0031 wherein “For a first imager having a rectangular lens, the fields of view may be described in a horizontal and a vertical direction, such as independently selected between about 60° and 180°, or between about 60° and 120°”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of generating a footprint to incorporate Gostynski’s teachings of the footprint is based on altitude information and field of view (FOV) and Jorquera’s teachings of the FOV having vertical and horizontal component in order for generating the footprint comprises: generating a length of the footprint based on the altitude and a horizontal component of the FOV; and generating a width of the footprint based on the altitude and a vertical component of the FOV. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 20160117853 A1) in view of Day (US 10110814 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Zhong teaches all the limitations of claim 10. However, Zhong fails to teach to de-warp the images by either distortion correction or chromatic aberration correction.
Day teaches to de-warp the images by either distortion correction or chromatic aberration correction (col 15 lines 5-15 wherein “The de-warping operations performed by the hardware de-warp engine 140 may adjust the visual content of the signals FRAMES_A-FRAMES_N. The adjustments performed by the de-warp engine 140 may cause the visual content to appear natural (e.g., appear as seen by a person). The de-warping operations performed by the hardware de-warp engine 140 may be implemented to correct the distortion caused by the capture devices 110a-110n”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhong’s teachings of capturing images to incorporate Day’s teachings to de-warp the images by distortion correction in order to make the image look natural and correct distortion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights