DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filed on 18 NOVEMBER 2025.
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 Objections
Claims 1-4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “for collecting a the video stream comprising” should read --for collecting the video stream images comprising--
Claim 4, “based in part on the geodetic location” should read --based in part on a geodetic location--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,299,130 B2 (hereinafter “Mulligan”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0327950 A1 (hereinafter “Bachrach”).
Regarding claim 1, Mulligan discloses a measurement system (col. 1, ll. 13-14, “unmanned vehicles that autonomously track vehicles and/or other unmanned vehicles”) comprising:
a first system (FIG. 1, vehicle 12; FIG. 4, moving ground station 403) comprising a ground station configured to receive video stream images (col. 3, ll. 37-39, “UAV 10 includes a global positioning system (GPS) receiver and transmits current coordinates to vehicle 12. Vehicle 12 may also include a GPS receiver;” col. 3, ll. 62-63, “UAV 10 may include a camera for recording images and may transmit those images to vehicle 12;” FIG. 13 depicts an Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed (ECEF) Cartesian coordinate system (e.g., x, y coordinates)); and
a second system (FIG. 1, UAV 10; FIG. 4, UAV 401) comprising an aerial platform configured to (FIG. 19 depicts the UAV hovering over the designated area) and a vertical camera scoring unit (VCSU) (FIG. 4, autopilot hardware and software 405), the aerial platform and VCSU comprising:
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to measure orientation and movement (col. 6, ll. 27-31, “an inertial navigational system (e.g., a gyroscopic navigational system) to determine position and velocity information. Processor 601 receives position and velocity information from a surveillance vehicle.” Note, a gyroscope determines orientation and movement in an orientation);
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (col. 6, ll. 60-61, “GPS receiver 711”) configured to determine geo-reference coordinates of a reference point (col. 6, ll. 60-61, “UAV 700 determines position and velocity information about itself from GPS information”); and
a camera system (FIG. 7, camera 709) and mounting system (FIG. 9, camera 903 mounted on a left wing 905) configured to orient the camera towards the measurement area underneath the first system (FIGS. 1 and 2 depict the camera towards the measurement area under vehicles 12 and 22, respectively), the camera operable to capture the video stream of images of the measurement area (FIGS. 1 and 2 depict the real time video being captured of the measurement area), wherein the camera system and mounting system is configured (FIGS. 1 and 2 depict collecting video images over land and water, respectively) for point or distance measurement or for velocity determinations of vehicles or objects traversing through each of the plan view video images (col. 1, ll. 50-52, “obtains images around the convoy’s position provide information about potential hostile activity.” Note, when determining a location of hostile activity in the images it is point measurement);
wherein the second system is configured to compute a single absolute geodetic point position (col. 6, ll. 60-61, “UAV 700 determines position and velocity information about itself from GPS information”), the camera communicates the video stream and data to the first system (col. 3, ll. 62-63, “UAV 10 may include a camera for recording images and may transmit those images to vehicle 12;” col. 6, ll. 60-61, “UAV 700 determines position and velocity information about itself from GPS information”) wherein a point, distance, and velocity results are computed (FIG. 19 depicts a path planner for the UAV that includes the UAV position over time at a given velocity that is simulated at the ground station).
Mulligan fails to expressly disclose select a first and second image from the video stream that is correlated with geographic x, y coordinates of a measurement area;
aerial platform configured to maintain a stationary hover over the measurement area; and
orient the camera directly plumb downward.
However, Bachrach teaches select a first and second image from the video stream that is correlated with geographic x, y coordinates of a measurement area (FIGS. 12A-12D discloses touching (e.g., selecting) the live image feed (e.g., images) for controlling the FDA 100 (e.g., UAV));
aerial platform configured to maintain a stationary hover over the measurement area ([0104], l. 23, “the quadcopter can maintain a hover”); and
orient the camera directly plumb downward ([0049], l. 8, “image capture from looking straight down”).
Additionally, Bachrach also determines measurements utilizing an IMU and GNSS for performing the functionalities of the UAV (FIG. 13, IMU 1328 and GPS 1320).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a UAV with hovering capabilities that have a camera facing downwards, and where images are selected, as taught by Bachrach ([0049; 0104] and FIG. 13), in Mulligan’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Mulligan’s invention, by incorporating Bachrach’s invention, to provide an intuitive and user-friendly control of a UAV (Bachrach: [0003]).
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,299,130 B2 (hereinafter “Mulligan”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0327950 A1 (hereinafter “Bachrach”), and further in view of Park et al., “A New Nonlinear Guidance Logic for Trajectory Tracking” (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 2, Mulligan and Bachrach disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Mulligan and Bachrach fail to expressly disclose further comprising control sections configured for determining miss distances from a virtual target location using the first and second systems, wherein the virtual target location can comprise a geodetic position, latitude and longitude, representing an actual location of interest on an ocean surface that lacks a physical real-world target located thereon.
However, Park teaches further comprising control sections configured for determining miss distances from a virtual target location using the first and second systems, wherein the virtual target location can comprise a geodetic position, latitude and longitude, representing an actual location of interest on an ocean surface that lacks a physical real-world target located thereon (p. 2, Section II, FIG. 1 depicts the guidance of a UAV by using a reference point on a desired path and determining distances therewith; Section III discloses the use of a GPS, which provides geodetic positioning. Note, as per the disclosure of Mulligan in the rejection of claim 1, ocean flight paths are well known as well as offloading to a base station trajectory logistics).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a flight path trajectory tracking, as taught by Park (FIG. 1), in Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention. One would have been motivated to modify Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention, by incorporating Park’s invention, to provide for superior performance in guiding unmanned air vehicles (Park: p. 1).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,299,130 B2 (hereinafter “Mulligan”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0327950 A1 (hereinafter “Bachrach”), and further in view U.S. Patent No. 5,378,155 (hereinafter “Eldridge”).
Regarding claim 3, Mulligan and Bachrach disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Mulligan and Bachrach fail to expressly disclose further comprising control sections configured for determining and computing relative miss distances from a floating spherically shaped target in open ocean, where the target can represent a vehicle being engaged or tracked.
However Eldridge teaches further comprising control sections configured for determining and computing relative miss distances from a floating spherically shaped target in open ocean, where the target can represent a vehicle being engaged or tracked (FIG. 5 discloses the communication process for determining hit or misses of missiles; FIG. 10 discloses that targets can be submarines 750, which have cylindrically shaped from/back end hulls).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a relative miss distance, as taught by Eldridge (FIG. 5), in Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention. One would have been motivated to modify Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention, by incorporating Eldridge’s invention, to reduce the cost expenses for infrastructure and maintenance in combat operations (Eldridge: col. 2, ll. 61-68).
Regarding claim 4, Mulligan and Bachrach disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. Mulligan and Bachrach fail to expressly disclose further comprising a scoring system that determines geodetic score and relative miss score respectively based in part on the geodetic location.
However, Eldridge teaches further comprising a scoring system that determines geodetic score and relative miss score respectively based in part on the geodetic location (col. 3, ll. 31-33, “determine the flight trajectory of the missile and to determine whether or not the missile hit the target aircraft;” FIG. 10 discloses the use of GPS 11-15 for geodetic positioning of all the vehicles. col. 5, ll. 40-43, “The accurate relative positions of the aircraft enable calculation of the missile trajectory;” col. 27, ll. 27-36, “The combined GPS/IRU provides position, velocity, acceleration, and attitude data to the combat simulation processor 174, which records the position in a flight recording means or memory 172. Missile or ordnance status information at launch is also recorded in the memory 172. Therefore, the processor 174 operates as a launch means, a launch status means, a target status means or a flight status means according to the position and status which are being calculated.” col. 16, ll. 59-62, “receiving positioning signals from Global Positioning System satellites, and wherein said path status means determines said position based upon said positioning signals”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a scoring system, as taught by Eldridge (col. 3, ll. 31-33), in Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention. One would have been motivated to modify Mulligan and Bachrach’s joint invention, by incorporating Eldridge’s invention, to reduce the cost expenses for infrastructure and maintenance in combat operations (Eldridge: col. 2, ll. 61-68).
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 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,140,326 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘326”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are entirely anticipated by Patent ‘326. The subject matter of, for example, independent claim 4 of Patent ‘326 overlaps the instant application’s subject matter by the limitations of determining a travel distance and velocity of an object based on two images and geodetic points. Each of the instant application and Patent ‘326 disclose the same structural limitations of an aerial platform with IMU, GNSS, and a camera pointing downwards (e.g., nadir and plumb), which is associated with geographic positioning.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,326 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘326”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,378,155 (hereinafter “Eldridge”).
Regarding claim 3, Patent ‘326 discloses every limitation of the instant application, except for the following: further comprising control sections configured for determining and computing relative miss distances from a floating spherically shaped target in open ocean, where the target can represent a vehicle being engaged or tracked.
However Eldridge teaches further comprising control sections configured for determining and computing relative miss distances from a floating spherically shaped target in open ocean, where the target can represent a vehicle being engaged or tracked (FIG. 5 discloses the communication process for determining hit or misses of missiles; FIG. 10 discloses that targets can be submarines 750, which have cylindrically shaped from/back end hulls).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a relative miss distance, as taught by Eldridge (FIG. 5), in Patent ‘326. One would have been motivated to modify Patent ‘326, by incorporating Eldridge’s invention, to reduce the cost expenses for infrastructure and maintenance in combat operations (Eldridge: col. 2, ll. 61-68).
Regarding claim 4, Patent ‘326 discloses every limitation of the instant application, except for the following: further comprising a scoring system that determines geodetic score and relative miss score respectively based in part on the geodetic location.
However, Eldridge teaches further comprising a scoring system that determines geodetic score and relative miss score respectively based in part on the geodetic location (col. 3, ll. 31-33, “determine the flight trajectory of the missile and to determine whether or not the missile hit the target aircraft;” FIG. 10 discloses the use of GPS 11-15 for geodetic positioning of all the vehicles. col. 5, ll. 40-43, “The accurate relative positions of the aircraft enable calculation of the missile trajectory;” col. 27, ll. 27-36, “The combined GPS/IRU provides position, velocity, acceleration, and attitude data to the combat simulation processor 174, which records the position in a flight recording means or memory 172. Missile or ordnance status information at launch is also recorded in the memory 172. Therefore, the processor 174 operates as a launch means, a launch status means, a target status means or a flight status means according to the position and status which are being calculated.” col. 16, ll. 59-62, “receiving positioning signals from Global Positioning System satellites, and wherein said path status means determines said position based upon said positioning signals”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a scoring system, as taught by Eldridge (col. 3, ll. 31-33), in Patent ‘326. One would have been motivated to modify Patent ‘326, by incorporating Eldridge’s invention, to reduce the cost expenses for infrastructure and maintenance in combat operations (Eldridge: col. 2, ll. 61-68).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 4,726,224 (hereinafter “D’Ausillio”) - Discloses a system for testing weapons from space, including determining hit or miss distances from virtual targets. See D’Ausillio, col. 5, ll. 61-67.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
