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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT
PCT/GB2022/051669, filed on June 29, 2022. As well as acknowledgement of priority to GB 2109319.0 with filing date of June 26, 2021, acknowledged under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 12/22/2023 has been reviewed and the listed references have been considered. Examiner has attached copies the following foreign references disclosed in the IDS, which applicant had not attached:
WO 2011138744
EP 3109659
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-19 are pending. Claims 20-22, and 24-25 are withdrawn. Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, 23, and 26-28 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 414 shown in Figure 4, 501 shown in Figure 6b, 600 and 610 shown in Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 90 line 24 "As the vessel 520, or boat…" should be "As the vessel 524, or boat…"
In paragraph 90 line 26 "width of the vessel 520" should be "width of the vessel 524"
According to 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP §§ 608.01, 2161, and 2162, the specification must be in such particularity as to enable any person skilled in the pertinent art or science to make and use the invention without involving extensive experimentation and must clearly convey enough information about the invention to show that applicant invented the subject matter that is claimed. An applicant is ordinarily permitted to use his or her own terminology, as long as it can be understood. Necessary grammatical corrections, are required. Reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “relative to the detectors” should be “relative to the two or more detectors”
Claim 19 recites “and the two or more detectors.” should be “and [[the]] two or more detectors” – removing “the”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recite a system and method to detect vessels using two or more detectors. With respect to independent method claim 1:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a method i.e., a process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
The limitation "determining if a match exists between an object detection from each of two or more detectors" and "wherein it is determined that a vessel is detected if it is determined that the match exists" as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
As such, a person could match objects detected by data provided from detectors (or any data source) and determine if it is the same object by comparing the data with a degree of error or lack thereof either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The only additional element of “data obtained by the two or more detectors, wherein the two or more detectors are selected from the following: (i) an RF antenna; (ii) a light sensor; (iii) a radar detector; and (iv) an Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver" are recited as mere data gathering, which may not be considered as elements which integrates the above-listed identified abstract idea into a practical application per MPEP 21-6.05(g).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO,
The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional step/element/limitation amounts to no more than an abstract idea performed on a computer. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
In addition, the elements of claims 1, and 19 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 16. The additional element recited in claims 19, i.e., “processor”, is recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein. Therefore independent claims 1, and 19 are not patent eligible, either.
Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-18, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are identified as: being either directed towards mere data gathering or an abstract idea, mental process and mathematical calculation, and not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, claims 2-19 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1-19 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 has been given the following interpretation under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Claim 4 recites "predetermined position threshold level is 500m" which is an arbitrary number for the distance an object identified by two or more sensors can be to be considered the same object. The specification does not provide the significance of the threshold value, however the specification does state “The predetermined threshold level may be 500m […] Alternatively, the predetermined position threshold level may be 100m, 300, or 1000m” in paragraph 17. Therefore, the value presented in the claim are not a required design choice, but an arbitrary threshold. For purposes of examination and searching for prior art, examiner interprets claim 4 as the object detected by each detector must be within a threshold value to be considered to be the same object.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider et al. (WO 2011/138744 A2) in view of Appel et al. ("Experimental validation of GNSS repeater detection based on antenna arrays for maritime applications" - Published 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Bretschneider teaches “A computer implemented method for detecting vessels (Bretschneider page 6 lines 31-33 and page 7 lines 1-2 "The application provides a method for verifying AIS messages. The method includes a step of receiving AIS messages of a vessel. Remote observation information of the vessel is then generated whilst a vessel characteristic is later derived from the remote observation information"), the method comprising:
determining if a match exists between an object detection from each of two or more detectors, based on data obtained by the two or more detectors (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 11 lines 5-14 "The method includes a step of extracting a characteristic of the observed vessel 12 from the objective observation. The AIS message is verified using the extracted characteristic. The verification is performed by one of the observation platforms 14, 15, and 16 or is performed jointly with between observation platforms 14, 15, and 16. Verification mismatches, which can refer to inconsistencies or anomalies, are then raised as alarms and are communicated to the central entity 19 for further verification or action"),
wherein the two or more detectors are selected from the following: (i)
(ii) a light sensor; (iii)a radar detector (Bretschneider page 4 lines 9-13 "The remote sensing refers to observing or sensing of objects from a distance or a remote place. Sensors used for the remote sensing are not in direct contact with the observed objects. Such sensors can include optical, infrared, sonar, or radar means"); and
(iv) an Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver, and wherein it is determined that a vessel is detected if it is determined that the match exists (Bretschneider page 4 lines 18- 20 "The verification of the AIS message serve to identify vessels that pose a possible security threat to other vessels, to man-made installations, to environment, and even to society").”
However, Bretschneider does not explicitly teach “an RF antenna”.
Appel teaches “(i) an RF antenna (Appel page 1 left hand column paragraph 1 "The position information provided by the GNSS receivers is usually fused with other sensors like inertial measurement units (IMUs) or magnetic gyroscopes. The subsystem of sensors is subsequently integrated with electronic navigation charts (ENCs) and/or the automatic identification system (AIS), which is mandatory for larger vessels")”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection as taught by Bretschneider to include an RF antenna as taught by Appel.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “The subsystem of sensors is subsequently integrated with electronic navigation charts (ENCs) and/or the automatic identification system (AIS), which is mandatory for larger vessels. This way the main positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) unit-required for ships of a certain class—is formed" as noted by the Appel disclosure in page 1 left hand column and right hand column paragraph 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider with the Appel disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the method with steps
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of method
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Bretschneider and Appel references, presented in rejection of claim 19 apply to this claim. The additional of claim 19 “a processor (is taught by Bretschneider page 10 lines 7-10 “The authentication device 30 includes a processing unit 32 that is connected to a memory unit 34, to a remote sensing device 36, to an AIS receiver 37,and to a communication port 38”)”.
Claims 2, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider and Appel, in further view of Kellner et al. (EP 3 467 545 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination Bretschneider and Appel teaches “(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the match is in respect of position, bearing relative to the detectors, speed, (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-19 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54. Similarly, the extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify vessel feature, such as vessel size and dimensions, as shown in a step 56. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel type, as shown in a step 60"), and/ or
However, the combination Bretschneider and Appel does not explicitly teach matching with respect to track and heading of the object.
Kellner teaches matching with respect to “track (Kellner paragraph [0039] "A tracking filter, e.g., a Kalman filter, maintains tracks associated with detected objects based on sensor signals received from the sensor systems. Each object track is associated with an object state. The object state comprises an object motion state which describes a set of physical parameters related to the tracked object. For instance, object motion state may comprise a position in relative or absolute coordinates, a heading vector, a velocity vector, and an acceleration vector") […] and/ or heading of the object (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection with verification by matching extracted features as taught by Bretschneider and Appel to include the comparison of trajectory and heading of the object as taught by Kellner.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "determining of object classification is enhanced since additional information related to the classification is extracted from the existing object state of the first object and used in the determining. A more stable and accurate determining of object state is obtained, as will be explained below" as noted by the Kellner disclosure in paragraph 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider and Appel with the Kellner disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the two or more detectors comprise:
the RF antenna; and the radar detector (Bretschneider page 4 lines 9-13 "The remote sensing refers to observing or sensing of objects from a distance or a remote place. Sensors used for the remote sensing are not in direct contact with the observed objects. Such sensors can include optical, infrared, sonar, or radar means") and/ or the AIS receiver (Appel page 1 left hand column paragraph 1 "The position information provided by the GNSS receivers is usually fused with other sensors like inertial measurement units (IMUs) or magnetic gyroscopes. The subsystem of sensors is subsequently integrated with electronic navigation charts (ENCs) and/or the automatic identification system (AIS), which is mandatory for larger vessels"), wherein the RF antenna comprises a plurality of RF antennas, and wherein the plurality of RF antennas are arranged with a plurality of adjacent detection ranges (Appel page 3 left hand column paragraph 3 "The system’s core is an antenna array-based GNSS receiver. Assuming enough degrees of freedom (i.e. antennas), a measurement of the ranging signal’s elevation and azimuth is performed in the post-correlation domain, by using, for example Unitary ESPRIT [28] (if the geometry and pattern are sufficient to fulfill the assumptions)"), and wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises:
determining if an RF signal has been detected in two or more of the plurality of adjacent detection ranges based on the data obtained by the plurality of RF antennas (Appel page 3 left hand column paragraph 4 "s1(1)…sL(n) denote the sampled baseband representation the input signals received by the L elements of the array antenna"); and
identifying a potential vessel track that corresponds to the detected RF signal in the two or more of the plurality of adjacent detection ranges (Appel page 3 left hand column paragraph 4 "s1(1)…sL(n) denote the sampled baseband representation the input signals received by the L elements of the array antenna"), wherein the potential vessel track (Kellner paragraph [0003] "Reflection points or groups of reflection points observed over time can be used to track the motion of an object over time. Such a determination over time is referred to as the track of an object") is indicated by the data obtained by the radar detector (Bretschneider page 11 lines 1-8 "The flow chart 45 includes a step 47 of an AIS receiver receiving AIS messages from a vessel. The AIS messages are then extracted, as shown in a step 47. A remote sensing device provides observations in a step 50. The image geo-references or extracted characteristics are then produced from the observations, as shown in a step 52") and/ or the AIS receiver (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-19 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54. Similarly, the extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify vessel feature, such as vessel size and dimensions, as shown in a step 56. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel type, as shown in a step 60").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 13. Finally the method recited in claim 13 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 13, wherein the step of identifying a potential vessel track that corresponds to the detected RF signal in the two or more of the plurality of adjacent detection ranges comprises: determining that the potential vessel track corresponds to a time and/ or a position of the detection (Kellner paragraph [0003] "Reflection points or groups of reflection points observed over time can be used to track the motion of an object over time. Such a determination over time is referred to as the track of an object" and Appel page 1 right hand column paragraph 1 "the main positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) unit-required for ships of a certain class—is formed") of the RF signal in each of the two or more of the plurality of adjacent detection ranges (Appel page 3 left hand column paragraph 4 "s1(1)…sL(n) denote the sampled baseband representation the input signals received by the L elements of the array antenna").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 14. Finally the method recited in claim 14 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein, having detected the vessel, the method further comprises: instructing the two or more detectors to obtain further data on the vessel (Bretschneider page 11 lines 1-8 "The flow chart 45 includes a step 47 of an AIS receiver receiving AIS messages from a vessel. The AIS messages are then extracted, as shown in a step 47. A remote sensing device provides observations in a step 50. The image geo-references or extracted characteristics are then produced from the observations, as shown in a step 52"); and
verifying the detection of the vessel (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 11 lines 5-14 "The method includes a step of extracting a characteristic of the observed vessel 12 from the objective observation. The AIS message is verified using the extracted characteristic. The verification is performed by one of the observation platforms 14, 15, and 16 or is performed jointly with between observation platforms 14, 15, and 16. Verification mismatches, which can refer to inconsistencies or anomalies, are then raised as alarms and are communicated to the central entity 19 for further verification or action") and/ or tracking movement of the detected vessel based on the obtained further data (Kellner paragraph [0039] "A tracking filter, e.g., a Kalman filter, maintains tracks associated with detected objects based on sensor signals received from the sensor systems. Each object track is associated with an object state. The object state comprises an object motion state which describes a set of physical parameters related to the tracked object. For instance, object motion state may comprise a position in relative or absolute coordinates, a heading vector, a velocity vector, and an acceleration vector"); and/ or
instructing a further detector positioned in the trajectory (Kellner paragraph [0039] "A tracking filter, e.g., a Kalman filter, maintains tracks associated with detected objects based on sensor signals received from the sensor systems. Each object track is associated with an object state. The object state comprises an object motion state which describes a set of physical parameters related to the tracked object. For instance, object motion state may comprise a position in relative or absolute coordinates, a heading vector, a velocity vector, and an acceleration vector") of the vessel to obtain subsequent data in respect of the vessel, and tracking movement of the detected vessel based on the subsequent data (Bretschneider page 4 lines 9-13 "The remote sensing refers to observing or sensing of objects from a distance or a remote place. Sensors used for the remote sensing are not in direct contact with the observed objects. Such sensors can include optical, infrared, sonar, or radar means").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 17. Finally the method recited in claim 17 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider and Appel, in view of Iida (US 2020/0276983 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bretschneider and Appel teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: determining an object position associated with each object detection based on the data obtained by the respective detector of the two or more detectors (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-11 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54); and
determining if two or more of the determined object positions (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-11 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54) associated with
However, the combination of Bretschneider and Appel does not explicitly teach “each object detection correspond to within a predetermined position threshold level”.
Iida teaches “each object detection correspond to within a predetermined position threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection as taught by Bretschneider and Appel to include thresholds to determine when each sensor has detected the same object as taught by Iida.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "The sensors mounted on a vehicle are, for example, a camera, a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, an ultrasonic sensor, and an infrared sensor. When a plurality of sensors detect the same object, a detection error (hereinafter referred to as "bias error") occurs among the plurality of sensors depending on the types of those sensors. The bias error sometimes changes temporarily due to a travel environment of the vehicle, and thus it is difficult to estimate the bias error. The related-art obstacle recognition device does not assume this bias error. As a result, the related-art obstacle recognition device has a problem in that, even when the plurality of sensors have actually detected the same object, the plurality of sensors erroneously recognize the same object as separate objects due to the bias error among those sensors" as noted by the Iida disclosure paragraph 6 and 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider and Appel with the Iida disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida teaches “The method of claim 3, wherein the predetermined position (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-11 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54) threshold level is 500m (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida references presented in the rejection of claim 3, applies to claim 4. Finally the method recited in claim 4 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: determining an object speed associated with each object detection based on the data obtained by the respective detector of the two or more detectors (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 15-17 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58"); and
determining if two or more of the determined object speeds (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 15-17 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58") associated with each object detection correspond to within a speed threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida references presented in the rejection of claim 3, applies to claim 5. Finally the method recited in claim 5 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, and Iida.
Claims 7,9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner in view of Iida.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: determining an object heading (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading") associated with each object detection based on the data obtained by the respective detector of the two or more detectors (Bretschneider page 11 lines 5-8 "The method includes a step of extracting a characteristic of the observed vessel 12 from the objective observation. The AIS message is verified using the extracted characteristic"); and
determining if two or more of the determined object headings (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading") associated with ”.”
However, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner does not explicitly teach “each object detection correspond to within a predetermined heading threshold level”.
Iida teaches “each object detection correspond to within a predetermined heading threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection with verification by matching extracted features as taught by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner to include thresholds to determine when each sensor has detected the same object as taught by Iida.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "The sensors mounted on a vehicle are, for example, a camera, a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, an ultrasonic sensor, and an infrared sensor. When a plurality of sensors detect the same object, a detection error (hereinafter referred to as "bias error") occurs among the plurality of sensors depending on the types of those sensors. The bias error sometimes changes temporarily due to a travel environment of the vehicle, and thus it is difficult to estimate the bias error. The related-art obstacle recognition device does not assume this bias error. As a result, the related-art obstacle recognition device has a problem in that, even when the plurality of sensors have actually detected the same object, the plurality of sensors erroneously recognize the same object as separate objects due to the bias error among those sensors" as noted by the Iida disclosure paragraph 6 and 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner with the Iida disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: determining an object bearing (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading") associated with each object detection based on the data obtained by the respective detector of the two or more detectors, wherein the object bearing is relative to the two or more detectors (Bretschneider page 11 lines 5-8 "The method includes a step of extracting a characteristic of the observed vessel 12 from the objective observation. The AIS message is verified using the extracted characteristic"); and
determining if two or more of the determined object bearings (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading") associated with each object detection correspond to within a predetermined bearing threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida references presented in the rejection of claim 7, applies to claim 9. Finally the method recited in claim 9 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: determining an object track (Kellner paragraph [0039] "A tracking filter, e.g., a Kalman filter, maintains tracks associated with detected objects based on sensor signals received from the sensor systems. Each object track is associated with an object state. The object state comprises an object motion state which describes a set of physical parameters related to the tracked object. For instance, object motion state may comprise a position in relative or absolute coordinates, a heading vector, a velocity vector, and an acceleration vector") associated with each object detection based on the data obtained by the respective detector of the two or more detectors (Bretschneider page 11 lines 5-8 "The method includes a step of extracting a characteristic of the observed vessel 12 from the objective observation. The AIS message is verified using the extracted characteristic"); and
determining if two or more of the determined object tracks (Kellner paragraph [0039] "A tracking filter, e.g., a Kalman filter, maintains tracks associated with detected objects based on sensor signals received from the sensor systems. Each object track is associated with an object state. The object state comprises an object motion state which describes a set of physical parameters related to the tracked object. For instance, object motion state may comprise a position in relative or absolute coordinates, a heading vector, a velocity vector, and an acceleration vector") associated with each object detection correspond to within a predetermined track threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object") during a predetermined time interval (Kellner paragraph [0003] "Reflection points or groups of reflection points observed over time can be used to track the motion of an object over time. Such a determination over time is referred to as the track of an object").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida references presented in the rejection of claim 7, applies to claim 11. Finally the method recited in claim 11 is met by Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Iida.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner in view of Akagunduz (US 2018/0150966 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the two or more detectors comprise: the light sensor (Bretschneider page 4 lines 9-13 "The remote sensing refers to observing or sensing of objects from a distance or a remote place. Sensors used for the remote sensing are not in direct contact with the observed objects. Such sensors can include optical, infrared, sonar, or radar means"); and
the AIS receiver (Bretschneider page 4 lines 18- 20 "The verification of the AIS message serve to identify vessels that pose a possible security threat to other vessels, to man-made installations, to environment, and even to society"),
wherein the step of determining if a match exists comprises: (Kellner paragraph [0061] "one or more of the received sensor signals 110 comprises detection information associated with a first object, the detection information comprising any of; position coordinates relative to a sensor, position coordinates in an absolute coordinate system, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, a bearing relative to a sensor, a heading"); and
determining if the estimation of the object size matches a vessel size of the object as indicated by the data obtained by AIS receiver (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-19 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54. Similarly, the extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify vessel feature, such as vessel size and dimensions, as shown in a step 56. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel type, as shown in a step 60").”
However, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner does not teach “estimating an object size based on a pixel width of the object in image data captured by the light sensor”.
Akagunduz teaches “estimating an object size based on a pixel width of the object in image data captured by the light sensor (Akagunduz paragraph [0034] "a grey level image of the scene under consideration is received together with the coordinates of a pixel on the object on this image. […] Therefore, the size of the imaginary window around the object, for which the pixel standard deviation is maximum, can be assumed as a good estimate for the window size that encapsulates the whole object with minimum possible number of background pixels, i.e. the object size")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection with verification by matching extracted features as taught by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner to include extracting object size from sensor data as taught by Akagunduz.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been such methods already exist " It is known that there are systems that use methods and models to estimate the position and size of an object in a still image or a video frame. Infrared search and track (IRST) systems, in which infrared images of a scene are acquired and converted into grayscale format, are good examples of such systems. The acquired images consist of a two-dimensional array of pixel values which represent infrared intensities at these locations" as noted by the Akagunduz disclosure paragraph 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner with the Akagunduz disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Akagunduz in view of Iida.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Akagunduz teaches “The method of claim 15, wherein the step of determining if the estimation of the object size matches the vessel size as indicated by the AIS receiver comprises determining if the estimation of the object size corresponds to the vessel size as indicated by the AIS receiver (Bretschneider Figure 3 and page 12 lines 10-19 "The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify location of the vessel, as shown in a step 54. Similarly, the extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to verify vessel feature, such as vessel size and dimensions, as shown in a step 56. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel characteristics, such as vessel speed, as shown in a step 58. The extracted AIS messages are compared with the extracted characteristics to determine vessel type, as shown in a step 60") to within a predetermined vessel size threshold level.”
However, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Akagunduz does not explicitly teach “each object detection correspond to within a predetermined heading threshold level”.
Iida teaches “within a predetermined vessel size threshold level (Iida paragraph [0048] "The determination unit 10b is configured to compare the index value calculated by the calculation unit 10a with a threshold value condition set in advance, to thereby determine whether a selected pair of objects is the same object").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine
a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection with verification by matching extracted features as taught by Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Akagunduz to include thresholds to determine when each sensor has detected the same object as taught by Iida.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been "The sensors mounted on a vehicle are, for example, a camera, a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, an ultrasonic sensor, and an infrared sensor. When a plurality of sensors detect the same object, a detection error (hereinafter referred to as "bias error") occurs among the plurality of sensors depending on the types of those sensors. The bias error sometimes changes temporarily due to a travel environment of the vehicle, and thus it is difficult to estimate the bias error. The related-art obstacle recognition device does not assume this bias error. As a result, the related-art obstacle recognition device has a problem in that, even when the plurality of sensors have actually detected the same object, the plurality of sensors erroneously recognize the same object as separate objects due to the bias error among those sensors" as noted by the Iida disclosure paragraph 6 and 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Akagunduz with the Iida disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner, in view of Daniel et al. (US 8,994,562 B1), in further view of Walsh et al. (US 2021/0070441 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner teaches “The method of claim 17, wherein, upon detecting the vessel, the method further comprises: triggering an audible and/ or visual alert (Bretschneider page 5 lines 4-7 "Any verification mismatch is raised as alarms or alerts and can be communicated to a central entity for further verification or action");
sending a message to an operator (Daniel column 2 lines 59-62 "As an example, for each detected event, the boat monitoring element 22 may transmit a message for notifying the controller 25 of the occurrence of the event");
tasking another detector to search for the vessel ((Appel page 1 left hand column paragraph 1 "The position information provided by the GNSS receivers is usually fused with other sensors like inertial measurement units (IMUs) or magnetic gyroscopes. The subsystem of sensors is subsequently integrated with electronic navigation charts (ENCs) and/or the automatic identification system (AIS), which is mandatory for larger vessels" and Bretschneider page 4 lines 9-13 "The remote sensing refers to observing or sensing of objects from a distance or a remote place. Sensors used for the remote sensing are not in direct contact with the observed objects. Such sensors can include optical, infrared, sonar, or radar means"); and/ or
instructing a drone to investigate the vessel (Walsh paragraph [0079] "drone launch station 54 can be fastened on top of sensor unit 52 to charge and release drone( s) 56 in response to maritime security threats").”
However, the combination Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner does not teach “sending a message to an operator” and “instructing a drone to investigate the vessel”.
Daniel teaches “sending a message to an operator (Daniel column 2 lines 59-62 "As an example, for each detected event, the boat monitoring element 22 may transmit a message for notifying the controller 25 of
the occurrence of the event")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection as taught by Bretschneider, Appel, and Kellner and sending messages when an event is detected as taught by Daniel because such features is the result of applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, sending messages when an event is detected allows the ability for an operator to determine next course of action, such as for security purposes. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection to include sending message when an event is detected would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the reference applied shows the ability to incorporate a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection and the ability to send messages when an event is detected and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Daniel does not teach “instructing a drone to investigate the vessel”.
Walsh teaches “instructing a drone to investigate the vessel (Walsh paragraph [0079] "drone launch station 54 can be fastened on top of sensor unit 52 to charge and release drone( s) 56 in response to maritime security threats").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection as taught by Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Daniel and sending a drone in response to a detected vessel as taught by Walsh because such features is the result of applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, sending a drone in response to a detected vessel allows the ability to gather more information on the vessel such as suspicious activity for security purposes. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection to include sending a drone in response to a detected vessel would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the reference applied shows the ability to incorporate a multi-sensor fusion vessel detection and the ability to sending a drone in response to a detected vessel and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bretschneider, Appel, Kellner, and Daniel with the Walsh disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662