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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's RCE submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22 remain pending in the application, with claims 4 and 11 having been previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0265592 A1) in view of Gonzalez et al. (Gonzalez, R. C. and Woods, R. E. Digital Image Processing (New York, 2018), Pearson, pp. 77-104.), hereinafter Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 1, Newman teaches a method for identifying a feature within a scene (Newman, para 25: “The target-tracking system 106 is configured to identify and track at least one moving target 108 and identify at least one target track 110 associated with the target(s) 108.”), the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of images captured at different points in time and at different points in space by a single image sensor (Newman, para 24: “The imager 104 is configured to capture multiple image frames of at least one scene that includes one or more moving targets 108…The imager 104 includes any suitable structure configured to capture image frames, such as a camera or other imaging device.”; para 23 and 40 describes wherein the platform carrying the imager and/or the imager may be moving);
defining a reference plane that is perpendicular to a boresight of the single image sensor about which images captured by the single image sensor are centered in a reference frame selected from the plurality of images captured by the single image sensor (Newman, para 26: “reference image frame”; see FIG. 1 wherein the imager is perpendicular to the captured environment; thus, the plane of the image frames is perpendicular to the boresight of the sensor);
applying image warping to map a plurality of reference points of a respective image of the plurality of images in a sensor plane to corresponding reference points of the reference plane (Newman, para 34: “Warping elements 212, 214 are configured to receive the image frames 205, 209, respectively, and to generate first and second warped image frames 213, 215, respectively…Warping the image frame 205 may align non-moving objects in the image frame 205 so that they occupy the same positions as they do in the reference image frame 207.”);
mapping pixel coordinates for a plurality of pixels of the reference plane to the respective image based upon a positional relationship between the reference plane and a representation of the respective image established by having applied image warping to the respective image (Newman, para 37: “Offset elements 226, 228 receive the warped image frames 213, 215 and outputs 223, 225 of the registration elements 222, 224. The offset element 226 is configured to offset pixels of the first warped image frame 213 based on the output 223 of the registration element 222. This is done in order to align the pixels of the first warped image frame 213 with corresponding pixels of the reference image frame 207 and generate a first offset image frame 227”; The offset is based upon the positional relationship established by having applied warping, demonstrated in FIG. 2, wherein the warping operation feeds output to the offset operation, and in para 34-37. Aligning pixels from the warped image and reference image establishes a correspondence between both sets of pixels that maps pixels from the reference plane to the respective image.), wherein the positional relationship is defined by a position offset between a center point of the representation of the respective image and a center point of the reference plane (Newman, para 37: “The correlations may help correct for errors in the navigation data 211, 261 or remove translation errors.”; a translation error results in a position offset between the center points of both images/planes since at least one image is shifted compared to the other).
Newman fails to explicitly teach wherein the positional relationship is also defined by an angular rotation of the representation of the respective image to the reference plane (emphasis added). Furthermore, while Newman teaches using an output representation of the respective image to identify the feature within the scene (Newman, para 38: “This allows the calculation element 230 to perform three-frame difference calculations in order to identify one or more target tracks”; see also para 39 and “TARGET TRACK” in FIG. 2), Newman fails to explicitly teach interpolating from pixels of the respective image to pixels at the pixel coordinates of the reference plane to generate an interpolated representation of the respective image; and using the interpolated representation of the respective image to identify the feature within the scene (emphasis added).
However, Gonzalez teaches mapping pixel coordinates to a location based upon a positional relationship defined by an angular rotation and a position offset (pg. 102, Rotation and Translation transformations in Table 2.3; pg. 101, para following eqn. 2-45: “For example, if we want to resize an image, rotate it, and move the result to some location, we simply form a 3×3 matrix equal to the product of the scaling, rotation, and translation matrices from Table 2.3”). Newman teaches a method where the positional relationship between the reference image and respective image is determined and used to align images (Determined with the registration elements calculated in para 35-37 of Newman). While Newman describes correcting translation offsets (para 37), capturing images at different points in time and at different points in space may also result in angular rotation offsets due to the platform/imager being in motion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the image transformations performed based on a positional relationship defined by an angular rotation and a position offset, as taught by Gonzalez above, with the method of Newman in order to modify image pixels to account for angular rotation offsets when aligning two images (Gonzalez, last para on pg. 100: “We use geometric transformations modify the spatial arrangement of pixels in an image”; last para on pg. 103: “Or, perhaps the images were taken at different times using the same instruments, such as satellite images of a given location taken several days, months, or even years apart. In either case, combining the images or performing quantitative analysis and comparisons between them requires compensating for geometric distortions caused by differences in viewing angle, distance, orientation, sensor resolution, shifts in object location, and other factors.”).
Gonzalez further teaches a method of interpolating from pixels of the respective image to pixels at the pixel coordinates of the reference plane to generate an interpolated representation of the respective image (Gonzalez, pg. 100-101, Geometric Transformations: “Geometric transformations of digital images consist of two basic operations: 1. Spatial transformation of coordinates. 2. Intensity interpolation that assigns intensity values to the spatially transformed pixels.”; 2nd to last para on pg. 101: “The preceding transformation moves the coordinates of pixels in an image to new locations. To complete the process, we have to assign intensity values to those locations. This task is accomplished using intensity interpolation.”; pg. 103, Image Registration: “In image registration, we have available an input image and a reference image. The objective is to transform the input image geometrically to produce an output image that is aligned (registered) with the reference image”). Newman discloses a base method for geometrically aligning pixels of two images, but does not specify specific methods for pixel interpolation. Gonzalez teaches a known technique of performing pixel interpolation after performing a spatial transformation on an image. A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have applied the known technique, as taught by Gonzalez, in the same way to the method of Newman and achieved predictable results of assigning pixel values to coordinate positions in the transformed image. The interpolated representation, taught in combination with Gonzalez, could be utilized as the representation used to identify the feature within the scene (see para 38-39 citation from Newman above).
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez teaches wherein interpolating comprises performing a bilinear interpolation from the pixels of the respective image in the sensor plane to the pixel coordinates of the reference plane as mapped to the sensor plane (Gonzalez, 4th para on pg. 77: “bilinear interpolation”; see also 2nd to last para on pg. 101).
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez teaches wherein defining the reference plane comprises defining the reference plane based upon a mapping of another one of the plurality of images to the reference plane (Newman, Multiple images are mapped to the reference plane, images 205 and 209 in para 34, for example. Performing the warping and offset operations on images with reference to a plane in the reference image defines the reference plane.).
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Newman in view of Gonzalez teaches wherein using the interpolated representation of the respective image to identify the feature within the scene comprises determining a difference between the interpolated representation of the respective image (Interpolated representation taught in combination with Gonzalez in claim 1) and the another one of the plurality of images as mapped to the reference plane in order to identify the feature within the scene (Newman, para 56: “the difference frame 502 represents pixel-by-pixel differences between the image frames 402, 404…each of the difference frames 502, 504, 506 can be determined using differences between two image frames that have been registered (aligned) to generate a zero-mean image frame. Ideally (assuming perfect warping and alignment), all differences identified in the difference frames 502, 504, 506 are caused by motion of at least one object in a scene.”; see para 37 where the plurality of images are all mapped to the reference image frame).
Regarding claim 8, Newman teaches a computing device (Newman, para 47) configured to identify a feature within a scene (Newman, para 25: “The target-tracking system 106 is configured to identify and track at least one moving target 108 and identify at least one target track 110 associated with the target(s) 108.”), the computing device comprising processing circuitry (Newman, para 47: “processing device 302”). All further claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 1 are the same as those performed in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 8), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 3 are the same as claim 10.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 8), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 5 are the same as claim 13.
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 13), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 6 are the same as claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Newman teaches a system (Newman, para 45-46) configured to identify a feature within a scene (Newman, para 25: “The target-tracking system 106 is configured to identify and track at least one moving target 108 and identify at least one target track 110 associated with the target(s) 108.”), the system comprising: a sensor configured to capture a plurality of images at different points in time and at different points in space (Newman, para 24: “The imager 104 is configured to capture multiple image frames of at least one scene that includes one or more moving targets 108…The imager 104 includes any suitable structure configured to capture image frames, such as a camera or other imaging device.”; para 23 and 40 describes wherein the platform carrying the imager and/or the imager may be moving); and processing circuitry (Newman, para 47: “processing device 302”). All further claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 1 are the same as those performed in claim 16.
Regarding claim 18 (dependent on claim 16), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 3 are the same as claim 18.
Regarding claim 19 (dependent on claim 16), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 5 are the same as claim 19.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez because the method steps of claim 6 are the same as claim 20.
Claims 2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Gonzalez, in further view of Coulter et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0064554 A1), hereinafter Coulter.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez fails to explicitly teach wherein applying image warping comprises applying at least one of a 1.5 or higher order polynomial, bilinear or projective transform to the respective image in order to concurrently provide for rotation, translation and warping of the respective image. However, Coulter teaches a similar method for aligning two images (Coulter, see abstract), including applying image warping comprising applying projective transform to the image in order to concurrently provide for rotation, translation, and warping of the respective image (Coulter, para 63: “multi-temporal images may be aligned automatically using routines to find matching control points (features common between two images) and applying existing simple warping functions (such as projective or second-order polynomial). This approach can include matching the imaging sensor position and viewing angles regardless of the platform or sensor type/orientation”, emphasis added).
Newman discloses a base method for image warping, but does not specify specific methods for applying at least one of a 1.5 or higher order polynomial, bilinear or projective transform. Coulter teaches a method for image warping using the known technique of projective transform. A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have applied the known technique, as taught by Coulter, in the same way to the method of Newman in view of Gonzalez and achieved predictable results of warping the respective image to the reference plane.
