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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number CN 202410315361.9 dated 03/19/2024. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 of para 39 on pg. 6, one of the two instances of “threshold6 =…” should read “threshold7=…”. Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Step 5.6: all instances of the “lower boundary disconnected trajectory” and “upper boundary disconnected trajectory” should include the corresponding variable name, TJdown or TJup. All other instances of these limitations throughout the claim set include the corresponding variable name, except for those in step 5.6.
Step 5.8: “a sorted complete trajectory set TJ2” should read “[[a]] the sorted complete trajectory set TJ2.” Step 5 of claim 1 introduces “a sorted complete trajectory set TJ2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 8 are interpreted to include all limitations recited in claim 1 due to the limitation: “the road longitudinal slope estimation method based on the unmanned aerial vehicle aerial photography video according to claim 1” in claims 7 and 8.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
Step 3 of claim 1 recites the limitation “grouping in a time dimension”, which renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds of what is considered the “time dimension” is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the “time dimension” will be interpreted to be the time dimension of the video’s collection of captured frames (i.e., the time dimension defined by 0:00 to 1:00 minutes of a 1-minute video).
Step 5.4 of claims 4, 11, and 16 recites “a final lower boundary disconnected trajectory TJdown” and “a final upper boundary disconnected trajectory TJup,” which renders the claims indefinite. The corresponding variable names, TJdown or TJup, are also used to define the lower and upper boundary disconnected trajectories, respectively. Accordingly, in subsequent steps it is unclear whether TJdown and TJup refer to the final trajectories, or not. The metes and bounds of what is considered TJdown and TJup in steps 5.6-5.7 is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, TJdown and TJup in steps 5.6-5.7 will refer to any one of the corresponding upper/lower boundary disconnected trajectories identified in steps 5.2 and 5.3 (not the final trajectory).
Step 7.1 of claims 6, 13, and 18 recites “an upper road section” and “a lower road section,” which renders the claims indefinite. The metes and bounds of what is considered an “upper” versus a “lower” road section is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the upper road sections (closer to end point of the road) will be interpreted to be those that are above all lower road sections (closer to the starting point of the road) in the trajectory data, consistent with how the upper and lower boundary disconnected trajectories are defined in step 5.2.
Step 7.1 of claims 6, 13, and 18 recites three types of reaction times: “a reaction time
τ
j
u
p
”; “a reaction time
τ
j
d
o
w
n
”; and “the reaction time
τ
”. Step 7 of claim 1 introduces the limitation “a reaction time.” In step 7.1 it is unclear which reaction time(s) corresponds to the reaction time introduced in claim 1. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the reaction time
τ
”, since it is not entirely clear that
τ
represents the reaction time in step 7 of claim 1. Additionally, the metes and bounds of what is considered the “reaction time” in step 7 is not defined when the limitations of step 7.1 are introduced. For examination purposes, “the reaction time
τ
” will be interpreted to refer to the “reaction time” of step 7, claim 1 and
τ
j
u
p
and
τ
j
d
o
w
n
will be treated as different, newly introduced data types.
Step 7.3 of claims 6, 13, and 18 recites:
μ
d
(
k
)
in Equation (9)
λ
in Equation (11)
Because these values are not introduced/identified outside the equations, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Note that
λ
is different from
λ
(
k
)
,
which is identified and further described in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 is directed to a signal per se.
Claim 8 recites “A computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer program runs the road longitudinal slope estimation method based on the unmanned aerial vehicle aerial photography video according to claim 1 when the computer program is executed by a processor.” Thus, a computer-readable storage medium is claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se (MPEP 2106.03). The specification as filed does not limit the definition of “computer-readable storage medium” to non-transitory mediums. Additionally, the recited “processor” is not required by the claim.
Since a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03); therefore, claim 8 is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 14-18 are rejected because they are dependent on claim 8 and also do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a “signal” per se (MPEP 2106.03). Accordingly, claims 8 and 14-18 are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are objected to and/or rejected, but would be allowable if corrected to overcome the outstanding claim objections and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in reasonable combination, is insufficient to teach the invention as a whole, as claimed in claim 1. Many prior art references, see the cited pertinent art in the Conclusion below, estimate topographical and/or road slope using unmanned aerial vehicle imaging. However, they fail to specifically teach steps 1-7 set forth in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art references alone or in reasonable combination are insufficient to teach the invention as a whole, as claimed in claims 1-18. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Monitoring topographical/road slope using unmanned aerial vehicle imaging:
Carvajal-Ramírez, F., Agüera-Vega, F., & Martínez-Carricondo, P. J. (2016). Effects of image orientation and ground control points distribution on unmanned aerial vehicle photogrammetry projects on a road cut slope. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 10(3), 034004-034004.
Ngadiman, N., Badrulhissham, I. A., Mohamad, M., Azhari, N., Kaamin, M., & Hamid, N. B. (2019). Monitoring slope condition using UAV technology. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 7(6A), 1-6.
Yeh, F. H., Huang, C. J., Han, J. Y., & Ge, L. (2018). Modeling slope topography using unmanned aerial vehicle image technique. In MATEC web of conferences (Vol. 147, p. 07002). EDP Sciences.
Lepoglavec, K., Šušnjar, M., Pandur, Z., Bačić, M., Kopseak, H., & Nevečerel, H. (2023). Correct calculation of the existing longitudinal profile of a forest/skid road using GNSS and a UAV device. Forests, 14(4), 751.
Additional road slope/gradient estimation methods:
U.S. Patent No. 10,030,969 B2
CN Patent No. 113335293 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights