DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-13 have been cancelled. Claims 1 is amended. Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A method of determining a precise value of at least one pose parameter of an ego vessel, on which a camera is arranged, the method comprising:
receiving image data of an image captured by the camera, the image data showing at least one other vessel and at least one solid object interface between the at least one other vessel and a sky, or between the at least one other vessel and a water surface of a waterbody, on which the ego vessel sails;
determining a first representation of the at least one solid object interface from the image data;
determining a coarse position of the ego vessel at a time at which the image is captured, the coarse position comprising a coarse value of the at least one post parameter of the ego vessel;
determining reference data based on the coarse position of the ego vessel, the reference data being representative of the solid object interface in a real world and comprising AIS data relating to the at least one other vessel in the waterbody, wherein the AIS data comprise a geo- location of a GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel and an extent of the at least one other vessel in relation to the geo-location of the GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel;
estimating a vessel-water interface between the water surface and the at least one other vessel from the extent and the geo-location of the GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel;
determining parts of the estimated vessel-water interface which are visible from the camera as a visible vessel-water interface based on the estimated vessel-water interface and a position of the camera;
determining the visible vessel-water interface as a second representation of the at least one solid object interface from the reference data;
determining a difference between the first representation and the second representation; and
determining the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel depending on the difference, wherein the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel improves upon an accuracy of the coarse value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the at least one post parameter of the ego vessel”
Generally Unclear: The expression “an extent of the at least one other vessel in relation to the geo-location of the GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, the term “an extent of the at least one other vessel …” appears to be an incomplete concept. More specifically, although the extent is articulated in relation to the geo-location of the GPS receiver, it is unclear what “extent” is intended to be referenced, and how the extension is intended to be measured. Accordingly, the meaning of this term is vague and indefinite.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method of determining a precise value of at least one pose parameter of an ego vessel, on which a camera is arranged, the method comprising:
receiving image data of an image captured by the camera, the image data showing at least one other vessel and at least one solid object interface between the at least one other vessel and a sky, or between the at least one other vessel and a water surface of a waterbody, on which the ego vessel sails;
determining a first representation of the at least one solid object interface from the image data;
determining a coarse position of the ego vessel at a time at which the image is captured, the coarse position comprising a coarse value
determining reference data based on the coarse position of the ego vessel, the reference data being representative of the solid object interface in a real world and comprising AIS data relating to the at least one other vessel in the waterbody, wherein the AIS data comprise a geo-location of a GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel
estimating a vessel-water interface between the water surface and the at least one other vessel from
determining parts of the estimated vessel-water interface which are visible from the camera as a visible vessel-water interface based on the estimated vessel-water interface and a position of the camera;
determining the visible vessel-water interface as a second representation of the at least one solid object interface from the reference data;
determining a difference between the first representation and the second representation; and
determining the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel depending on the difference, wherein the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel improves upon an accuracy of the coarse value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel."
Claims 2-5 and 14-15 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grelsson (Grelsson B. et al. “GPS-level accurate camera localization with HorizonNet”, Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6 (December 23, 2019)) in view of Palmieri (Palmieri FAN, et al. Harbour Surveillance with Cameras Calibrated with AIS Data. IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings (2013)), and further in view of Lee (Lee JM. Study on Image-Based Ship Detection for AR Navigation. 2016 6th International Conference on IT Convergence and Security (ICITCS), Prague, Czech Republic, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Grelsson discloses a method of determining a precise value of at least one pose parameter of an ego vessel, on which a camera is arranged (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text), the method comprising:
receiving image data of an image captured by the camera, the image data showing at least one solid object (e.g. at least land, see e.g. at least Fig. 14, and related text) and at least one solid object interface between the at least one solid object and a sky (e.g. at least horizon, id.), or between the at least one solid object and a water surface of a waterbody (id.), on which the ego vessel sails (see e.g. at least Abstract, § 5.2.2, Fig. 14, and related text, wherein the horizon line is at the interface between sky and land);
determining a first representation of the at least one solid object interface from the image data (see e.g. at least § 4.3, Fig. 14, and related text, determining a predicted location of the horizon line using a CNN called HorizonSegmenter);
determining a coarse position of the ego vessel at a time at which the image is captured, the coarse position comprising a coarse value (see e.g. at least § 1, ¶ 6-7, Fig. 1, and related text);
determining reference data based on the coarse position of the ego vessel, the reference data being representative of the at least one solid object interface in a real world (e.g. at least digital elevation model (DEM) data of the operational area, see e.g. at least Abstract, § 1, ¶¶ 2, 6-7, Fig. 1, and related text);
determining a second representation of the at least one solid object interface from the reference data (see e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, §§ 3, 4.5, generating the geometric/target horizon line by ray-tracing using the DEM data);
determining a difference between the first representation and the second representation (see e.g. at least §§ 3, 4.6-4.7, determining a MOSSE filter correlation score based on the difference between segmented horizon lines and the geometric horizon line); and
determining the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel depending on the difference, wherein the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel improves upon an accuracy of the coarse value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel (id., generating a position estimate based on the MOSSE filter correlation score).
Additionally, Palmieri teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Grelsson including namely: [determining reference data] comprising AIS data relating to at least one other vessel in the waterbody, wherein the AIS data comprise a geo-location of a GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel (see e.g. at least § 6, ¶ 3, using GPS information coming from the AIS network fused with images to provide calibration, wherein image points for calibration are the pixel positions of one or more well-identified ships (with AID on board), and world points are GPS positions of the same ships, grabbed from the AIS network).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Grelsson by determining reference data based on the coarse position of an ego vessel, the reference data being representative of a solid object interface in a real world and comprising AIS data relating to the at least one other vessel in the waterbody, wherein the AIS data comprise a geo- location of a GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel and an extent of the at least one other vessel in relation to the geo-location of the GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel as taught by Palmieri in order to improve positional accuracy of imaging systems that, without GPS/AIS calibration, are subject to error due to terrestrial curvature (Palmieri: § 6, ¶1-3).
Additionally, Lee teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Grelsson including namely: estimating a vessel-water interface between a water surface and at least one other vessel from a geo-location of a GPS receiver of at least one other vessel (see e.g. at least § III.E.-IV, Fig. 7-10, Table 1, and related text, using a saliency algorithm and canny edge detection to identify ships along a horizon line);
determining parts of the estimated vessel-water interface which are visible from the camera as a visible vessel-water interface based on the estimated vessel-water interface and a position of the camera (id.); and
determining the visible vessel-water interface as a second representation of at least one solid object interface from reference data (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Grelsson by estimating a vessel-water interface between the water surface and the at least one other vessel from the geo-location of the GPS receiver of the at least one other vessel; determining parts of the estimated vessel-water interface which are visible from the camera as a visible vessel-water interface based on the estimated vessel-water interface and a position of the camera; and determining the visible vessel-water interface as a second representation of the at least one solid object interface from the reference data as taught by Lee in order to improve accuracy of target-ship location and pose data determination by combining image detection algorithms with GPS/AIS data (Lee: § III.E-IV).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Grelsson teaches that the determining of the difference between the first representation and the second representation comprises transferring the first representation and/or the second representation into the same coordinate system, and determining a misfit function between the first representation and the second representation within the coordinate system as the difference (see e.g. at least §§ 3, 4.4, 4.6-4.7); and
the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel is determined depending on the difference by adjusting the coarse value of the at least one pose parameter of the ego vessel such that the difference is reduced (id., see also e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, §§ 5.3.3-5.3.4, 6).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Grelsson teaches that the coarse value of the pose parameter is adjusted such that the misfit function is minimized (see e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, §§ 3, 4.4, 4.6-4.7, 5.3.3-5.3.4, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Grelsson teaches determining a coarse value of at least one orientation parameter of the ego vessel (see e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, Fig. 1, and related text); and
determining the reference data based on the coarse value of the at least one orientation parameter of the ego vessel (see e.g. at least Abstract, § 1,¶¶ 2, 6-7, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Grelsson teaches that the first representation is representative for a pathway of the at least one solid object interface within the image (see e.g. at least Fig. 3, 12-15, and related text); or
wherein the second representation is representative for a pathway of the at least one solid object interface within the real world (see e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, §§ 3, 4.5), or
wherein the first representation is representative for a pathway of the at least one solid object interface within the image and the second representation is representative for a pathway of the at least one solid object interface within the real world (id., see also e.g. at least § 4.3, Fig. 14, and related text).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Grelsson teaches that the image shows at least a part of a horizon between the water surface and the sky (see e.g. at least Fig. 12-15, and related text);
wherein a third representation of the horizon is determined from the image data (id.);
wherein the reference data are representative of the horizon in the real world (id., see also e.g. at least § 4.3, Fig. 14, and related text);
wherein a fourth representation of the horizon is determined from the reference data (id., see also e.g. at least § 1, ¶¶ 6-7, §§ 3, 4.5);
wherein a difference between the third representation and the fourth representation is determined (id., see also e.g. at least § 4.6-4.7); and
wherein the precise value of the pose parameter of the ego vessel is determined further depending on the difference between the third representation and the fourth representation (id.).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Grelsson teaches a system comprising a processing unit configured to determine a value of at least one pose parameter of an ego vessel on which a camera is arranged, the precise value improving upon an accuracy of a coarse value of the at least one pose parameter of the ego vessel, the system further comprising a memory configured to store image data of an image, coarse position data of the ego vessel, the coarse position data comprising the coarse value, and/or reference data, the processing unit which is configured to determine the precise value of the at least one pose parameter of the ego vessel by carrying out the method in accordance with claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above, see also e.g. at least § 5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights