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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 18 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20080243383 A1 in view of D01 AU 2021202781 A1 and further in view of D02 US 20080139330 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 10 18 D1 teaches
1. A system for determining kinematics of at least one object, the system comprising;
a tracking computer including one or more processors and a memory;(implicit)
a camera system[0060](imaging sensor) in electronic communication with the tracking computer and configured to capture images of the at least one object;([0060]implicit+[0016])
a light detection and ranging (LIDAR)([0016] ladar) system in electronic communication with the tracking computer and configured to detect the at least one object;[0016]
wherein the memory contains processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the tracking computer to(implicit)
receive image data from the camera system and receive LIDAR data from the LIDAR system([0016] video camera and ladar sensor data are fused), and
analyze the image data and the LIDAR data to determine flight characteristics of the at least one object.[0034, 0051]
(claims 10 and 18 are broader in scope than claim 1 and therefore rejected as in claim 1 )
But does not teach
analyze the image data and the LIDAR data to determine one or more flight characteristics of the at least one object at one or more downrange positions, wherein the flight characteristics include at least a flight spin, a speed, and a trajectory of the at least one object at the one or more downrange positions, and
based on the one or more flight characteristics, determine one or more launch conditions of the at least one object at a launch point, wherein the launch conditions include at least one of a launch angle, a launch speed, or a launch spin of the at least one object at the launch point.
D01 teaches obtaining the track of flight by using a flight spin, a speed, and a trajectory
based on the one or more flight characteristics, determine one or more launch conditions of the at least one object at a launch point, wherein the launch conditions include at least one of an angle, a speed, or a spin of the at least one object at the launch point (see claims 1 and 6)
D02 teaches instead of forward tracking doing backtracking towards the launch site.[0028]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D01 in order to obtain the tracking model of the golf ball and further modify using teachings by D02 in order to track back the golf ball towards the launch position
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the camera system is configured to capture a sequential series of two or more images.[0082](implicit Sequential detection of target maneuvers )
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the flight characteristics of the 3D object include at least one of launch angle, speed, trajectory[0022], and spin.
20. The method of claim 18 further comprising:
capturing image data of the 3D object; and[0072]
analyzing the image data to determine flight characteristics of the 3D object.[0072, 0074]
Claim(s) 3-7, 8, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Although D1 does not explicitly teach
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the camera system is configured to capture a plurality of images at a frame rate of greater than 500 frames per second.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the camera system is configured to capture a plurality of images at a frame rate of greater than 1,000 frames per second.
5, 12 The system of claim 1, wherein the LIDAR system has a scan frequency of greater than 150 kHz.
6, 13 The system of claim 5, wherein the LIDAR system has a pulse wavelength between 1500 nm to 2000 nm.
Choice of the frame rates is just a design choice to provide detailed tracking of objects moving with different speed(for example fast speed objects require larger frame rate), similarly scan frequency and wavelength is design choice to provide desired resolution and wavelength for example in invisible or visible spectrum (in this example Applicant uses infrared spectrum which is commonly used to increase eye safety) .
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the image and light detection data are wirelessly transmitted to the tracking computer.(obvious well known data transferring method)
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the flight characteristics of the at least one object include three dimensional displacement [0079]and velocity of the at least one object(if not explicit then at least obvious to predict the path).
14. The system of claim 10, wherein the LIDAR system includes multiple LIDAR devices configured to detect the at least one object.(obvious in order to cover different FOV)
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the LIDAR system includes a first LIDAR device and a second LIDAR device, the first and second LIDAR devices each configured to detect the at least one object, wherein the first LIDAR device is configured to scan for the at least one object in a first field of view and the second LIDAR device is configured to scan for the at least one object in a second field of view different than the first field of view.(obvious modification to place plurality of detectors to detect different regions of interest with predictive obvious result for one of ordinary skills in the art)
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the first LIDAR device emits and receives at a different frequency than the second LIDAR device.(obvious well known modification to avoid interference between lidars and scanning multiple FOV)
17. The system of claim 10, wherein the LIDAR system includes one or more LIDAR devices configured to emit multiple lasers simultaneously.(obvious modification to scan multiple FOV simultaneously)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 10809380 B2.
While D1 does no teach D2 teaches
9. The system of claim 1 further comprising a strobe lighting element(col 1 lines 15-33) and a triggering device(col 1 lines 49-64), wherein the strobe lighting element is tied to the triggering device so as to synchronize with the LIDAR system. (col 1 lines 49-64),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to temporarily synchronize camera with lidar when both are within same FOV.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, D01 and D02 further in view of D3 US 20200148102 A1.
While D1 does not teach D3 teaches
11. The system of claim 10 further comprising a triggering device in electronic communication with the tracking computer, the triggering device configured to transmit a launch signal to the tracking computer when the at least one object is launched from a launch point.[0068][0043]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to ensure safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645