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 8), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez and Coulter because the method steps of claim 2 are the same as claim 9.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 16), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez and Coulter because the method steps of claim 2 are the same as claim 17.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Gonzalez, in further view of Goodnough et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2010/0046853 A1), hereinafter Goodnough.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez teaches wherein using the interpolated representation of the respective image to identify the feature within the scene comprises determining a difference between: (i) the interpolated representation of an image captured during a first period of time as mapped to the reference plane, including the interpolated representation of the respective image, and (ii) a second image captured during a second period of time as also mapped to the reference plane (Newman, para 56 citation in claim 6 rejection; see also para 37 where the plurality of images are all mapped to the reference image frame and para 26 where the images are captured at different periods of time, para 26: “sets of image frames to identify movement of one or more targets 108 over time”).
Newman fails to explicitly teach wherein the difference is between a first average of a plurality of images and a second average of a plurality of images. However, Goodnough teaches an average of a plurality of images captured during a first period of time as mapped to the reference plane and an average of a second plurality of images captured during a second period of time as also mapped to the reference plane (Goodnough, averages after image processing for two data sets, para 35: “Once warping (and other additional or substitute image processing) is completed on the TDI bank image data, the image data may be combined with image data from other TDI banks by an image combiner 246. Image combination may be accomplished by computing average pixel intensities across both images being combined, or may employ a form of extended range image processing”; para 40: “pixel averaging engine 246-20 for creating average pixel values from two or more data sets”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the averaged image datasets, taught by Goodnough, with the interpolated representations and difference method of Newman in view of Gonzalez in order to reduce noise before tracking the object, leading to more accurate object detection (Goodnough, para 38: “Sets of image data all warped to the same frame of reference may be suitable for combination, as may image data subjected to certain forms of filtering or noise reduction processing”). Gonzalez further demonstrates the known technique of using image averaging for noise reduction (Goodnough, see para 86-87 and FIG. 2.29 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 8), all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Newman in view of Gonzalez and Goodnough because the method steps of claim 7 are the same as claim 15.
Claims 12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Gonzalez, in further view of Elliethy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2017/0236284 A1), hereinafter Elliethy.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 8), Newman in view of Gonzalez fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference plane is tangential to the Earth's surface. However, Elliethy teaches a similar system (Elliethy, abstract), disclosing a reference plane tangential to the Earth's surface (Elliethy, para 71: “The azimuthal orthographic map projection projects the geographical coordinates of locations on a reference surface representation of the Earth to a plane that is tangent to the reference surface at the map's central point”; see Fig. 13 attached below).
Newman discloses a reference plane in a reference image (Newman, para 26: “reference image frame”), but does not explicitly disclose that the reference plane is tangential to the Earth’s surface. Elliethy discloses a reference surface/plane that is tangent to the Earth’s surface. Thus, both prior art references disclose a defined reference plane for image projection calculations. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the reference plane of Elliethy could have been substituted for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the reference plane of Elliethy for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez according to known methods to yield the predictable result of projecting points on a flat surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference plane is positioned at a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object. However, Elliethy teaches a similar system (Elliethy, abstract), disclosing wherein a reference plane is positioned at a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object (Elliethy, the object is Earth - see Fig. 13, attached above, where the tangent plane is positioned where the boresight intersects with the surface of Earth, para 71: “The azimuthal orthographic map projection projects the geographical coordinates of locations on a reference surface representation of the Earth to a plane that is tangent to the reference surface at the map's central point”).
Newman discloses a reference plane in a reference image (Newman, para 26: “reference image frame”), but does not explicitly disclose that the reference plane is positioned at a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object. Elliethy discloses the aforementioned reference plane, as claimed. Thus, both prior art references disclose a defined reference plane for image projection calculations. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the reference plane of Elliethy could have been substituted for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the reference plane of Elliethy for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez according to known methods to yield the predictable result of projecting points on a flat surface of a region of interest.
Regarding claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Newman in view of Gonzalez fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference plane is positioned a predetermined distance along the boresight from a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object. However, Elliethy teaches a similar system (Elliethy, abstract), disclosing wherein a reference plane is positioned a predetermined distance along the boresight from a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object (Elliethy, the object is Earth - see Fig. 13, attached above, where the tangent plane is along the boresight from the camera and positioned at a predetermined distance from the boresight intersection with Earth’s surface – the distance being tangential to Earth’s surface, para 71: “The azimuthal orthographic map projection projects the geographical coordinates of locations on a reference surface representation of the Earth to a plane that is tangent to the reference surface at the map's central point”).
Newman discloses a reference plane in a reference image (Newman, para 26: “reference image frame”), but does not explicitly disclose that the reference plane is positioned a predetermined distance along the boresight from a location at which the boresight intersects a surface of an object. Elliethy discloses the aforementioned reference plane, as claimed. Thus, both prior art references disclose a defined reference plane for image projection calculations. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the reference plane of Elliethy could have been substituted for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the reference plane of Elliethy for the reference plane of Newman in view of Gonzalez according to known methods to yield the predictable result of projecting points on a flat surface of a region of interest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 7,889,905 B2
U.S. Patent No. 8,446,468 B1
U.S. Patent No. 6,512,857 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights