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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 are currently pending.
2. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled.
3. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 20210129982 A1), in view of Singh (US 20230195118 A1), and in further view of Offer (GB 2520243 A).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Collins teaches a ship docking system, comprising (Collins: [0008] and [0176]):
A computing device (Collins: [0111]);
An unmanned aerial vehicle, communicating wirelessly with the computing device, and pre-docked on a charging platform (Collins: [0067] and [0085]);
And a display device, communicating wirelessly with the computing device (Collins: [0113] and [0151]),
Wherein the computing device controls the unmanned aerial vehicle to move to a preset height above the ship when the computing device determines that the ship is performing a port entry operation, and the computing device controls the unmanned aerial vehicle to obtain a panoramic image of the ship (Collins: [0052] and [0111]),
And the unmanned aerial vehicle transmits the panoramic image to the computing device, so that the computing device analyzes the panoramic image to perform a collision prediction of the ship, and transmits a collision prediction result to the display device (Collins: [0098], [0111], [0151], and [0182] Note that performing a collision prediction is equivalent to predicting the estimated location of a target at future times and directing a visual warning of threats ahead.).
Collins fails to explicitly teach the collision prediction comprises the computing device determining a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, and determining whether to generate a collision warning; and the computing device estimates a subsequent displacement path and a subsequent displacement position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions, and estimates that the ship is moving to the subsequent displacement position via the subsequent displacement path to avoid a collision.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Singh teaches the collision prediction comprises the computing device determining a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, and determining whether to generate a collision warning (Singh: [0034], [0071], and [0079]),
and the computing device estimates a subsequent displacement path and a subsequent displacement position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions (Singh: [0034], [0048], and [0090]),
And estimates that the ship is moving to the subsequent displacement position via the subsequent displacement path to avoid a collision (Singh: [0048], [0063], and [0075]).
Collins and Singh are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of UAV and marine vessel control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to incorporate the teachings of Singh to determine a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, determine whether to generate a collision warning, and estimate the ship is moving to displacement position via the displacement path to avoid a collision because it provides the benefit of collision avoidance and increases the safety of the crew on board the marine vessel. Ensuring the marine vessel is correctly oriented on the path provides the benefit of maintaining a threshold distance from a collidable object (ex: edge of shipping channel or another vessel) to avoid collisions.
Collins and Singh fail to explicitly teach the computing device reads a first panoramic image and a second panoramic image at adjacent time points of the ship, and calculates a plurality of feature points in the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image, the computing device calculates an optical flow formed by the feature points between the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image at the adjacent time points, so as to obtain a plurality of moving feature points, and the computing device estimates positions of the feature points of the first panoramic image in the second panoramic image, so as to filter out a plurality of feature points with unchanged positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Offer teaches the computing device reads a first panoramic image and a second panoramic image at adjacent time points of the ship, and calculates a plurality of feature points in the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image (Offer: [Page 12, Lines 9-10] and [Page 12, Lines 18-24]),
The computing device calculates an optical flow formed by the feature points between the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image at the adjacent time points, so as to obtain a plurality of moving feature points, and the computing device estimates positions of the feature points of the first panoramic image in the second panoramic image, so as to filter out a plurality of feature points with unchanged positions (Offer: [Page 6, Lines 20-24], [Page 13, Lines 1-4], and [Page 19, Lines 1-5]),
And the computing device estimates a subsequent displacement… position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions (Offer: [Page 16, Lines 13-19] Note that estimating a displacement position of the vehicle according to feature points is equivalent to determining the other aircraft and ground features are increasing in size.).
Collins, Singh, and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle image processing and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins and Singh to incorporate the teachings of Offer to calculate an optical flow formed by feature points to estimate a displacement position of the vehicle according to the feature points because it provides the benefit of determining a collision between objects. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness and safety to avoid/mitigating collisions and keep the passengers, vehicles, and surroundings safe.
9. Regarding Claim 3, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Singh teaches the collision prediction further comprises the computing device determining whether a probability value of the ship colliding with at least one obstacle on the path is higher than a preset threshold value, so as to generate the collision warning (Singh: [0066] and [0069] Note that determining a probability of the ship colliding with an obstacle being higher than a threshold value is equivalent to determining an object has crossed a virtual boundary of the ship.).
10. Regarding Claim 4, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Singh teaches the collision prediction further comprises the computing device determining whether a moving object approaches and enters a safe range of the ship, so as to generate the collision warning (Singh: [0066] and [0069]).
11. Regarding Claim 6, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Collins teaches the collision warning comprises a warning sound or displays a position of a warning object on the display device (Collins: [0183]).
12. Regarding Claim 7, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Singh teaches the computing device performs an image processing on the panoramic image to generate an orthophoto, and performs the collision prediction of the ship according to the orthophoto (Singh: [0056]).
13. Regarding Claim 8, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Collins teaches the charging platform comprises: a charging device, configured to contact the unmanned aerial vehicle (Collins: [0017] and [0061]);
A charging module, electrically connected to the charging device; a rechargeable battery, electrically connected to the charging module (Collins: [0054]);
And a positioning module, disposed on the charging platform, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle locates a position of the charging platform through the positioning module when the computing device controls the unmanned aerial vehicle to return to the charging platform (Collins: [0082], [0086], and [0093] Note that the landing pad having the tracking target or RF-based localization on the mobile platform (vehicle) is equivalent to the positioning module disposed on the charging platform.),
And the charging platform obtains a charging power from the charging module and the rechargeable battery through the charging device to charge the unmanned aerial vehicle when the unmanned aerial vehicle is docked on the charging platform (Collins: [0063] and [0078]).
14. Regarding Claim 9, Collins, Singh, and Offer remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Collins teaches the positioning module comprises a marking pattern, the marking pattern comprises a plurality of coded marking points, the marking points comprise a plurality of first marking points for determining a number, a plurality of second marking points for determining an orientation of a vehicle, and a plurality of third marking points for determining an attitude of the vehicle (Collins: [0094], [0120], and [0121] Note that the first markers are equivalent to the lights turned on to indicate the landing pad is available so that the UAV can land on a correct landing pad. Also, note that the second and third marking points are equivalent to the marker indicative of the orientation of the mobile platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the attitude of the vehicle is determined by the orientation (pitch, roll, yaw) because the attitude refers to the orientation of a vehicle in a fixed frame of reference.).
15. Regarding Claim 10, Collins teaches a ship docking method, comprising (Collins: [0008] and [0176]):
Pre-docking an unmanned aerial vehicle on a charging platform (Collins: [0067] and [0085]);
And controlling the unmanned aerial vehicle to move to a preset height above a ship through a computing device when the computing device determines that the ship is performing a port entry operation (Collins: [0052] and [0111]),
Controlling the unmanned aerial vehicle to obtain a panoramic image of the ship through the computing device; transmitting the panoramic image to the computing device through the unmanned aerial vehicle; and analyzing the panoramic image through the computing device to perform a collision prediction of the ship, and transmitting a collision prediction result to a display device (Collins: [0098], [0111], [0151], and [0182] Note that performing a collision prediction is equivalent to predicting the estimated location of a target at future times and directing a visual warning of threats ahead.).
Collins fails to explicitly teach the collision prediction comprises the computing device determining a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, and determining whether to generate a collision warning; and estimating a subsequent displacement path and a subsequent displacement position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions through the computing device, and estimating that the ship is moving to the subsequent displacement position via the subsequent displacement path to avoid a collision.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Singh teaches the collision prediction comprises the computing device determining a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, and determining whether to generate a collision warning (Singh: [0034], [0071], and [0079]),
Estimating a subsequent displacement path and a subsequent displacement position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions through the computing device (Singh: [0034], [0048], and [0090]),
And estimating that the ship is moving to the subsequent displacement position via the subsequent displacement path to avoid a collision (Singh: [0048], [0063], and [0075]).
Collins and Singh are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of UAV and marine vessel control and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to incorporate the teachings of Singh to determine a path of the ship according to a channel of the ship, determine whether to generate a collision warning, and estimate the ship is moving to displacement position via the displacement path to avoid a collision because it provides the benefit of collision avoidance and increases the safety of the crew on board the marine vessel. Ensuring the marine vessel is correctly oriented on the path provides the benefit of maintaining a threshold distance from a collidable object (ex: edge of shipping channel or another vessel) to avoid collisions.
Collins and Singh fail to explicitly teach reading a first panoramic image and a second panoramic image at adjacent time points of the ship, and calculating a plurality of feature points in the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image through the computing device; calculating an optical flow formed by the feature points between the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image at the adjacent time points, so as to obtain a plurality of moving feature points, and estimating positions of the feature points of the first panoramic image in the second panoramic image, so as to filter out a plurality of feature points with unchanged positions through the computing device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Offer teaches reading a first panoramic image and a second panoramic image at adjacent time points of the ship, and calculating a plurality of feature points in the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image through the computing device (Offer: [Page 12, Lines 9-10] and [Page 12, Lines 18-24]);
Calculating an optical flow formed by the feature points between the first panoramic image and the second panoramic image at the adjacent time points, so as to obtain a plurality of moving feature points, and estimating positions of the feature points of the first panoramic image in the second panoramic image, so as to filter out a plurality of feature points with unchanged positions through the computing device (Offer: [Page 6, Lines 20-24], [Page 13, Lines 1-4], and [Page 19, Lines 1-5]);
And estimating a subsequent displacement… position of the ship according to the moving feature points and the feature points with unchanged positions through the computing device (Offer: [Page 16, Lines 13-19] Note that estimating a displacement position of the vehicle according to feature points is equivalent to determining the other aircraft and ground features are increasing in size.).
Collins, Lee, and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle image processing and control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins and Lee to incorporate the teachings of Offer to calculate an optical flow formed by feature points to estimate a displacement position of the vehicle according to the feature points because it provides the benefit of determining a collision between objects. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness and safety to avoid/mitigating collisions and keep the passengers, vehicles, and surroundings safe.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Singh (US 20230195118 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of estimating the ship is moving to the subsequent displacement position via the subsequent displacement path to avoid a collision in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0048], [0063], and [0075]. Singh teaches determine a direction/orientation of movement for the marine vessel based on a trajectory to avoid a collision with other objects.
17. Collins (US 20210129982 A1), in view of Singh (US 20230195118 A1), and in further view of Offer (GB 2520243 A) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
18. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
19. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663