DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position of the object" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 2, lines 14-15, recites “a bounding box indicative of the position of the object”. Claim 1, lines 9-10, recites “a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the position if the object in claim 2, is the same as the position of the position of the object recited in claim 1 or if this is a new or different position of the object being introduced. In other words, claim 2 recites a bounding box that is indicative of the position of the object, and claim 1 recites the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object. Therefore, it is unclear if the contour and bounding box are indicative of or relating to the same position of the object or if they are representing separate distinct positions for the object in question. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the bounding box and contour to be indicative of the same position of the object. Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 4, lines 8-9, recites “applying the optimal control output to each respective propeller motor of the plurality of propeller motors”. Claim 4, lines 2-4, recites “determining, by the processor, an optimal control output to be applied to a respective propeller motor of a plurality of propeller motors of a multirotor”. It is unclear to the Examiner why the optimal control output is being applied to each of the respective propeller motors because in claim 4, lines 2-4, it specifies that the processor is determining an optimal control output to be applied to a respective propeller motor (i.e., one of the plurality). In claims 8-9, it then recites it is applying the optimal control output determined for one of the plurality of propeller motors to each of the respective propeller motors. Therefore, it is unclear if the plurality of propeller motors are in fact receiving the same optimal control output or if the claim is meant to specify that is it determining a respective optimal control output for each of the plurality of motors and applying each respective optimal control output to each of the respective propeller motors. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets these propeller motors to each receive respective optimal control outputs (i.e., possibly varying based on the multirotor state and determined specifically for that motor).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the multirotor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the capture void" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, line 4, recites “a position of the object”. Claim 1, lines 9-10, recites “a position of the object”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the position in claim 6 is a new or different position being introduced or if this is the same as the position of the object being recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be the same position.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-3 and 6 are directed towards a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-3 and 6 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1, the method (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) extracting, at the processor, a plurality of closed contours from the frame and (b) identifying, at the processor, a largest closed contour of the plurality of closed contours placed within a region for a minimum threshold quantity of consecutive frames, wherein a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can mentally extract (i.e., determine) a plurality of closed contours from the frame and identify a largest closed contour of the plurality of closed contours placed within a region for a minimum threshold quantity of consecutive frames, wherein a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the extracting and identifying is being performed by a processor (i.e., a computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 1, data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving, at a processor in communication with a memory, a video feed including a frame indicative of an object from an image capture device, is mere data gathering. Therefore, receiving, at a processor in communication with a memory, a video feed including a frame indicative of an object from an image capture device is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Applying a specularity removal operation to the frame, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, applying a specularity removal operation to the frame (i.e., processing and outputting an image to suppress the specular component of a surface’s reflection) is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Receiving, at a processor in communication with a memory, a video feed including a frame indicative of an object from an image capture device is receiving/transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “receiving, at a processor in communication with a memory, a video feed including a frame indicative of an object from an image capture device” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-3 and 6 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-3 and 6 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20200074673 A1) in view of Hanks (US 20190340768 A1) in further view of Colburn et al. (US 9769392 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches a method, comprising: receiving, at a processor in communication with a memory, a video feed including a frame indicative of an object from an image capture device (¶[0018] “track a moving object in digital video”); extracting, at the processor, a plurality of closed contours from the frame (¶[0030] “multiple objects may be simultaneously tracked in the digital video”; [0040] “object tracking system 116 selects feature points 120 on surfaces, edges, boundaries, and contours (referred to collectively herein as “edge surfaces 126”) of the object”).
Gupta does not explicitly teach identifying, at the processor, a largest closed contour of the plurality of closed contours placed within a region for a minimum threshold quantity of consecutive frames, wherein a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object; and applying a specularity removal operation to the frame. However, Hanks discloses a system and method of tracking an object and teaches identifying, at the processor, a largest closed contour of the plurality of closed contours placed within a region for a minimum threshold quantity of consecutive frames (¶[0032] “largest contour”), wherein a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object (¶[0004] “a position of the object based on the motion”; ¶[0032] “motion of the object is tracked by finding the largest contour”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object tracking verification in digital video method of Gupta to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, identifying, at the processor, a largest closed contour of the plurality of closed contours placed within a region for a minimum threshold quantity of consecutive frames, wherein a position of the largest closed contour within the frame is indicative of the position of the object, as taught by Hanks, to provide tracking the motion of the object by comparing change. (Hanks at ¶[0032])
The combination of Gupta and Hanks does not explicitly teach applying a specularity removal operation to the frame. However, Colburn discloses an imaging system for addressing specular reflection and teaches applying a specularity removal operation to the frame (Col. 2, lines 29-49, regarding removing specular reflections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object tracking verification in digital video method of Gupta as modified by Hanks to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, applying a specularity removal operation to the frame, as taught by Colburn, to provide generating an image of the object that does not include any of the specular reflections. (Colburn at Col. 2, lines 29-49)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20200074673 A1) in view of Hanks (US 20190340768 A1) in view of Colburn et al. (US 9769392 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Moses et al. (US 20200031438 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gupta, Hanks and Colburn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor, an optimal control output to be applied to a respective propeller motor of a plurality of propeller motors of a multirotor based on the position of the object and a set of positional and attitudinal properties of the multirotor such that the multirotor encapsulates the object within a capture void of the multirotor upon landing on a landing surface; and applying the optimal control output to each respective propeller motor of the plurality of propeller motors. However, Moses discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle search and rescue system and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor, an optimal control output to be applied to a respective propeller motor of a plurality of propeller motors of a multirotor based on the position of the object and a set of positional and attitudinal properties of the multirotor such that the multirotor encapsulates the object within a capture void of the multirotor upon landing on a landing surface (¶[0051]-[0052] “autonomous operation” “the drone 10 may lower a basket 32 or harness down to the swimmer while the drone 10 hovers overhead”); and applying the optimal control output to each respective propeller motor of the plurality of propeller motors (¶[0051]-[0052] “autonomous operation” “the drone 10 may lower a basket 32 or harness down to the swimmer while the drone 10 hovers overhead”, i.e., the drone is autonomously applying control to navigate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object tracking verification in digital video method of Gupta as modified by Hanks as modified by Colburn to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising: determining, by the processor, an optimal control output to be applied to a respective propeller motor of a plurality of propeller motors of a multirotor based on the position of the object and a set of positional and attitudinal properties of the multirotor such that the multirotor encapsulates the object within a capture void of the multirotor upon landing on a landing surface; and applying the optimal control output to each respective propeller motor of the plurality of propeller motors, as taught by Moses, to provide flying a swimmer back to safety. (Moses at ¶[0051])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20200074673 A1) in view of Hanks (US 20190340768 A1) in view of Colburn et al. (US 9769392 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tang (CN 112644699 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gupta, Hanks and Colburn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: actuating a net mechanism of the multirotor such that a net of the multirotor spans across the capture void to capture the object within the net. However, Tang discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle device for picking and picking up garbage on a water surface and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: actuating a net mechanism of the multirotor such that a net of the multirotor spans across the capture void to capture the object within the net (pages 3-6 “garbage fishing net”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object tracking verification in digital video method of Gupta as modified by Hanks as modified by Colburn to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising: actuating a net mechanism of the multirotor such that a net of the multirotor spans across the capture void to capture the object within the net, as taught by Tang, to provide satisfying the need of different volume void for object or garbage fishing. (Tang at page 2)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20200074673 A1) in view of Hanks (US 20190340768 A1) in view of Colburn et al. (US 9769392 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chen et al. (A Moving Target Tracking Control and Obstacle Avoidance of Quadrotor UAV based on Sliding Mode Control Using Artificial Potential Field and RBF Neural Networks).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gupta, Hanks and Colburn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a dynamic sliding manifold operation within a sliding mode control system based on constrained linear model predictive control that minimizes a position error between a position of the object and a position of the multirotor and minimizes a velocity error between a velocity of the object and a velocity of the multirotor and keeps the sliding mode control system within a boundary layer of the sliding mode control system. However, Chen discloses a moving target tracking control and obstacle avoidance of a quadrotor UAV and teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a dynamic sliding manifold operation within a sliding mode control system based on constrained linear model predictive control that minimizes a position error between a position of the object and a position of the multirotor and minimizes a velocity error between a velocity of the object and a velocity of the multirotor and keeps the sliding mode control system within a boundary layer of the sliding mode control system (page 3 regarding sliding manifold and the control strategy ensuring the attitude tracking errors converges to zero; also, page 2 regarding making the tracking error tend to 0 when it is necessary to avoid obstacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object tracking verification in digital video method of Gupta as modified by Hanks as modified by Colburn to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising: applying a dynamic sliding manifold operation within a sliding mode control system based on constrained linear model predictive control that minimizes a position error between a position of the object and a position of the multirotor and minimizes a velocity error between a velocity of the object and a velocity of the multirotor and keeps the sliding mode control system within a boundary layer of the sliding mode control system, as taught by Chen, to provide a sliding mode controller to improve the anti-interference capability and tracking performance of UAV. (Chen at page 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sequeira et al. (US 467274 B2) is pertinent because it is an unmanned aerial vehicle having at least one sensor for detecting the presence of a survivor in a search and rescue area.
Leung et al. (US 20180082428 A1) is pertinent because it is a system which includes determine a region of interest for an object in a video frame of a video sequence.
Albright (US 8998666 B1) is pertinent because it is a system and method for dispatching a rescue flotation device to an individual who has fallen overboard from a ship.
Yamashita (US 20140010409 A1) is pertinent because it is an object tracking device which tracks a target object in a time-series image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights