DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 3/26/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 19 are the independent claims.
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 3/26/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 10-2024-0045312 (KR) filed 3/26/2025.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 3/26/2025 have been approved.
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.
7. Claims 1, 12 and 19 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.
The claims recite: “identify a change in length of ROIs between a rotational image of the acquired image and the acquired image” which lacks proper antecedent basis for the term “ROIs”. The claim previously introduces only a singular “region of interest (ROI)” detected from the acquired image through the object recognition model. However, the later recitation of “ROIs” implies the existence of multiple regions of interest, including at least one ROI associated with the rotational image, without the claim expressly reciting detection or generation of such additional ROI. Accordingly, it is unclear whether “ROIs” refers to the previously identified ROI, multiple instances of the same ROI, or a second ROI obtained from the rotational image. Thereby the scope of the claimed limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite.
The claims recite: “between a rotational image of the acquired image and the acquired image” which introduces a rotational image without identifying how or by whom the rotational image is generated. The claim recites acquiring an image and detecting an ROI from the acquired image but does not recite a step or component configured to generate the rotational image, nor does it identify whether the rotational image is generated by the claimed processor, received from another source, or otherwise obtained. As a result, it is unclear what image is being compared with the acquired image and what claimed operations are performed on the rotational image. The absence of a clear relationship between the acquired image, the rotational image, and the claimed ROI comparison prevents the claim from distinctly identifying the scope of the invention.
The claims recite: “identify a change in length of ROIs” fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding the claimed measurement. The term “length” as applied to a region of interest is ambiguous because an ROI, such as a rectangular bounding box generated by an object recognition model may have multiple dimensions, including horizontal/vertical/diagonal length, perimeter or other geometric characteristics. The claim does not specify which dimension of the ROI is being measured, whether the length corresponds to an absolute dimension or a ratio between dimensions, or how the change in length is determined between the acquired image and the rotational image. Although the specification describes identifying changes in horizontal and vertical dimensions and changes in a ratio of horizontal length to vertical length, the claim language does not recite any such limitation. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed “change in length” with reasonable certainty, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “An apparatus…” (machine). Claim 12 is directed to “A method…” (process). Claim 19 is directed to “A facility diagnostic system” (machine). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore Independent claim 12 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1. An apparatus for determining a diagnostic path, the apparatus comprising: a communication module; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire an image related to a diagnostic target and captured by an unmanned aerial vehicle unit through the communication module [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering, pre-solution activity];
detect a region of interest (ROI) including an object of interest from the acquired image through an object recognition model [mental process] & [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception];
identify a change in length of ROIs between a rotational image of the acquired image and the acquired image [mental process] & [mathematical concept]; and
determine a flight direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle unit for photographing the object of interest based on the identified change in length [mental process] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment];
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above constitute: a mathematical concept & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim describes identifying a region containing an object of interest which is something a human could do by visual observation/evaluation of the image. Comparing dimensions of two regions and identifying a change is a comparison/evaluation a human could perform mentally, with pen and paper, or with a ruler. In addition, falling under mathematical concepts via mathematical relationship of a ratio or delta between two measured lengths. Deriving a directional conclusion from an observed numerical change is an evaluation/judgement step that involves inference a human analyst could perform.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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”.):
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 limitations of “acquire an image related to a diagnostic target” & “photographing the object of interest based on the identified change in length”. The Examiner submits that these limitations recite acquiring image data which is data gathering which falls under Insignificant Extra Solution activity. Furthermore, photographing the object of interest limits the environment of use under diagnostic imaging which falls under field of use and technological environment. 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 limitation(s) do/does 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 Revised Guidance, representative claims 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 “through an object recognition model”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor). The claim recites black-box “object recognition model” to perform ROI identification which is merely instructing a generic computer component to apply the underlying observational step. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-17 and 20, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe image rotation, detection of ROI in the rotated image, determining a direction based on ROI ratio change, determining flight angle/orientation based on ratio change relative to image center and calculating probability values which fall under both metal process and mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 7, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes database organization of IDs and past images which falls under [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 2-3, 11, 13 and 18-19, do recite significantly more than an abstract idea has they recite concrete technological implantation including control of physical positioning of two UAV’s for imaging.
Conclusion
References Cited
10. The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20180003161A1 discloses a UAV-based wind turbine inspection system that captures blade images/sensor data, wirelessly transmits data and determines blade orientation to plan inspection flight paths. Its orientation methods rely on sensor telemetry, point-cloud geometry, camera-based pose estimation and known blade dimensions. However, failing to detect a bounding-box ROI of a discrete object within an acquired image, nor does it teach generating a rotated image and comparing ROI length changes to determine flight direction. Instead, its navigation is based on physical measurements and structural geometry not image-rotation analysis.
US20220114739A1 discloses UAV visual tracking using camera images, where object detection generates a bounding box and tracking is performed though cross-frame correlation, feature matching, and motion prediction. While the reference discloses an ROI/bounding-box detection technique similar to the claim, it does not teach rotating an image or comparing ROI dimension changes between rotated and original images. Instead, its output is object location in image coordinates and not UAV flight direction or navigation control.
US20170329037A1 discloses a UAV based X-ray/CT imaging system that captures and wirelessly transmits image and determines imaging geometry through physical UAV rotation, fiducial markers, and object-distance sensing. It is relevant to UAV imaging and wireless transmission but it fails to teach image-based ROI detection using an object recognition model or digitally rotating an image to compare ROI length changes for determining flight direction. Instead, its rotation refers to physical movement of the UAV’s and not manipulation of image data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights