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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application filed February 21, 2023.
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 06/20/2024, and 04/17/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings for claim 11 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 11 mentions generation of a transformation matrix however the drawing does not show a transformation matrix.
Claim 12 mentions the usage of a k-d tree however the drawing does not show any indication of a k-d tree.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0004] “using the process” should be “using the processor”.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claims recite statutory categories:
Regarding claim 1, under step 1 the claim recites a method and falls under a statutory category.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites limitations that amount to mental processes. These steps could practically be performed in the human mind. Images could be reviewed manually by a human, or judgment of data – clearly within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas under the July 2024 US PTO guidance.
“Creating, using a processor, a model for a target;”
This limitation constitutes a method which can be performed mentally or manually by a human using observation, or judgment.
“Receiving, using the processor, an image of the target reflected on a heliostat,”
This limitation constitutes a method where a human can visually receive or observe an image reflected on the heliostat, hence it recites a collection of data which falls under data gathering
“Analyzing, using the processor, the image; and”
This limitation constitutes of a method where an image is being evaluated and interpreted which can
be performed by human through reviewing the features of the image and is a mental process.
“Determining, using the process, an error of the heliostat.”
This limitation constitutes of a method where the error is determined based on the information analyzed. A human could compare the error from the reflected point and the target there this limitation is a mental process.
Regarding claim 15, under step 1 the claim recites a system and falls under a statutory category.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites limitations that amount to mental processes
“a processor; wherein: the processor is configured to create a model for a target,”
This limitation constitutes a processor which can be performed mentally or manually by a human using observation, or judgment.
“The processor is configured to receive an image of the target reflected on a heliostat,”
This limitation constitutes a processor where a human can visually receive or observe an image reflected on the heliostat, hence it recites a collection of data which falls under data gathering.
“The processor is configured to analyze the image to determine an error of the heliostat.”
This limitation constitutes of a processor where an image is being evaluated and interpreted which can
be performed by human through reviewing the features of the image and is a mental process. A human could also compare the error from the reflected point and the target there this limitation is a mental process
Regarding claim 2, the claim adds limitations “capturing, using a camera, the image;” Capturing and processing image data could be component of data gathering. The claim limitation also adds “wherein: the capturing is performed after the creating.” The chronology of capturing the image doesn’t affect abstract idea. Data gathering still exists through the capturing of images.
Regarding claim 3, the claim adds limitations “moving the camera along a track;” which could be a part of the data collection process for mathematical analysis of heliostat efficiency. Claim limitation also add “and aiming the camera at the heliostat” which is another data acquisition step.
Regarding claim 4, the claim adds limitations “solving, using the processor, for a location of a camera; wherein: the solving is performed after the receiving, and the image is captured by the camera.” This amounts to a mathematical process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1. The claim limitation also adds” wherein: the solving is performed after the receiving, and the image is captured by the camera.” The chronology doesn’t affect the abstract idea however, images being captured by the camera falls under data acquisition/ gathering.
Regarding claim 5, the claim adds limitations “the solving comprises: identifying a nonreflected feature in the image; and using the nonreflected feature to solve for a location of the camera.,” This amounts to a mathematical process and data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim adds limitation “wherein: the nonreflected feature comprises at least one of a corner or an edge of the heliostat.” This amounts to a judgment which can be performed by a human hence it is a mental process.
Regarding claim 7, the claim adds limitations “the analyzing comprises: identifying a reflected point; projecting the reflected point onto the model; and identifying a model target point on the model near the reflected point.” This amounts to a mathematical concept as well as mental process hence fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, The claim adds limitation “wherein: the reflected point comprises the target.”
This amounts to judgment which can be performed by human hence it is a mental process.
Regarding claim 9, the claim adds limitations “subtracting the reflected point from the target point to get the error at the target point.” This amounts to a mathematical concept and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim adds limitations “wherein: the subtracting comprises: calculating a first surface slope for the reflected point; calculating a second surface slope for the target point; and subtracting the first surface slope from the second surface slope.” This amounts to a mathematical concept and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim adds limitations “wherein: the projecting comprises: identifying a key feature in the image that corresponds to the key feature on the target”. This amounts to data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also adds the limitation “; and generating a transformation matrix”. This amounts to mental processes because a human can manually create a matrix based on the feature and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim adds limitations “wherein: the transformation matrix comprises a projection of the reflected point onto the model”, This amounts to mental process because a human can visually identify the projection of the reflected point and manually create a transformation matrix. The claim limitation also adds “the identifying comprises using a k-d tree.” This amounts to a data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim adds limitation “wherein: the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points in a mirror reference frame”. A human can also judge a plurality of target points in a mirror frame hence it is a mental process.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim adds limitation “wherein: the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface.” This is a mental process because a human can judge the plurality of dots existing on a surface.
Regarding claim 16, the claim adds limitations “the image is captured by a camera, and the processor is configured to solve for a location of the camera.” This amounts to data gathering and mathematical concept hence fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the claim adds limitation “wherein: the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface.” This is a mental process because a human can judge the plurality of dots existing on a surface.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim adds limitation “, wherein: the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points in a mirror reference frame.” A human can also judge a plurality of target points in a mirror frame hence it is a mental process.
Regarding claim 19, the claim adds limitation “wherein: the image comprises a reflected point, and the reflected point comprises the target.” This amounts to judgment which can be performed by human hence it is a mental process.
Regarding claim 20, the claim adds limitations “the error comprises a difference between the reflected point and one of the plurality of model target points.” This amounts to a mathematical concept and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (US 20210110571 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu teaches
creating, using a processor (Zhu, [0006]; “a processor configured to receive the image and calculate an optical error of the heliostat based on the image”), a model for a target; (Zhu, [0092]; Known tower 125 dimensions or computer aided design (CAD) data may be used to model the tower 125)
receiving, using the processor, an image of the target reflected on a heliostat, (Zhu, [0005]; the method including capturing an image of a reflection of the receiver in a mirror of the heliostat using a camera)
analyzing, using the processor, the image; and (Zhu, [0068]; The processor may be capable of identifying 215, determining 220, and calculating 225, or these steps may be performed by a series of processors in communication)
determining, using the process, an error of the heliostat. (Zhu, 0104]; The one-dimensional optical error analysis is done because a point on the reflected tower edge)
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu teaches:
solving, using the processor, for a location of a camera; wherein: (Zhu, [0005];” calculating …the position of the camera,)
the solving (Zhu, Figure 2, Step 225) is performed after the receiving (Zhu, Figure 2, Step 210), (Zhu, Figure 2)
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu teaches
the solving comprises: identifying a nonreflected feature in the image; and (Zhu, [0005]; “In some embodiments, the calculating also includes identifying a feature in the image. The feature may be a corner of the heliostat in the image and/or the reflection of the receiver.”)
using the nonreflected feature to solve for a location of the camera. (Zhu, [0005]; “In some embodiments, the method also includes determining the position of the camera, where the determining includes defining a coordinate system based on the corner of the heliostat, and using collinearity equations in the coordinate system to solve for the position of the camera.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Zhu teaches:
the nonreflected feature comprises at least one of a corner or an edge of the heliostat. (Zhu, [0068],” Referring again to FIG. 2, the next step in the method 200 may include identifying 215 features in the image 110, specifically identifying 215 at least one of the corner 140 of the heliostat 115 and/or the reflected tower edge 135.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
735
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the image is captured by the camera. (Zhu, [0091];” image 110 (originally in color) captured by a camera”)
Regarding Claim 15, Zhu teaches:
A system (Zhu, [0006];” An aspect of the present disclosure is a system for maximizing the solar energy delivered to a receiver by a heliostat”) comprising:
a processor (Zhu, [0006]; “a processor configured to receive the image and calculate an optical error of the heliostat based on the image”),
wherein: the processor is configured to create a model for a target, (Zhu, [0092]; Known tower 125 dimensions or computer aided design (CAD) data may be used to model the tower 125)
the processor is configured to receive an image of the target reflected on a heliostat, (Zhu, [0005]; the method including capturing an image of a reflection of the receiver in a mirror of the heliostat using a camera)
and the processor is configured to analyze the image to determine an error of the heliostat. (Zhu, 0104]; The one-dimensional optical error analysis is done because a point on the reflected tower edge)
Regarding Claim 16, Zhu teaches:
a camera (Zhu, [0005];” Capturing … camera”) wherein: the image is captured by a camera (Zhu, [0091];” image 110 (originally in color) captured by a camera”)
and the processor is configured to solve for a location of the camera.: (Zhu, [0005];” calculating …the position of the camera,)
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 2, 7-10, 13-14, and 17-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210110571 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Yellowhair (US 8582092 B1)
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu teaches:
capturing, using a camera, the image; (Zhu, [0005];” Capturing an image … camera”)
Zhu fails to teach
wherein: the capturing is performed after the creating.
Yellowhair teaches
the capturing is performed after the creating. (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 59]; In an alternative embodiment, the computing apparatus 108 can generate the theoretical image of the reflected target 104 in the mirrored facets of the heliostat 102 prior to the camera 106 capturing the image, and the reference points of the theoretical image can be mapped to appropriate positions in the image captured by the camera 106 after such image is captured.)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is to capture the image after the model is created. (Yellowhair, [Col 8 Line 54]; As mentioned above, this theoretical image can be generated prior to the camera 106 capturing the reflected image of the target in the mirrored facets of the heliostat 302 or after the camera 106 has captured the reflected image of the target in the mirrored facets of the heliostat 302.)
Regarding Claim 7, Zhu fails to teach:
the analyzing comprises: identifying a reflected point;
Yellowhair teaches:
the analyzing comprises: identifying a reflected point; (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 34];” In an example, the computing apparatus 108 can receive a reflected image of the target 104 35 from the camera 106, and can include image processing functionality that is configured to identify boundaries of mirrored facets in the heliostat 102.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able Identify a reflected point. (Yellowhair, [Col 7 Line 30];” The comparison between the image captured by the camera 106 and the theoretical image can result in identification of improper focus of the mirrored facet.”)
Zhu teaches:
projecting the reflected point onto the model; and (Zhu, [0005];” In some embodiments, the identifying includes mapping a plurality of pixels comprising the image in physical space, sorting the plurality of pixels into a first class and a second class, scanning the plurality of pixels to determine a location where a pixel of the first class is adjacent to a pixel of the second class, and identifying the location as the feature.”)
Zhu fails to teach:
identifying a model target point on the model near the reflected point.
Yellowhair teaches:
identifying a model target point (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 46]; “Reference Points”) on the model near the reflected point (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 46]; “positions…as reflected). (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 46]; “The theoretical image of the reflected target 104 in the mirrored facets of the heliostat 102 can include reference points that are indicative of positions of the target as reflected by the mirrored facets of the heliostat”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able Identify a model target point near a reflected point. (Yellowhair, [Col 7 Line 30];” The comparison between the image captured by the camera 106 and the theoretical image can result in identification of improper focus of the mirrored facet.”)
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair teaches:
the reflected point comprises the target. (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 14];” A computing apparatus 108 is in communication with the camera 106 and can receive a 5 10 an image of the reflected target 15 104 by way of the heliostat 102”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able have reflected point comprise the target. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 22];” the target is placed such that from the images captured by the camera include the target as reflected by the mirrored facets of the 25 heliostat.”)
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair teaches:
the determining comprises: subtracting the reflected point from the target point to get the error at the target point. (Zhu, [0010];” FIG. 3 illustrates a conceptual diagram showing how slope error is affected by the difference between the reflected towed edge point and an ideal reflected tower edge point, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure")
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able subtract the reflected point from the target point to get the error. (Yellowhair, Figure 3”)
PNG
media_image3.png
503
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair teaches:
the subtracting comprises: calculating a first (Zhu, [0075], “the real mirror 120 surface unit normal “) surface slope for the reflected point;
calculating a second surface slope for the target point (Zhu, [0075];” ideal mirror 120 surface unit normal (ideal)”)
and subtracting the first surface slope from the second surface slope. (Zhu, [0075]; “Surface slope error (0) is a pointwise quantity defined as the angle difference between the real mirror 120 surface unit normal (n,) and the ideal mirror 120 surface unit normal (ideal).”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able subtract the reflected point slope from the target point slope. (Yellowhair, [0059]; Slope error is determined for an individual point on a mirror surface and indicates how the mirror surface deviates from its desired shape.”)
Regarding Claim 13, Zhu fails to teach:
the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points in a mirror reference frame.
Yellowhair teaches:
the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 61] …computed points where gridlines of the target) in a mirror reference frame (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 6]; positions on the mirrored facet”). (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 35]; “The target includes a plurality of reference markings.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able to comprise multiple model target points in a mirror reference frame. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 32]; “In this exemplary embodiment, the camera can capture images that include an entirety of a heliostat or several heliostats, such that all mirrored facets on one or more heliostats can be aligned substantially simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 14, Zhu fails to teach:
the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface.
Yellowhair teaches
the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 36];” Therefore, for example, the target may be in the form of a grid that includes numerous lines: e.g., a first set of lines that run substantially vertically in parallel with one another and a second set of lines that run substantially horizontally in parallel with one another.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able to comprise plurality of dots arranged. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 57]; “The theoretical image is indicative of, for example, position, size, and orientation of gridlines of the target as reflected in the plurality of mirrored facets of the heliostat when such mirrored facets are properly aligned and focused.”
Regarding Claim 17, Zhu fails to teach:
the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface.
Yellowhair teaches
the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 36];” Therefore, for example, the target may be in the form of a grid that includes numerous lines: e.g., a first set of lines that run substantially vertically in parallel with one another and a second set of lines that run substantially horizontally in parallel with one another.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able to comprise plurality of dots arranged. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 57]; “The theoretical image is indicative of, for example, position, size, and orientation of gridlines of the target as reflected in the plurality of mirrored facets of the heliostat when such mirrored facets are properly aligned and focused.”
Regarding Claim 18, Zhu fails to teach:
the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points in a mirror reference frame.
Yellowhair teaches:
the model of the target comprises a plurality of model target points (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 61] …computed points where gridlines of the target) in a mirror reference frame (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 6]; positions on the mirrored facet”). (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 35]; “The target includes a plurality of reference markings.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able to comprise multiple model target points in a mirror reference frame. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 32]; “In this exemplary embodiment, the camera can capture images that include an entirety of a heliostat or several heliostats, such that all mirrored facets on one or more heliostats can be aligned substantially simultaneously”)
Regarding Claim 19, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair teaches:
the image comprises a reflected point, and (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 34];” In an example, the computing apparatus 108 can receive a reflected image of the target 104 35 from the camera 106, and can include image processing functionality that is configured to identify boundaries of mirrored facets in the heliostat 102.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able Identify a reflected point. (Yellowhair, [Col 7 Line 30];” The comparison between the image captured by the camera 106 and the theoretical image can result in identification of improper focus of the mirrored facet.”)
the reflected point comprises the target. (Yellowhair, [Col 5 Line 14];” A computing apparatus 108 is in communication with the camera 106 and can receive an 5 10 an image of the reflected target 15 104 by way of the heliostat 102”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able have reflected point comprise the target. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 22];” the target is placed such that from the images captured by the camera include the target as reflected by the mirrored facets of the 25 heliostat.”)
Regarding Claim 20, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair:
the error comprises a difference between the reflected point and one of the plurality of model target points. (Zhu, [0010];” FIG. 3 illustrates a conceptual diagram showing how slope error is affected by the difference between the reflected towed edge point and an ideal reflected tower edge point, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure")
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu with Yellowhair. The motivation for the combination is be able subtract the reflected point from the target point to get the error. (Yellowhair, Figure 3”)
PNG
media_image3.png
503
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210110571 A1), Yellowhair (US 8582092 B1) as applied to claim 2 and further in view Henault (AU2015238473A1)
Regarding Claim 3, The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair teaches:
and aiming the camera at the heliostat. (Yellowhair, [Col 8 Line 34];” the camera 106 can be directed towards a particular heliostat that includes mirrored facets that are desirably aligned.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu and Yellowhair with Henault. The motivation for the combination is be able to include a camera which is aimed towards the heliostat. (Yellowhair, [Col 2 Line 20];” the camera is orientated towards the mirrored facets of the heliostat such that images of the mirrored facets of the heliostat are captured,”)
The combination of Zhu and Yellowhair fail to teach:
wherein: the capturing comprises: moving the camera along a track;
Henault teaches:
wherein: the capturing comprises: moving the camera along a track; (Henault, [Page 9 Line 16]; “video camera movable in the target plane, fixed video camera scanned using the movable reflective surface, system composed of a plurality of fixed video cameras, "hybrid" observation strategy.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu and Yellowhair with Henault. The motivation for the combination is be able to include a camera which is movable. (Henault, [Page 5 Line 16];” The means for acquiring images from various viewpoints include a plurality of devices for acquiring images, which devices are respectively located at various fixed or movable positions on the target surface”)
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210110571 A1), and Yellowhair (US 8582092 B1) as applied to claim 7 and further in view Risner (US2016025591A1)
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Zhu, and Yellowhair fails to teach:
the projecting comprises: identifying a key feature in the image that corresponds to the key feature on the target;
and generating a transformation matrix.
Risner teaches:
the projecting comprises: identifying a key feature in the image that corresponds to the key feature on the target; (Risner, [0033];” The image processing software immediately operates to locate features of the known pattern in the image and compares the locations of the features to corresponding locations found in the image”)
and generating a transformation matrix. (Risner, [0133];” In prior steps, the image processing software determines a mapping between pixels in the image and coordinates on the reflective surface and a mapping between the location of pixels in the reflected image and the coordinates, or physical location, of the reflected light ray onto the target screen having the known pattern.”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu and Yellowhair with Risner. The motivation for the combination is be able match key feature in the image and the target to create a transformation matrix. (Risner, [0005];” Software is then employed to discern variances between the image reflected in the target reflector and the image reflected in a reference surface. Photogrammetry involves attaching retroreflective tags or stickers to an object surface and taking multiple photos of said surface using at least one camera, followed by quantitative analysis of mapping between the photographs.)
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210110571 A1), Yellowhair (US 8582092 B1), and Risner (US2016025591A1) as applied to claim 11 and further in view Eddhibi (“A novel mathematical approach for the optical efficiency optimization of solar tower power plant technology”)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Zhu, Yellowhair and Risner teach:
the transformation matrix comprises a projection of the reflected point onto the model, and (Risner, [0133];” These two transformations can be combined to yield a mapping from the physical position of the reflective surface to the destination of reflected light on the known pattern.”)
The combination of Zhu, Yellowhair and Risner fail to teach:
the identifying comprises using a k-d tree.
Eddhibi teaches
the identifying comprises using a k-d tree. (Eddhibi, [Page 4 Paragraph 5];” The binary method, the k-d “k-d tree,” 27,28 is used to select 10 neighbors for each heliostat studied”)
Before the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhu, Yellowhair, Risner with Eddhibi. The motivation for the combination is be able to use a k-d tree to identify (Eddhibi, [Page 4 Paragraph 5];” it is a binary tree that aims to find the nearest neighbor.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVANGI SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:00.
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.
/SHIVANGI SARKAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666