DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 21-22, 24-30, 35-36, 38-39 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Epskamp et al. (WO 2018184058 A1), hereinafter, “Epskamp”.
Regarding claim 21, Epskamp recites, obtaining image data of a vessel; detecting at least one object in the image data, the at least one object comprising at least one draft mark (Please note, page 5, paragraph 6. As indicated obtaining at least one image containing at least one set of draft marks); identifying a waterline by analyzing the image data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated the angle of list at the bow 130, and the width of the vessel at the waterline adjacent the bow may be used to calculate the draft measurement adjacent the bow 130 on the ocean side of the vessel.); determining an intersection between the at least one draft mark and the waterline (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated This may be repeated for each of the draft gauges on the ocean side of the vessel i.e. the draft gauges adjacent the stern 135 and midships. The draft of the vessel 100 may be monitored during loading and unloading by repeating the above optical and GNSS based measurements of the draft of the vessel at regular intervals throughout the loading and unloading process.); obtaining distance data of the hull of the vessel from one or more distance sensors (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated locate a distance measuring device, such as a laser based distance measuring device, adjacent the optical imaging device 1 10 and the pan / tilt unit 160. The laser distance measuring device may be operated in conjunction with pan / tilt unit 160 so as to scan the hull of vessel 100 and generate a data set of the distance from the pan tilt unit 160 of various points on the surface of the hull); and determining an angle of list of the vessel, based on the distance data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated this data may be combined with the pan and tilt angle information so that the distance from the pan / tilt unit of various points on the hull, along with the relative angle of these points to a predetermined position of the pan / tilt unit is known.); and calculating a draft of the vessel based on the at least one draft mark and the intersection, and the angle of list. (Please note, page 19, paragraph 7. As indicated the three dimensional data set of the hull and the relative angle of the scan points on the hull to the predetermined position of pan / tilt unit 160 (and optical imaging device 1 10) may be used to transform optical images of the draft gauge 300 so that the image may be processed in order to determine the draft of the vessel.).
Regarding claim 22, Epskamp recites, estimating the position of one or more draft marks relative to the waterline, for an opposite side of the vessel. (Please note, page 7, paragraph 6. As indicated at least one optical imaging device may be located in a fixed position on said wharf. At least two optical imaging devices may be located on said wharf in positions suitable for measuring draft marks at the bow and stern of the vessel. The method may comprise the step of undertaking multiple measurements of the draft of the vessel during loading or unloading of the vessel so as to provide real time or near real time measurements of the draft of the vessel.).
Regarding claim 24, Epskamp recites, determining a height of the vessel. (Please note, page 29, paragraph 4. As indicated at step 1 104, change the tidal measurement datum to the same co-ordinates as the Cartesian origin for the vertical position of the draft mark selected at step 2 above; at step 1 105, subtract the tidal measurement from the Cartesian height of the draft mark selected at step 1 102; at step 1 106 determine the draft of the vessel by subtracting the result from the calculation in step 1 105 from the draft value of the draft mark selected in step 2; and at step 1 107, the draft measurement obtained in step 1 106 is calculated for a number of images over a period of time (e.g. 10 seconds) and the draft value for the gauge being measured is determined as the mean of the draft values calculated over the period.).
Regarding claim 25, Epskamp recites, wherein the height is determined from the distance data. (Please note, page 29, paragraph 4. As indicated at step 1 104, change the tidal measurement datum to the same co-ordinates as the Cartesian origin for the vertical position of the draft mark selected at step 2 above; at step 1 105, subtract the tidal measurement from the Cartesian height of the draft mark selected at step 1 102; at step 1 106 determine the draft of the vessel by subtracting the result from the calculation in step 1 105 from the draft value of the draft mark selected in step 2; and at step 1 107, the draft measurement obtained in step 1 106 is calculated for a number of images over a period of time (e.g. 10 seconds) and the draft value for the gauge being measured is determined as the mean of the draft values calculated over the period. In this regard, at step 105, the subtraction measurement is indicative of distance data.).
Regarding claim 26, Epskamp recites, wherein the one or more distance sensors are mounted to a dock. (Please note, page 21, last paragraph. As indicated a sensor pack located on the wharf adjacent each draft mark (typically 3 positions - Forward, Midships and Aft). Each sensor pack may consist of: i. a motorised pan tilt unit (PTU)).
Regarding claim 27, Epskamp recites, wherein analysing the image data to identify the waterline comprises performing instance segmentation on the image data. (Please note, page 25, second paragraph. As indicated further details on the image transformation in Step 903 are described in the following steps 903a - 903d: 903a) Create a grid of points in Cartesian space along an X axis (horizontal wharf) and a Z axis (vertical), such that the grid is slightly larger than the field of view (in metres) of the original image centred at the Cartesian centre of the original image.).
Regarding claim 28, Epskamp recites, obtaining the image data from at least one image sensor mounted to a dock. (Please note, page 21, last paragraph. As indicated a sensor pack located on the wharf adjacent each draft mark (typically 3 positions - Forward, Midships and Aft). Each sensor pack may consist of: i. a motorised pan tilt unit (PTU)).
Regarding claim 29, Epskamp recites, wherein the at least one object detected in the image data comprises at least two draft marks. (Please note, page 3, paragraph 7. As indicated the method may comprise the step of capturing at least one optical image of draft marks on a hull of the vessel using the at least one optical imaging device.).
Regarding claim 30, Epskamp recites, wherein the at least two draft marks are on the same side of the vessel, and the method further comprises calculating the trim of the vessel. (Please note, page 17, last paragraph. As indicated control unit 155 also obtains GNSS data from the GNSS units 1 15 and processes this data to determine the draft of the ship at the six draft locations on the hull. To do this the control unit 155 may use latitude, longitude and elevation data from the six GNSS units to fit a surface to the ship about the GNSS units. This surface, in conjunction with tidal data from tidal sensor 140, is used in the calculation of the draft of the vessel. Tidal senor 140 is typically located at the port or the wharf 105, and provides data in real time, or near real time, as to the relative elevation of the tide. The difference between the relative level of the water line 125 and the elevation of the surface derived from the location of the six GNSS units can be used to determine the height of the surface above the water level adjacent each of the draft gauges. This information can be combined with an initial optical measurement of the vessel's draft to identify the draft of the vessel which corresponds to the particular difference in elevation between the surface and the tide.).
Regarding claim 42, Epskamp recites, a memory, and at least one processor. (Please note, page 17, paragraph 4. As indicated the control unit 155 is located remotely from the wharf 105 and comprises a processor, a memory, an operating system and an automated draft survey program.).
Regarding claims 35-36 and 39, similar analysis as those presented for claim 21, are applicable.
Regarding claim 38 and 41, similar analysis as those presented for claim 24, are applicable
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 23, 31-32, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epskamp et al. (WO 2018184058 A1), hereinafter, “Epskamp”, in view of Ramezani et al. (WO 2021226027 A1 GRAPH NEURAL NETWORK FOR MULTI-OBJECT DETECTION AND TRACKING), hereinafter, “Ramezani”.
Regarding claim 23, Epskamp recites, obtaining image data of a vessel; detecting at least one object in the image data, the at least one object comprising at least one draft mark (Please note, page 5, paragraph 6. As indicated obtaining at least one image containing at least one set of draft marks); identifying a waterline by analyzing the image data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated the angle of list at the bow 130, and the width of the vessel at the waterline adjacent the bow may be used to calculate the draft measurement adjacent the bow 130 on the ocean side of the vessel.); determining an intersection between the at least one draft mark and the waterline (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated This may be repeated for each of the draft gauges on the ocean side of the vessel i.e. the draft gauges adjacent the stern 135 and midships. The draft of the vessel 100 may be monitored during loading and unloading by repeating the above optical and GNSS based measurements of the draft of the vessel at regular intervals throughout the loading and unloading process.); obtaining distance data of the hull of the vessel from one or more distance sensors (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated locate a distance measuring device, such as a laser based distance measuring device, adjacent the optical imaging device 1 10 and the pan / tilt unit 160. The laser distance measuring device may be operated in conjunction with pan / tilt unit 160 so as to scan the hull of vessel 100 and generate a data set of the distance from the pan tilt unit 160 of various points on the surface of the hull); and determining an angle of list of the vessel, based on the distance data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated this data may be combined with the pan and tilt angle information so that the distance from the pan / tilt unit of various points on the hull, along with the relative angle of these points to a predetermined position of the pan / tilt unit is known.); and calculating a draft of the vessel based on the at least one draft mark and the intersection, and the angle of list. (Please note, page 19, paragraph 7. As indicated the three dimensional data set of the hull and the relative angle of the scan points on the hull to the predetermined position of pan / tilt unit 160 (and optical imaging device 1 10) may be used to transform optical images of the draft gauge 300 so that the image may be processed in order to determine the draft of the vessel.).
Epskamp does not expressly teach, utilizing one or more LIDAR sensors.
Ramezani teaches, one or more LIDAR sensors utilization (Please note, page 15, line 32. As indicated sensor is a lidar device.).
Epskamp & Ramezani are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor.
At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this one or more LIDAR sensors of Ramezani in Epskamp’s invention.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been as indicated on page 15, lines 30-31, “for transmitting and receiving lasers that reflect off of objects in the environment.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramezani with Epskamp to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 31, Ramezani recites, identifying a trackable feature of the vessel using one or more distance sensors (such as LIDAR sensors). (Please note, paragraph 0021 and 0025. As indicated Fig.8 illustrates a flowchart of an example method for tracking features through the sequence of images using the techniques of this disclosure. The system associated features extracted from sensor data or image at a time t to define a layer L.).
Regarding claim 32, Ramezani recites, wherein the trackable features is selected from any one of more of: a top edge of the vessel; draft marks of the vessel; and a physical feature of the vessel, including the transom. (Please note, paragraph 0025. As indicated a multi-object tracker can construct a graph in which features of the objects define nodes. A feature can be a cluster of points of a certain size (e.g., N ls by M pixels) which the computing system generates through the process of segmentation for example. As another example, a feature can be a vector of values of reduced dimensions obtained from further processing of a point cloud. Features need not be of the same size and in general can correspond to any portion of an image. Because the graph also can include nodes associated with edges as discussed below, the nodes representing features are referred to as “feature nodes.” The system associated features extracted from sensor data or image at a time t to define a layer L.).
Regarding claim 37 and 40, similar analysis as those presented for claim 23, are applicable.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epskamp et al. (WO 2018184058 A1), hereinafter, “Epskamp”, in view of Lin (CN 110738642 A Mask-based R-CNN Of Rebar Concrete Crack Identification And Measuring Method And Storage Medium).
Regarding claim 33, Epskamp recites, obtaining image data of a vessel; detecting at least one object in the image data, the at least one object comprising at least one draft mark (Please note, page 5, paragraph 6. As indicated obtaining at least one image containing at least one set of draft marks); identifying a waterline by analyzing the image data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated the angle of list at the bow 130, and the width of the vessel at the waterline adjacent the bow may be used to calculate the draft measurement adjacent the bow 130 on the ocean side of the vessel.); determining an intersection between the at least one draft mark and the waterline (Please note, page 19, paragraph 3. As indicated This may be repeated for each of the draft gauges on the ocean side of the vessel i.e. the draft gauges adjacent the stern 135 and midships. The draft of the vessel 100 may be monitored during loading and unloading by repeating the above optical and GNSS based measurements of the draft of the vessel at regular intervals throughout the loading and unloading process.); obtaining distance data of the hull of the vessel from one or more distance sensors (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated locate a distance measuring device, such as a laser based distance measuring device, adjacent the optical imaging device 1 10 and the pan / tilt unit 160. The laser distance measuring device may be operated in conjunction with pan / tilt unit 160 so as to scan the hull of vessel 100 and generate a data set of the distance from the pan tilt unit 160 of various points on the surface of the hull); and determining an angle of list of the vessel, based on the distance data (Please note, page 19, paragraph 6. As indicated this data may be combined with the pan and tilt angle information so that the distance from the pan / tilt unit of various points on the hull, along with the relative angle of these points to a predetermined position of the pan / tilt unit is known.); and calculating a draft of the vessel based on the at least one draft mark and the intersection, and the angle of list. (Please note, page 19, paragraph 7. As indicated the three dimensional data set of the hull and the relative angle of the scan points on the hull to the predetermined position of pan / tilt unit 160 (and optical imaging device 1 10) may be used to transform optical images of the draft gauge 300 so that the image may be processed in order to determine the draft of the vessel.).
Epskamp does not expressly teach, utilizing using a Mask R-CNN machine classifier.
Lin teaches, using a Mask R-CNN machine classifier utilization (Please note, page 8, first paragraph. As indicated Mask R-CNN model as shown in FIG. 2.).
Epskamp & Lin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor.
At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this Mask R-CNN machine classifier of Lin in Epskamp’s invention.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been as indicated on page 8, first paragraph, “the greatest characteristic of Mask R-CNN is: the frame information of detection of the object image to be crack extracted independently, characteristic, inputting the combined pyramid picture width, pyramid ROI processing; then aligning the ROI to obtain crack target.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lin with Epskamp to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, Lin recites, using a Faster R-CNN machine classifier. (Please note, page 15, paragraph 4. As indicated Faster R-CNN).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well.
It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ALAVI whose telephone number is (571)272-7386. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00-4:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/AMIR ALAVI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Wednesday, February 18, 2026