DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Muller (US 2019/0281199).
Regarding Claim 1, Muller discloses a tracking system [0020] comprising: a conveyor conveying objects in a conveying direction on a conveying surface [#46, #48 of Fig 2; 0040]; a rangefinder disposed above the conveyor scanning a field of view encompassing a portion of the conveyor at a predetermined repetition rate to capture depth frames constituting an array of pixels whose values indicate the distance from the rangefinder to objects in the field of view [#10, #14, #24 of Fig 1; 0035]; a processing system executing program instructions to: a) determine the position on the conveyor of a selected tracking point on each of the objects [Fig 2, 5; 0040; 0049]; b) track the selected tracking point of each of the objects from depth frame to depth frame to map the trajectory of each of the objects along the conveyor [0049]; and c) determine one or more motion characteristics of the object from the trajectory [Fig 2, 5; 0040; 0049].
Regarding Claim 12, Muller discloses a method for tracking objects [0020], comprising: conveying objects in a conveying direction on a conveying surface of a conveyor [#46, #48 of Fig 2; 0040]; capturing, with a rangefinder, depth frames constituting an array of pixels whose values indicate the distance from the rangefinder to objects in a field of view encompassing a portion of the conveyor [#10, #14, #24 of Fig 1; 0035]; executing program instructions by a processing system to: a) determine the position on the conveyor of a selected tracking point on each of the objects [Fig 2, 5; 0040; 0049]; b) track the selected tracking point of each of the objects from depth frame to depth frame [0049]; c) map the trajectory of each of the objects along the conveyor from the depth frames [0049]; d) determine one or more motion characteristics of each of the objects from the trajectory [Fig 2, 5; 0040; 0049].
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Muller also discloses wherein the processing system executes program instructions to compensate the depth frame for tilt of the rangefinder with respect to the conveyor [Fig 4; 0046].
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Muller also discloses a processing system executes program instructions to erode and dilate the pixels in each depth frame before determining outer boundaries of the objects [#10, #56 of Fig 6; 0050].
Regarding Claim 4, Muller also discloses wherein the processing system executes program instructions to set a depth threshold above the conveying surface to eliminate the conveying surface and structures farther from the rangefinder from appearing in the depth frames [#48, #56 of Fig 6; 0050].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Muller also discloses wherein the processing system executes program instructions to determine outer boundaries of groups of contiguous pixels in each depth frame whose values are within a predetermined range of each other and to compute an average distance of all the pixels within the outer boundary of each of the objects and assign that average value distance to each of the pixels within the outer boundary [#48, #56 of Fig 6; 0050].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Muller also discloses wherein the processing system executes program instructions to determine the distance to a top face of each of the objects from the rangefinder from the depth frames and to calculate a length and a width for each of the objects [#10, #14, #48 of Fig 6; 0050].
Regarding Claim 7, Muller also teaches wherein the processing system executes program instructions to :a) calculate the length of each of the objects as the product of the length in the conveying direction of a plane containing the top face and the ratio of the number of pixels defining the length of the top of the object to the depth frame length in the conveying direction in pixels [[0027-28; 0040; 0043-49; 0052]; and b) calculate the width of each of the objects as the product of the width in the transverse direction perpendicular to the conveying direction of the plane containing the top face and the ratio of the number of pixels defining the width of the top of the object to the depth frame width perpendicular to the conveying direction in pixels [0027-28; 0040; 0043-49; 0052], as the processing system is already determining height (Z), inclination and position, thus would also incorporate basic algorithms to determine length (X) and width (Y).
Regarding Claim 8, Muller also teaches wherein the processing system executes program instructions to :a) compute the length … in the conveying direction of the plane containing the top face of the object as …, where B is the distance of the rangefinder from the top face of the object and ax is half the maximum sweep angle of the rangefinder in the conveying direction; and b) compute the width… in the transverse direction of the plane containing the top face of the object as …, where B is the distance of the rangefinder from the top face of the object … the rangefinder in the transverse direction [0027-28; 0040; 0043-49; 0052], as the processing system is already determining height (Z), inclination and position, thus would also incorporate basic algorithms to determine length (X) and width (Y).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18, Muller also discloses wherein the one or more motion characteristics of the objects are selected from the group consisting of: component of object velocity or acceleration in the conveying direction; component of object velocity or acceleration perpendicular to the conveying direction; net acceleration of the object; trajectory angle of the object; and orientation of the object [0027-28; 0040; 0043-49; 0052].
Regarding Claim 11, Muller also discloses wherein the conveyor is a conveyor belt and wherein the processing system executes program instructions to estimate the speed of the conveyor belt from the component of object velocity in the conveying direction [0049].
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) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (US 2019/0281199), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Buckley (US 20160178434).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Muller does not explicitly teach – but Buckley does teach wherein the processing system executes program instructions to compute the centroid of each of the objects and use the centroid as the selected tracking point to be tracked [0022; 0031]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Muller to include centroid tracking as the sensor can be calibrated and the centroid points of maximum intensity would reveal the distance of target object from the optimum focus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights