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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 13-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4, 6, 8, 13-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 18-19, applicant amended “… estimate a range of a predetermined size, with reference to…” is indefinite because “range” is opposed to “predetermined size.” There is no support in filed specification. Yet, there was “… a range of a particular size with a distance…” in canceled claim 3. It might be a typo in claim amendment. For examination purpose, interpretation of “a range of a particular size” is taken instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (KR20210044673) in view of Stein et al. (US2007/0154068).
To claim 1, Woo teach a target monitoring system, comprising:
a camera, mounted in a ship (paragraphs 0007, 0026);
a detecting apparatus, mounted in the ship and detecting an actual position of a target present around the ship (paragraphs 0037-0039); and
processing circuity, configured to:
detect a region of the target comprised in an image imaged by the camera (paragraphs 0034-0035);
estimate a range of a particular size, with reference to a distance estimated based on the in-image position of a lower end of the region of the target (paragraphs 0033-0035, 0039, 0046-0050); and
identify the target detected from the image and the target detected by the detecting apparatus based on the range of the distance that is estimated and the actual position that is detected (paragraphs 0038-0043, 0069, 0080, 0086, wherein actual position would be interpreted as position determined based on sensed information from one or more different sensory sources).
But, Woo do not expressly disclose corresponding to an error range in a vertical direction of a sight line toward the lower end of the region of the target from the camera, as a range of a distance from the ship to the target.
However, Woo does teach location of the object being estimated in the image based on the sea level, which can be taking into account for estimation of distance (paragraph 0033).
Stein teach a vehicle estimating distance to an object using a sequence of images recorded by camera, wherein said distance estimation corresponding to an error range in a vertical direction of a sight line toward the lower end of the region of the target from the camera, as a range of a distance from the vehicle to the target (Figs. 5-6; paragraphs 0019, 0031, pitch angle variations, positioning of bottom edge of imaged vehicle), which correspond to Woo’s teaching on sea level. Though Stein’s teaching is from perspective of an automobile, using camera captured images to estimate distance between self from another object ahead has been well-known in the art to be applicable to both automobiles and ships (Official Notice is taken).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Stein into the system of Woo, in order to further implement compensation to reduce pitch error in range estimation.
To claim 18, Woo and Stein teach a target monitoring method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 19, Woo and Stein teach a non-transient computer-readable recording medium, recording a program, executed by a computer (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 4, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: discard detection of the target in a case where the range of the distance is above a horizon (Fig. 1, obvious as target being outside of range, which is preferential by design and well-known in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 6, Woo and Stein teach claim 4.
Woo teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set a position of the horizon based on a height and a posture of the camera (paragraphs 0093-0102, obvious because live feed camera would need to coordinate with display setting, which is well-known practice in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 8, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect a posture of the ship; and estimate the range of the distance further based on the posture of the ship (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0049-0050, 0077).
To claim 13, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein, in a case where a plurality of targets detected by the detecting apparatus are present within the range of the distance that is estimated, the processing circuitry is further configured to: identify the target detected from the image as one closest to the ship among the targets (obvious in Fig. 8, paragraphs 0062, 0073).
To claim 14, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: estimate the range of the distance based on a height, a posture, and a camera parameter of the camera (paragraphs 0031, 0045-0051, 0096-0099).
To claim 15, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein the detecting apparatus is a radar, and the processing circuitry is further configured to: display the range of the distance on a radar image based on echo data detected by the radar (paragraphs 0037-0038).
To claim 16, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.Woo teach wherein the detecting apparatus is an automatic identification system (AIS) (paragraph 0042).
To claim 17, Woo and Stein teach claim 1.
Woo teach wherein the detecting apparatus is an electronic charge display and information system (ECDIS) (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights