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 18-22, 25-28, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 in view of White et al (US 20080169963). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 18 and 27, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims a system for tracking a movement of an object, comprising: a radar device having a first field of view, the radar device generating radar data corresponding to a range indicating a distance of a moving object within the first field of view from the radar device; an imager having a second field of view at least partially overlapping the first field of view in an overlap field of view, the imager generating imager data measuring, as the object moves through the second field of view, angular positions of the object relative to the imager in at least one dimension (claim 1).
Regarding claim 18 and 27, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 does not claim a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager. White teaches a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager (para 39 and 40). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to include a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager because it is merely a substitution of well-known method to track an object in three dimensions of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 with the method to track an object through three dimensions of White to yield a predictable object tracker.
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the radar device is a one-dimensional radar (claim 2).
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the processor includes data corresponding to a separation vector indicating a distance and orientation from the radar device to the imager (claim 3).
Regarding claim 21, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the processor calculates a unity vector from the imager to the object and, based on the unity vector, the radar data and the separation vector, the processor calculates the position of the object in three dimension (claim 4)
Regarding claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the processor defines a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the overlap field of view and translates and rotates the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system (claim 5).
Regarding claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the radar device is a Doppler radar (claim 11).
Regarding claim 26, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims the processor calculates a range from the radar device based on an initial value of the range and the integrated range rate over time determined from the radar data (claim 12).
Regarding claim 28, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims all of the angular positions of the object being determined using only data from the imager (claim 1).
Regarding claim 31, U.S. Patent No. 10989791 claims defining by a processor a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the second field of view; and translating and rotating by the processor the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system (claim 5).
Claims 23 and 30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 in view of White and Savarese et al (US 20080207357).
Regarding claim 23 and 30, Savarese teaches the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted (para 94). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to include the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted because it is merely a substitution of a well-known scene to track a ball of Savarese with the scene to track a ball of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Claims 24 and 29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 in view of White and Johnson (US 20160320476)
Regarding claim 24 and 29, Johnson teaches the object is a sports ball and wherein the system weights the radar data more heavily than imager data in determining the range and weights imager data more heavily than the radar data in determining angular position (fig 13 and para 6, “using a camera measurement to replace, augment, correct, or improve a measured angular position or horizontal or vertical position of the moving sports object”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to include the object is a sports ball and wherein the system weights the radar data more heavily than imager data in determining the range and weights imager data more heavily than the radar data in determining angular position because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to track a ball of Johnson with the method to track a ball of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Regarding claim 32, Johnson teaches the radar device is a one dimensional doppler radar (para 43, “The radar 0001 can be a Doppler radar located in a position near the ball launch position”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to include the radar device is a one dimensional doppler radar because it is merely a substitution of a well-known radar of Johnson with radar of U.S. Patent No. 10989791 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Claims 18-22, 25-28, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 in view of White et al (US 20080169963). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 18 and 27, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims a system for tracking a movement of an object, comprising: a radar device having a first field of view, the radar device generating radar data corresponding to a range indicating a distance of a moving object within the first field of view from the radar device; an imager having a second field of view at least partially overlapping the first field of view in an overlap field of view, the imager generating imager data measuring, as the object moves through the second field of view, angular positions of the object relative to the imager in at least one dimension (claim 1).
Regarding claim 18 and 27, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 does not claim a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager. White teaches a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager (para 39 and 40). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to include a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager because it is merely a substitution of well-known method to track an object in three dimensions of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 with the method to track an object through three dimensions of White to yield a predictable object tracker.
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the radar device is a one-dimensional radar (claim 3).
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the processor includes data corresponding to a separation vector indicating a distance and orientation from the radar device to the imager (claim 4).
Regarding claim 21, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the processor calculates a unity vector from the imager to the object and, based on the unity vector, the radar data and the separation vector, the processor calculates the position of the object in three dimension (claim 4)
Regarding claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the processor defines a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the overlap field of view and translates and rotates the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system (claim 5).
Regarding claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the radar device is a Doppler radar (claim 11).
Regarding claim 26, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims the processor calculates a range from the radar device based on an initial value of the range and the integrated range rate over time determined from the radar data (claim 12).
Regarding claim 28, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims all of the angular positions of the object being determined using only data from the imager (claim 1).
Regarding claim 31, U.S. Patent No. 11828867 claims defining by a processor a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the second field of view; and translating and rotating by the processor the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system (claim 5).
Claims 23 and 30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 in view of White and Savarese et al (US 20080207357).
Regarding claim 23 and 30, Savarese teaches the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted (para 94). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to include the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted because it is merely a substitution of a well-known scene to track a ball of Savarese with the scene to track a ball of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Claims 24 and 29 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 in view of White and Johnson (US 20160320476)
Regarding claim 24 and 29, Johnson teaches the object is a sports ball and wherein the system weights the radar data more heavily than imager data in determining the range and weights imager data more heavily than the radar data in determining angular position (fig 13 and para 6, “using a camera measurement to replace, augment, correct, or improve a measured angular position or horizontal or vertical position of the moving sports object”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to include the object is a sports ball and wherein the system weights the radar data more heavily than imager data in determining the range and weights imager data more heavily than the radar data in determining angular position because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to track a ball of Johnson with the method to track a ball of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Regarding claim 32, Johnson teaches the radar device is a one dimensional doppler radar (para 43, “The radar 0001 can be a Doppler radar located in a position near the ball launch position”). It would have been obvious to modify U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to include the radar device is a one dimensional doppler radar because it is merely a substitution of a well-known radar of Johnson with radar of U.S. Patent No. 11828867 to yield a predictable ball tracker.
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) 18-19, 24-29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20160320476) in view of White et al (US 20080169963).
Regarding claim 18 and 27, Johnson teaches system for tracking the movement of an object (abs, “tracking a moving sports object”), comprising: a radar device having a first field of view (para 37, “A tracking Doppler radar 0001 and a camera 0002 are set up to view or measure a desired sports object 0009“) the radar device generating radar data indicating a range corresponding to a distance of a moving object within the first field of view from the radar device (abs, “a simultaneous Doppler measurement of a radial distance, speed or other measurement of the moving sports object.”); an imager having a second field of view at least partially overlapping the first field of view in an overlap field of view (para 37, “A tracking Doppler radar 0001 and a camera 0002 are set up to view or measure a desired sports object 0009“), the imager generating imager data measuring, as the object moves through the second field of view an angular position of the object relative to the imager in at least one dimension (abs, “camera measurement of an angular position of the moving sports object with”); and a processor combining the image data the radar data to identify a track of the object as the object moves through the overlap field of view, to identify a track of the object in at least three dimensions, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager (fig 13 and para 6, 9, and 10, “combining simultaneous measurements of a sports object made by a Doppler radar and a single camera to provide spatial positions, and/or translational and/or rotational velocities in three-dimensional space.”).
Regarding claim 18 and 27, Johnson does not teach a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager. White teaches a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager (para 39 and 40). It would have been obvious to modify Johnson to include a memory storing topographical information for a surface over which the object to be tracked will move; and a processor combining the imager data, the radar data and the topographical information to identify a track of the object in three dimensions as the object moves through the overlap field of view, the angular positions of the object being determined using data from the imager because it is merely a substitution of well-known method to track an object in three dimensions of Johnson with the method to track an object through three dimensions of White to yield a predictable object tracker.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson teaches the radar device is a one-dimensional radar (para 43, “The radar 0001 can be a Doppler radar located in a position near the ball launch position”).
Regarding claim 24 and 29, Johnson teaches the object is a sports ball and wherein the system weights the radar data more heavily than imager data in determining the range and weights imager data more heavily than the radar data in determining angular position (fig 13 and para 6, “using a camera measurement to replace, augment, correct, or improve a measured angular position or horizontal or vertical position of the moving sports object”).
Regarding claim 25, Johnson teaches the radar device is a Doppler radar (para 6, “the moving sports object simultaneously with the camera and Doppler radar”).
Regarding claim 26, Johnson teaches the processor calculates a range from the radar device based on an initial value of the range and the integrated range rate over time determined from the radar data (para 52, “The radial distance of the object 0009 can be found by integrating the Doppler speed as a function of time, and using the object's 0009 known or assumed starting position”).
Regarding claim 28, Johnson teaches all of the angular positions of the object being determined using only data from the imager (fig 13 and para 6, “using a camera measurement to replace, augment, correct, or improve a measured angular position or horizontal or vertical position of the moving sports object”).
Regarding claim 31, Johnson teaches defining by a processor a field based coordinate system based on reference points within the second field of view; and translating and rotating by the processor the position of the object in three dimensions into the field based coordinate system (para 66).
Regarding claim 32, Johnson teaches the radar device is a one dimensional doppler radar (para 43, “The radar 0001 can be a Doppler radar located in a position near the ball launch position”).
Claim(s) 23 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of White as applied to claim 18 and 27 above, and further in view of Savarese et al (US 20080207357).
Regarding claim 23 and 30, Savarese teaches the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted (para 94). It would have been obvious to modify Johnson in view of White to include the object is a golf ball and wherein the topographical information concerns a putting green on which the golf ball to be putted because it is merely a substitution of a well-known scene to track a ball of Savarese with the scene to track a ball of Johnson to yield a predictable ball tracker.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of White as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Johnson et al (US 20080117098).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson (098) teaches the processor includes data corresponding to a separation vector indicating a distance and orientation from the radar device to the imager (para 41 “a look angle of 45 degrees off of the motion of the platform, the effective synthetic aperture is reduced by approximately 30%. This reduction in the synthetic aperture results in a significant broadening of the resulting processed beamwidth and, subsequently, a degradation of the azimuthal resolution. As the look angle of the radar antenna is pointed closer to the direction of the host platform motion” and para 56, “ the system operates like a two-channel "pushbroom SAR." A mathematical estimation indicates that a 6 ft. baseline provides a 2 in. azimuthal resolution. This is convenient for locating for vehicle mounting, for example, because the antenna elements may be located at the left and right edges of the front bumper of the vehicle”). It would have been obvious to modify Johnson in view of White to include the processor includes data corresponding to a separation vector indicating a distance and orientation from the radar device to the imager because it is merely a well-known implementation of the object track of Spivak in the object tracking device of Johnson to yield a predicable object tracking device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Double patenting set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648