DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,032,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious variant of each other.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,032,622
Claim 21:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a server and from a user device, one or more payloads associated with respective one or more source files of reality capture data corresponding to one or more regions of interest, each payload including metadata of a corresponding source file;
classifying, by the server, each of the one or more source files of the reality capture data into an asset class that identifies a type of digital reality capture asset to be generated based on the source file, based on the payload including the metadata of the source file; and
providing, by the server and to the user device, information identifying the asset class of each source file to permit a digital reality capture asset, corresponding to the asset class, of a corresponding region of interest to be generated based on the source file, wherein the user device is configured to update or modify the information identifying the asset class or the corresponding source file based on the information identifying the asset class provided from the server.
Claim 1:
A method for classifying a set of source files of reality capture data into an asset class of digital reality capture assets, the method comprising:
receiving, by a server and from a user device, a set of payloads including metadata of the set of source files of the reality capture data corresponding to a region of interest captured by a camera;
classifying, by the server, the set of source files of the reality capture data into the asset class that identifies a type of digital reality capture asset to be generated based on the set of source files, based on the set of payloads including the metadata of the set of source files of the reality capture data; and
providing, by the server and to the user device, information identifying the asset class of the digital reality capture assets to which the set of source files are classified to permit a digital reality capture asset, corresponding to the asset class, of the region of interest to be generated based on the set of source files, wherein the information identifying the asset class includes an instruction for the user device to automatically update the source files to include the information identifying the asset class of the digital reality capture assets to which the set of source files are classified.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the additional elements " automatically update the source files to include the information identifying the asset class of the digital reality capture assets to which the set of source files are classified " of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,032,622 to arrive at the claims 21-40 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 21 and similarly claims 28 and 35 recite the limitations of
receiving, by a server and from a user device, one or more payloads associated with respective one or more source files of reality capture data corresponding to one or more regions of interest, each payload including metadata of a corresponding source file; classifying, by the server, each of the one or more source files of the reality capture data into an asset class that identifies a type of digital reality capture asset to be generated based on the source file, based on the payload including the metadata of the source file; and providing, by the server and to the user device, information identifying the asset class of each source file to permit a digital reality capture asset, corresponding to the asset class, of a corresponding region of interest to be generated based on the source file, wherein the user device is configured to update or modify the information identifying the asset class or the corresponding source file based on the information identifying the asset class provided from the server.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving/analyzing/presenting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example but for the language of a processor and memory, the claim language encompasses receiving a set of payloads including metadata corresponding to an area of interest captured by a camera (i.e. human viewing images taken by a camera writes down metadata on paper, thus creating source files), classifying the source files (i.e. human mind classifies the files into categories), providing the classification information (Human writes the classification down on paper and presents it to another individual). The act of receiving data, classifying data, and providing the classification has been around for the technological age.
It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of processor and memory. These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as its parent claims 21, 28, and 35 as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claim merely narrow the scope of its parent claim.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 21-23, 28-30, 35-37 recites digital reality capture assets, user device, a camera, payloads
Claim 24, 31, and 38 recites an unmanned aerial vehicle
Claim 28-40 recites a processor and memory
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic, the applicant specifications states a general purpose computer as seen in para [0030]-[0038].
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the applicant’s specification merely states a general purpose computer as seen in para [0030]-[0038]. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speasl et al (US 2020/0184706 A1).
As to claims 21, 28, and 35, Speasl teaches A method comprising:
receiving, by a server and from a user device, one or more payloads associated with respective one or more source files of reality capture data corresponding to one or more regions of interest, each payload including metadata of a corresponding source file (Speasl discloses media asset data, such as images are captured by a camera on a sensor payload device. The sensor payload device also generates and/or extracts metadata (e.g., EXIF metadata) corresponding to this captured media asset, for example identifying the sensor payload device and/or the UAV, a timestamp of capture, a date of capture, an author or owner of the sensor payload device and/or UAV, and any other metadata. See [0087]-[0090]);
classifying, by the server, each of the one or more source files of the reality capture data into an asset class that identifies a type of digital reality capture asset to be generated based on the source file, based on the payload including the metadata of the source file (Speasl discloses The image and/or sensor data may be categorized (i.e. classifying) at a step (e.g., for example based on type of media, time, location, other metadata associated with capture of the digital media, or some combination thereof) in [0090]); and
providing, by the server and to the user device, information identifying the asset class of each source file to permit a digital reality capture asset, corresponding to the asset class, of a corresponding region of interest to be generated based on the source file, wherein the user device is configured to update or modify the information identifying the asset class or the corresponding source file based on the information identifying the asset class provided from the server (Speasl discloses digital media data is certified and sent to servers which store, verify, file, organize, and publish the certified digital media data so that the certified digital media data is made accessible through the internet to client devices. See [0090]-[0092]).
As to claims 22, 29, and 36, Speasl teaches clustering the set of payloads into a cluster based on the metadata, wherein the classifying the set of source files comprises classifying the set of source files based on clustering the set of payloads into the cluster (Speasl disclose categorizing (i.e. clustering) image and/or sensor data based on metadata in [0090].).
As to claims 23, 30, and 37, Speasl teaches validating the set of source files based on classifying the set of source files into the asset class (Speasl discloses that after the image and/or sensor data is categorized, a public key is generated for the media asset, which can be verified in order to determine if it has changed in [0087].).
As to claims 24, 31, and 38, Speasl teaches the set of source files are generated by the camera of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (See [0003], [0004], [0087].).
As to claim 25, 32, and 39, Speasl teaches the metadata includes at least one of a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, a time stamp, an identifier of a camera, an identifier of an unmanned aerial vehicle, an identifier of a vehicle, a number of pixels, a pixel height, a pixel width, an aspect ratio, a file type, a flight identifier, a job identifier, a region of interest identifier, an entity identifier, an operator identifier, a user identifier, or a customer identifier (See [0088]).
As to claim 26, 33, and 40, Speasl teaches the asset class includes a panorama, a walkthrough, a progress photo, a progress video, a raw file, a pre-processed panorama, an orthomosaic, a thermal capture, a multi-spectral image, a slant range image, or a facade capture (Speasl discloses the UAV coupled to the sensor payload device travels along a path about the property in [0057]. See also [0050] for flight path of building.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 27 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speasl et al (US 2020/0184706 A1) in view of Venkiteswaran et al (US 20230188577 A1).
As to claim 27 and 34, Speasl fails to teach the set of payloads includes less data than the set of source files.
However, Venkiteswaran teaches the set of payloads includes less data than the set of source files (Venkiteswaran discloses the payload data may at least identify a particular subset of data stored by the external resource in [0160].).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the teachings of Speasl to incorporate the external content routing as taught by Venkiteswaran for the purpose of facilitating the execution of the content generation workflow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phelan et al (US 20210221506 A1) - a method and system for generating an area of interest for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) missions. Using radar and weather data, a mission area may be generated for flights which will maximize efficiency by pre-generating flight paths based on atmospheric and other data. The UAV may include artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities for processing imaging and other sensed data. Post-processing of the data may include additional AI training and processing.
Shoeb et al (US 20230316739 A1) - A method includes capturing, by a sensor on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), an image of a delivery location. The method also includes determining, based on the image of the delivery location, a segmentation image. The segmentation image segments the delivery location into a plurality of pixel areas with corresponding semantic classifications. The method additionally includes determining, based on the segmentation image, a percentage of obstacle pixels within a surrounding area of a delivery point at the delivery location, wherein each obstacle pixel has a semantic classification indicative of an obstacle in the delivery location. The method further includes based on the percentage of obstacle pixels being above a threshold percentage, aborting a delivery process of the UAV.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED M BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached on 5712724080. 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.
/JARED M BIBBEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights