DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Claims 1-6 have been examined under the priority date of 10/31/2022. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 13-16 are amended in this application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023, 01/19/2024 and 11/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 2/17/2026) regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered by the examiner and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Burgoyne fails to teach brightness being detected in each region of an image while a memory unit stores the image. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Burgoyne teaches in column 1 lines 60-65 that the images are stored in the memory and processed. Further, per Burgoyne column 10, lines 53-59, the pixels belonging to an object/region are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object as part of the processing of the image. Burgoyne in column 20 lines 5-20 teaches that the system may use multithreading or multiprocessing to perform disclosed steps simultaneously, where the brightness processing and saving of images are disclosed steps. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is analogous to the brightness being detected in regions in the image while a memory stores the image, given that all disclosed steps of Burgoyne may be performed simultaneously using multiprocessing. For at least the above reasons, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Burgoyne in view of Dugan. The examiner further notes that allowable subject matter has been indicated below (see Allowable Subject Matter section below) and encourages that applicant to amend independent claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 to incorporate this subject matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Burgoyne, column 1, emphasis added)
PNG
media_image2.png
126
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Burgoyne, Column 10)
PNG
media_image3.png
228
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Burgoyne, column 20, emphasis added)
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
image capture unit of claims 1 and 3
memory unit of claims 1, 14, 15 and 16
brightness detection unit of claims 1 and 2
computation unit of claims 1 and 4
position determination unit of claims 1, 6, 10, and 13
storage unit of claims 5, 7, 9, and 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoyne (11748897 B1) and Dugan (20210407060 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Burgoyne discloses; An image processing circuit comprising:
an image capture unit configured to capture an image of a capturing object (Burgoyne, Column 2 lines 19-30, the system has digital camera (image capture unit) to capture images from a telescope, Column 3, lines 7-15, the images are passed to detect and characterize objects in the images);
a memory unit configured to store the image (Burgoyne, column 2, lines 38-32, the system has a memory for storing and processing images);
a brightness detection unit configured to, while the memory unit stores the image captured by the image capture unit, detect brightness in each criteria region in the image (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit), column 1 lines 60-65 that the images are stored in the memory and processed, further column 20 lines 5-20 teaches that the system may use multithreading or multiprocessing to perform disclosed steps simultaneously, therefore it would be understood that the memory may store the images while they are being processed);
[a computation unit configured to compute a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the brightness detection unit;
and a position determination unit configured to determine a position of the capturing object in the image corresponding to a pixel having a brightness greater than a predetermined value on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed by the computation unit.]
Burgoyne does not disclose;
a computation unit configured to compute a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the brightness detection unit;
and a position determination unit configured to determine a position of the capturing object in the image corresponding to a pixel having a brightness greater than a predetermined value on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed by the computation unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dugan teaches;
a computation unit configured to compute a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the brightness detection unit (Dugan, [0043] the brightness of all pixels is computed to determine outliers using at threshold or comparison of the standard deviation of the brightness, further, [0044] the brightness of pixels only in the vicinity of one another (adjacent to one another) may be compared to determine the outliers);
and a position determination unit configured to determine a position of the capturing object in the image corresponding to a pixel having a brightness greater than a predetermined value on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed by the computation unit (Dugan, [0083] the location of the satellite or celestial body in the image is determined by the brightest pixel, where the pixel being the maximum brightness or not is the threshold value, further [0084] the location may also be determined by determining the point with the highest brightness cross correlation).
The combination of Burgoyne and Dugan would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The system of Burgoyne teaches a method of detecting and tracking the positions of stars and other celestial objects from images taken from a telescope, but it does not teach assessing changes in brightness to determine this location in the images. Dugan teaches this deficiency, teaching a method of assessing brightness and pixel characteristics to determine satellite trails and other celestial bodies in images. The motivation for the combination lies in that the ability to assess the changes in brightness allows for celestial bodies to be tracked and their positions to be determined. (Dugan, [0022]-[0024] and [0043]-[0044] and [0083]-[0084])
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein the criteria region is one pixel in the image (Burgoyne, column 3, line 50- column 8 line 9, the intensities and other values for each pixel are recorded before binning or grouping for further analysis, further in column 8 lines 10-25 analysis can be performed at the pixel level or the bin level depending on the size of the feature of interest in the image).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein the image capture unit includes an image sensor configured to capture the image (Burgoyne, Column 2 lines 19-30, the system has digital camera (image capture unit) to capture images from a telescope, Column 3, lines 7-15, the images are passed to detect and characterize objects in the images), and wherein the brightness detection unit, when detecting the brightness, reads the criteria region in order in a read out direction of the image from the image sensor (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit), it is standard to bin pixels in the readout direction, further, Burgoyne discloses in column 11 lines 30-62, that the bins can be readjusted as a result of readout noise, indicating that the pixels are read in the read out direction).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 3, wherein the computation unit computes the difference in the brightness by subtracting a brightness of a second criteria region, of the two adjacent criteria regions, located behind in a reading direction of the brightness detection unit from a brightness of a first criteria region, of the two adjacent criteria regions, located in front in the reading direction (Burgoyne, column 8 lines 10-41, the median pixel intensity/brightness values from two adjacent frames can be subtracted to get a difference in brightness and generate an image frame with the bright objects removed).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 1, further comprising:
a storage unit configured to store a plurality of criteria regions in order (Burgoyne, column 4, lines 13-36, the system has a memory (storage unit) to store the images and regions), wherein while the storage unit is storing the plurality of criteria regions in order (Burgoyne, Column 2, line 44-53, the system captures several images with adjacent regions of the sky),
detection of the brightness by the brightness detection unit (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit)),
computation of the difference in the brightness by the computation unit (Dugan, [0043] the brightness of all pixels is computed to determine outliers using at threshold or comparison of the standard deviation of the brightness, further, [0044] the brightness of pixels only in the vicinity of one another (adjacent to one another) may be compared to determine the outliers),
and determination of an actual position of the capturing object by the position determination unit are executed in order (Dugan, [0083] the location of the satellite or celestial body in the image is determined by the brightest pixel, where the pixel being the maximum brightness or not is the threshold value, further [0084] the location may also be determined by determining the point with the highest brightness cross correlation).
The combination of Burgoyne and Dugan would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The system of Burgoyne teaches a method of detecting and tracking the positions of stars and other celestial objects from images taken from a telescope, but it does not teach assessing changes in brightness to determine this location in the images. Dugan teaches this deficiency, teaching a method of assessing brightness and pixel characteristics to determine satellite trails and other celestial bodies in images. The motivation for the combination lies in that the ability to assess the changes in brightness allows for celestial bodies to be tracked and their positions to be determined. (Dugan, [0022]-[0024] and [0043]-[0044] and [0083]-[0084])
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 1, further comprising: a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (Burgoyne, column 20, lines 21-30 the system has an FPGA integrated into the circuit);
and a central processing unit (CPU) communicatively connected to the FPGA (Burgoyne, column 20, lines 19-35 the FPGA is connected to a processor, which can be a variety of types of processors), wherein the FPGA includes at least one of the brightness detection unit, the computation unit, and the position determination unit (Burgoyne, column 20, lines 19-35 the FPGA is connected to a processor, which can be a variety of types of processors, the processors are being interpreting as being functionally equivalent to the units as per [0160] of the applicant’s specification.).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; The image processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein the image processing circuit is installed in an image capture apparatus (Burgoyne, column 19, lines 20-50, the system is circuit/system containing an image capture device).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; A method for determining a position of a capturing object, the method comprising:
capturing an image of the capturing object (Burgoyne, Column 2 lines 19-30, the system has digital camera (image capture unit) to capture images from a telescope, Column 3, lines 7-15, the images are passed to detect and characterize objects in the images);
storing the image in a memory unit(Burgoyne, column 2, lines 38-32, the system has a memory for storing and processing images);
while the memory unit stores the image captured by the image capture unit, detecting brightness in each criteria region in the image (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit), column 1 lines 60-65 that the images are stored in the memory and processed, further column 20 lines 5-20 teaches that the system may use multithreading or multiprocessing to perform disclosed steps simultaneously, therefore it would be understood that the memory may store the images while they are being processed);
computing a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the detecting (Dugan, [0043] the brightness of all pixels is computed to determine outliers using at threshold or comparison of the standard deviation of the brightness, further, [0044] the brightness of pixels only in the vicinity of one another (adjacent to one another) may be compared to determine the outliers);
and determining an actual position of the capturing object on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed in the computing (Dugan, [0083] the location of the satellite or celestial body in the image is determined by the brightest pixel, where the pixel being the maximum brightness or not is the threshold value, further [0084] the location may also be determined by determining the point with the highest brightness cross correlation).
The combination of Burgoyne and Dugan would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The system of Burgoyne teaches a method of detecting and tracking the positions of stars and other celestial objects from images taken from a telescope, but it does not teach assessing changes in brightness to determine this location in the images. Dugan teaches this deficiency, teaching a method of assessing brightness and pixel characteristics to determine satellite trails and other celestial bodies in images. The motivation for the combination lies in that the ability to assess the changes in brightness allows for celestial bodies to be tracked and their positions to be determined. (Dugan, [0022]-[0024] and [0043]-[0044] and [0083]-[0084])
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute a method comprising (Burgoyne, Column 19, lines 25-55, the system has a processor configured to perform multiple rounds of processing on the images):
capturing an image of a capturing object (Burgoyne, Column 2 lines 19-30, the system has digital camera (image capture unit) to capture images from a telescope, Column 3, lines 7-15, the images are passed to detect and characterize objects in the images);
a brightness detection unit configured to, while the memory unit stores the image captured by the image capture unit, detect brightness in each criteria region in the image (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit, column 1 lines 60-65 that the images are stored in the memory and processed, further column 20 lines 5-20 teaches that the system may use multithreading or multiprocessing to perform disclosed steps simultaneously, therefore it would be understood that the memory may store the images while they are being processed);
computing a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the detecting (Dugan, [0043] the brightness of all pixels is computed to determine outliers using at threshold or comparison of the standard deviation of the brightness, further, [0044] the brightness of pixels only in the vicinity of one another (adjacent to one another) may be compared to determine the outliers),
and determining an actual position of the capturing object on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed in the computing (Dugan, [0083] the location of the satellite or celestial body in the image is determined by the brightest pixel, where the pixel being the maximum brightness or not is the threshold value, further [0084] the location may also be determined by determining the point with the highest brightness cross correlation).
The combination of Burgoyne and Dugan would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The system of Burgoyne teaches a method of detecting and tracking the positions of stars and other celestial objects from images taken from a telescope, but it does not teach assessing changes in brightness to determine this location in the images. Dugan teaches this deficiency, teaching a method of assessing brightness and pixel characteristics to determine satellite trails and other celestial bodies in images. The motivation for the combination lies in that the ability to assess the changes in brightness allows for celestial bodies to be tracked and their positions to be determined. (Dugan, [0022]-[0024] and [0043]-[0044] and [0083]-[0084])
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan teaches; An image processing apparatus comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture an image of a capturing object and (Burgoyne, Column 2 lines 19-30, the system has digital camera (image capture unit) to capture images from a telescope, Column 3, lines 7-15, the images are passed to detect and characterize objects in the images);
a memory unit configured to store the image (Burgoyne, column 2, lines 38-32, the system has a memory for storing and processing images);
and at least one processor configured to execute (Burgoyne, Column 19, lines 25-55, the system has a processor configured to perform multiple rounds of processing on the images),
wherein the
while the memory unit stores the image captured by the image capture unit, detecting brightness in each criteria region in the image (Burgoyne, Column 10, lines 53-59, object’s pixels (criteria regions) are binned, where the bins are determined by the brightness and speed of the object, indicating that a brightness for that bin of pixels (criteria region) is determined or known by the system, Column 2, line 53 – column 3 line 4, the system has a processor which execute code to process the images (functionally equivalent to the brightness detection unit), column 1 lines 60-65 that the images are stored in the memory and processed, further column 20 lines 5-20 teaches that the system may use multithreading or multiprocessing to perform disclosed steps simultaneously, therefore it would be understood that the memory may store the images while they are being processed);
computing a difference in the brightness of two adjacent criteria regions detected by the detecting (Dugan, [0043] the brightness of all pixels is computed to determine outliers using at threshold or comparison of the standard deviation of the brightness, further, [0044] the brightness of pixels only in the vicinity of one another (adjacent to one another) may be compared to determine the outliers),
and determining a position of the capturing object in the image corresponding to a pixel having a brightness greater than a predetermined value on a basis of the difference in the brightness computed by the computing (Dugan, [0083] the location of the satellite or celestial body in the image is determined by the brightest pixel, where the pixel being the maximum brightness or not is the threshold value, further [0084] the location may also be determined by determining the point with the highest brightness cross correlation).
The combination of Burgoyne and Dugan would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The system of Burgoyne teaches a method of detecting and tracking the positions of stars and other celestial objects from images taken from a telescope, but it does not teach assessing changes in brightness to determine this location in the images. Dugan teaches this deficiency, teaching a method of assessing brightness and pixel characteristics to determine satellite trails and other celestial bodies in images. The motivation for the combination lies in that the ability to assess the changes in brightness allows for celestial bodies to be tracked and their positions to be determined. (Dugan, [0022]-[0024] and [0043]-[0044] and [0083]-[0084])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoyne (11748897 B1) and Dugan (20210407060 A1) in view of Tchilian (US 20200174094 A1).
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Burgoyne and Dugan does not teach;
[The image processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein the capturing object is a star,
wherein the image processing circuit is a star tracker installed in a spacecraft,
and wherein an attitude determining unit configured to determine an attitude of the spacecraft on a basis of a position of the star determined by the position determination unit is further provided.]
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tchilian teaches;
The image processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein the capturing object is a star (Tchilian, [0022] frames of image data are collected of stars, to identify the pixels belonging to stars and other objects),
wherein the image processing circuit is a star tracker installed in a spacecraft (Tchilian, [0019] the system has a star tracker, [0017] the system has a platform on which the star tracker is installed, where the platform is a spacecraft),
and wherein an attitude determining unit configured to determine an attitude of the spacecraft on a basis of a position of the star determined by the position determination unit is further provided (Tchilian, [0020] the star tracker can determine its attitude based on the positions of the stars. [0009] the system has a processor that executes the instructions for determine the attitude, which is analogous to the attitude determining unit).
The combination of Burgoyne, Dugan and Tchilian would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the presently claimed invention. Burgoyne and Dugan both teach methods of tracking and determining the positions of stars and other astral bodies, but do not teach these methods as being used on a spacecraft. Tchilian teaches this deficiency, and teaches a method of determining the attitude or orientation of the spacecraft the tracker is on. The addition of the method of Tchilian would be advantageous because being able to determine the orientation and position of the star tracker in reference to its surroundings and to be able to track targets that are both dim and bright is helpful in accurately and safely navigating space missions. (Tchilian, [0001]-[0007])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are allowable.
Regarding claim 5, neither the closest known art nor any reasonable combination thereof teaches the limitation;
wherein the storage unit stores, as a top candidate with the brightness at a maximum, a position of the preceding pixel in a case where a distance from a first pixel to a second pixel is greater than a specified value
The closest known pieces of prior art are Wiedemann (US 20110085703 A1) and Dugan (US 09/25/2025). Wiedemann teaches subtracting two adjacent images to detect light and dark objects after spatial filtering. It does not teach this using a preceding pixel position or maximum value to do this (Wiedemann, [0167]-[0170]). Dugan teaches subtracting light tails of satellites from space images, but it does not teach this as being based on a distance of the pixel or that this is done between two adjacent or preceding pixels (Dugan, [0024] and [0043]).
Claims 6-9 are dependent on claim 5 and are therefore also allowed.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For a listing of analogous art as cited by the examiner please see the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN M ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM ET.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/J.M.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights