IDETAILED 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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment, filed on July 11th, 2024 has been acknowledged and entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-18 are objected to for the reasons laid out below:
Claim 1, 6, 11 and 18 and associated dependent claims are objected to because of the use of pronouns. Claim 1 and associated dependent claims are being objected to because the recitation of the limitation “it,” “its,” “their” and “itself” each is a pronoun with no direct object and therefore, is difficult to determine whether “it,” “its,” “their” and “itself” would refer to the droplet or the spreading of the oil or the pixel or the droplet candidates in the claim or another claimed limitation, the procedures which goes to make up the method of determining or the structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The method of determining or structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete system. Please see:
“it” in claim 1, line 25; and
“their” in claim 1, line 26; and
“its” in claim 6, Line 3; and
“it” in claim 11, line 4; and
“itself” in claim 18, line 2, respectively, for the same problems. For examination purposes the office has interpreted the term:
“it” in claim 1, line 25, as “the droplet…”; and
“their” in claim 1, line 26 as “the pixels’…”; and
“its” in claim 6, Line 3 as “oil droplet’s…”; and
“it” in claim 11, line 4 as “the element…”; and
“itself” in claim 18, line 2 as “the readable storage media”,
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 1, line 3, “comprising the steps of:…” should be read as “comprising of:” since there is no previously instantiation of “steps of”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid antecedent basis issue of 112(b) and formality issue.
Claim 1, line 5, “processing the video” should be read as “processing the at least one video” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 6, “of the video” should be read as “of the at least one video” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 6, “wherein the at least one element” should be read as “wherein the at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 7, “further including the step of droplet detection” should be read as “further including droplet detection” since there is no previously instantiation of “step of”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid antecedent basis issue of 112(b) and formality issue.
Claim 1, line 7, “wherein the element” should be read as “wherein the at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 9, “estimating the motion flow” should be read as “estimating a motion flow” since there is no prior first instantiation of “a motion flow” to have “the motion follow.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefinite antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 10, “two frames of the video captured at time instants at t and t+2” should be read as “two frames of the at least one video captured at time instants at t and t+2” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 11, “wherein the motion flow maps” should be read as “wherein the two motion flow maps” to follow antecedent basis and avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 12, “in the two-dimensional space of the image” should be read as “in a two-dimensional space of an image” since there is no first instantiation of “a two-dimensional space” and “an image” for the limitation to have “the two-dimensional space of the image.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 13, “where the frame pixels at time instant t” should be read as “where frame pixels at the time instant t” since there is no first instantiation of “frame pixels at time instant t” for the limitation to have “the frame pixels at time instant t.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 13, “at time instant t went at time instant t+1” should be read as “at the time instant t go at the time instant t+1” to follow consistent tense within the claim, moreover, all claim limitations should happen at the same instance in time to have proper patent weight for the feature, it’s unclear if the limitation happens at all during the process of the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 14, “where the frame pixels at time instant t+2” should be read as “where frame pixels at the time instant t+2” since there is no first instantiation of “frame pixels at time instant t+2” for the limitation to have “the frame pixels at time instant t+2.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 14, “time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame” should be read as “the time instant t+2 come from the intermediate frame” to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue since, it’s unclear if this limitation has patent weight that is happens instantaneously with all the limitations or not, must follow present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 16, “wherein the motion flow maps” should be read as “wherein the two motion flow maps” to follow antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent issue.
Claim 1, line 16, “maintain the same resolution” should be read as “maintain a same resolution” since there is no first instantiation of “a same resolution” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, lines 16-17, “as the video frames at time instants t and t+2” should be read as “as the two frames at the time instants t and t+2” to follow antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent issue.
Claim 1, line 17, “of the frame at time instant t+1” should be read as “of the intermediate frame at the time instant t+1” to follow antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent issue.
Claim 1, lines 17-18, “the identifying number” should be read as “an identifying number” since there is no first instantiation of “an identifying number” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 18, “droplet that gave rise to” should be read as “droplet that causes” to follow consistent tense within the claim, moreover, all claim limitations should happen at the same instance in time to have proper patent weight for the feature, it’s unclear if the limitation happens at all during the process of the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 18, “the droplet oil present in that pixel” should be read as “a droplet oil present in the each pixel of the intermediate frame at the time instant t+1” to follow antecedent basis, and since there is no first instantiation of “a droplet oil” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 19, “or the value of 0 if the pixel is not” should be read as “or the identifying number has a value of 0 if the pixel of the intermediate frame at the time instant t+1” to follow antecedent basis correctly, since in the same limitation, the identifying number needs to be given its antecedent basis properly to have the value of 0 in a case that the pixel, which is given antecedent basis to the previously recited “each pixel of the intermediate frame at time instant t+1”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 20, “with the oil of any droplet” should be read as “with oil of any droplet” since there is no first instantiation of “oil of any droplet” priorly, and oil is uncountable so to follow proper formality and antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 20, “wherein the estimate of the percentage” should be read as “wherein an estimate of a percentage” since there is no first instantiation of “an estimate of percentage” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 21, “dividing the number” should be read as “dividing a number” since there is no first instantiation of “a number.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 21, “the total number” should be read as “a total number” since there is no first instantiation of “a total number.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 23, “the spreading of the oil” should be read as “a spreading of the oil of the any droplet” since there is no first instantiation of “a spreading” priorly, and to follow antecedent basis for “the oil of the any droplet” to give antecedent reference to the previously recited “oil of ant droplet” in line 19 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, claims 23-24, “the pixels in the frame” should be read as “pixels of the each pixel of the intermediate frame at the time instant t+1” to follow antecedent basis to give antecedent reference to the previously recited “each pixel of the intermediate frame at time instant t+1” wherein the first pixels instantiated. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 24, “considered as” should be read as “as” to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue of relative term, the term “considered” is not definite and unclear if the limitation following happens or not. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 24, “the origin of the oil from a droplet” should be read as “an origin of oil from a droplet” since there is no fist instantiation of “an origin” and “oil from a droplet” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 24, “on the water surface” should be read as “on a water surface” since there is no first instantiation of “a water surface” priorly. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, lines 24-25, “water surface are those that correspond to” should be read as “water surface are the pixels that correspond to” to follow proper claim language formality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 25, “correspond to the area” should be read as “correspond to an area” since there is no first instantiation of “an area” priorly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 25, “in the last update made by it in the list of droplet candidates” should be read as “in a latest update made according to the droplet in a list of droplet candidates” since claim language should be consistent in tense to make sure of steps and limitations of the claim happen at the same time instance to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue, moreover, the update must be clear of what update happens to, according to the support of the instant specification’s Par. [00140], the examiner suggests such change. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 26, “to the second list of droplet” should be read as “to a second list of droplet” since there is no first instantiation of “a second list of droplet” priorly to have this antecedent reference “the second list of droplet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, lines 26-27, “wherein the oil area” should be read as “wherein an oil area” since there is no first instantiation of “an oil area” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, lines 27-28, “by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier” should be read as “by counting a number of pixels that contain the identifying number” since there is no first instantiation of “a number of pixels that contain…” to have such antecedent reference, moreover, the limitation should be changed to have “the identifying number” instead of “the droplet identifier” to follow antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 28, “on the map in question” should be read as “on a flow map being processed” since there is no first instantiation of “a map” priorly to have such antecedent reference, moreover, to stay consistent in claim language with the previously defined “flow map” in the same claim, furthermore, to follow claim language and language in the art to fit its formality, the reference “in question” should be read as “being processed.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, line 28, “wherein the relative area” should be read as “wherein a relative area” since there is no first instantiation of “a relative area” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, lines 28-29, “given by the area of the oil in pixels” should be read as “given by the oil area for each droplet in pixels” to follow antecedent basis to have reference to the previously recited “oil are for each droplet in pixels” recited in lines 25-26 of the same claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 29, “by the total area of the image” should be read as “by a total area of the image” since there is no first instantiation of “a total area” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 30, “obtaining the results of processing” should be read as “obtaining results of processing” since there is no first instantiation of “obtaining results” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 30, “obtaining the captured video” should be read as “obtaining the captured at least one video” to follow antecedent basis to give reference to the previously recited “capturing at least one video” in line 4 of the same claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 32, “of the moment relative to the beginning of the video” should be read as “of a moment relative to a beginning of the video” since there is no first instantiation of “a moment relative to a beginning of the video” priorly to have such antecedent reference, Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, lines 32-33, “wherein the beginning of its information was detected” should be read as “where the beginning of the video’s information is pre-detected” to follow antecedent basis to give reference back to “a beginning of the video” previously recited in line 31 of the same claim, moreover, to follow language and formality, “was detected” should be read as “is pre-detected.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1, lines 33-34, “the relative are occupied by the oil of that droplet” should be read as “a relative area occupied by oil of the droplet” to follow antecedent basis and claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue and indefiniteness.
Claim 3, line 2, “wherein in the step of video processing” should be read as “wherein the processing the video” to follow antecedent suggestion previously stated above for the according step in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, “when the confidence” should be read as “when a confidence” since there is no first instantiation of “a confidence” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 4, line 2, “wherein in the step of video processing” should be read as “wherein the processing the video” to follow antecedent suggestion previously stated above for the according step in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 4, line 2, “the Jaccard coefficient” should be read as “a Jaccard coefficient” since there is no first instantiation of “a Jaccard coefficient” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 4, line 3, “all the bounding boxes” should be read as “all of the at least one bounding boxes” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 4, line 3, “wherein the intersection” should be read as “wherein an intersection” since there is no first instantiation of “an intersection” priorly to have such antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4, line 4, “divided by the area of union” should be read as “divided by an area of union” since there is no first instantiation of “an area of union” priorly to have such antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5, line 2, “wherein the box most likely to delimit” should be read as “a bounding box that is most likely to demit” to stay consistent with term used in the claim to for formality and grammar, gives reference to the claim 1’s recited “bounding box” and to follow proper grammar using “is mostly like to.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, “applying the non-maximum suppression process” should be read as “applying a non-maximum suppression process” since there is no first instantiation of “a non-maximum suppression process” priorly to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 6, line 3, “the identified element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis reference back to the claim 1’s recited “identifying at least one frame-by-frame element” in claim 1, line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 7, line 2, “the identified element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis reference back to the claim 1’s recited “identifying at least one frame-by-frame element” in claim 1, line 5. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent indefiniteness issue.
Claim 7, line 3, “when the element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7, line 4, “on a second list of classified as droplet” should be read as “in a second list of being classified as a droplet” to follow proper claim language and grammar formality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, line 2, “wherein the element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis. Same instance in claim 8, line 3, “this element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 8, lines 3-4, “the number of the video frame where the first identification of this element occurred” should be read “a number of video frames when the instances of identification of the at least one frame-by-frame element occurs” to follow proper antecedent basis for “a number of” to be its first instantiation instance without using “the”, and follow proper grammar since “a number of” should be followed by a plural form of “video frames” to indicate a number of something not always having a count of just one “video frame,” and give antecedent basis reference to the previously recited “at least one frame-by-frame element” that occurs indicating that the limitation must happen at the same instance of the claim occurring, not in the past or future, for it to patent weight. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 9, line 2, “wherein the element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis. Same instance in claim 9, line 3, “this element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 2, “the first droplet candidate list” should be read as “a first droplet candidate list” since there is no first instantiation of ”a first droplet candidate list” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, lines 3-4, “with the bounding box of an element” should be read as “with a bounding box of an element” since there is no first instantiation of “a bounding box of an element” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 5, “with the new bounding box” should be read as “with a new bounding box” since there is no first instantiation of “with a new bounding box” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 6, “where the updated information was collected” should be read as “when updated information is collected” since there is no first instantiation of “updated information” priorly to have such antecedent reference, and the tense of the claim language should stay consistent to follow proper grammar and claim language formality, at the same time, all limitations must happen at the same instance. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 10, line 2, “wherein the element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element” to follow proper antecedent basis. Same instance in claim 10, line 3, “this element” should be read as “the identified at least one frame-by-frame element.” Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, lines 2-3, “in the second list of classified as a droplet” should be read as “in a second list of elements being classified as a droplet” to follow proper claim language and grammar formality and antecedent basis reference to the following antecedent reference in claim 4. Hence, the second instance of antecedent reference, in line 4, “the second list of elements classified as droplet” should be read as “in the second list of elements being classified as a droplet” and the same for the instance in line 5, “in the second list of classified as droplet” should be read as should be read as “in the second list of elements being classified as a droplet” to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue..
Claim 10, line 4, “with the bounding box of an element” should be read as “with a bounding box of an element” since there is no first instantiation of “a bounding box of an element” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, line 6, “with the new bounding box” should be read as “with a new bounding box” since there is no first instantiation of “with a new bounding box” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, lines 6-7, “where the updated information was collected” should be read as “when updated information is collected” since there is no first instantiation of “updated information” priorly to have such antecedent reference, and the tense of the claim language should stay consistent to follow proper grammar and claim language formality, at the same time, all limitations must happen at the same instance. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 11, line 2, “in the first droplet candidate list” should be read as “in a first droplet candidate list” since there is no first instantiation of “a first droplet candidate list” priorly, in the dependency, to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, line 4, “the total lifetime” should be read as “a total lifetime” since there is no first instantiation of “a total lifetime” priorly to have this antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, line 4,“the first and last detection” should be read as “a first detection and a last detection” since there is no first instantiation of “a first detection” and “a last detection” priorly, in the dependency, to have such antecedent reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, line 5, “moves to the second list of classified as a droplet” should be read as “moves to a second list of elements being classified as a droplet” since there is no first instantiation of “a second list” priorly, in the dependency, to have such antecedent reference, and moreover, “of classified as a droplet” does not follow proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 12, line 2, “wherein tP and tL” should be read as “wherein tP and tL, wherein tP represents a time of tP second and tL represents a time of tL seconds,” since there have not been given definitions for these terms in the dependency, the definitions were given in claim 11, however, claim 12 is not dependent claim 11 to carry over this antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) indefiniteness issue.
Claim 12, lines 2-3, “the oil injection flow rate and the desired interval between the arrangement of droplets” should be read as “an oil injection flow rate and a desired interval between an arrangement of droplets” since there is no first instantiation of “an oil injection flow rate” and “a desired interval” and “an arrangement” priorly, in the dependency, to have such antecedent basis references. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis indefiniteness issue.
Claim 13, line 8, “wherein the video captured by” should be read as “wherein the at least one video captured by” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to claim 1, line 4, “capturing at least one video”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, line 1, “a system according to claim 12” should be read as “the method according to claim 12” to follow proper antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 15, line 1, “a system according to claim 12” should be read as “the method according to claim 12” to follow proper antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 16, line 3, “so that” should be read as “in a direction that” to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16, line 7, “on the top of the container” should be read as “on top of the container” to follow proper antecedent basis and claim language. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 16, line 9, “the video captured” should be read as “the at least one video” to follow proper antecedent basis reference to the limitation of claim 1, in line 4, “capturing at least one video”. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 1, “a system according to claim 12” should be read as “the method according to claim 12” to follow proper antecedent basis reference. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 2, “in the upper part of” should be read as “in an upper part of” to follow proper antecedent basis reference and proper claim language. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
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.
Claim 1 and its associated dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under 112(b). Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation "the droplet" in line 18 and the following same instances at lines 23, 25 and 33 and “that droplet” in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since in line 8 of claim 1, the limitation of “detected as a droplet candidate element; or an element classified as a droplet” since the limitation includes “or” therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, therefore, in the instance where the selection includes only “a droplet candidate element,” there would not have “a droplet” instantiation to start with, therefore, all of the other following “the droplet” has improper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 and its associated dependent claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 112(b). Specifically, claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein tp and tL" in line 2 and the following same instances. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, and there is no first instantiation of any of these two t values to have its antecedent reference in claim 12. 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 is drawn to a “computer program” per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention, since applicant`s specification do not define the term “computer program product”.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Therefore claim 18 do not fit within the recognized categories of statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.
The office respectfully recommend the applicant to amend claim 18 limitation “A computer readable media characterized” to reflect the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable media characterized”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesley Kenneth COBB (“US 2016/0350908 A1” hereinafter as “COBB”) in view of Shmuel MANGAN (“US 2022/0279203 A1” hereinafter as “MANGAN”) further in view of Hongwei Zhu et. al. (“US 2013/0176430 A1” hereinafter as “Zhu”) and Daniel T. CHIU et. al. (“US 2017/0175174 A1” hereinafter as “CHIU”).
Regarding claim 1, COBB discloses a method for measuring the oil dispersion capacity on a water surface, characterized by comprising the steps of (Title: “Method and System for Detecting Sea-Surface Oil”, Abstract discloses “detect and evaluate the presence of sea-surface oil on the water surrounding an offshore oil platform” including “identify unusual dispersions of oil floating on liquid surface” as disclosed in Par. [0019]):
capturing at least one video (Par. [0024] discloses “a video input source….transmit video data recorded by the video input to the computer system”);
processing the video, which comprises identifying at least one frame-by-frame element of the video (Par. [0034] discloses “the BG/FG component….separate each frame of video provided by the video input source into a static part…and a collection of volatile parts” indicating identifying elements of each frame of the video based on frame-by-frame basis since, the separating is performed on each frame; importantly, the processing is for tracking of object based on its feature based on a frame-to-frame basis, Par. [0046] discloses “track objects frame-to-frame and generate….feature vectors for each foreground object”), independently between frames (Par. [0034] discloses “the frame itself may include a two-dimensional array of pixel values for multiple channels” indicating the identifying is independent between frames, meaning a frame may include array of pixel values in some instances);
wherein the at least one element is identified by at least one bounding box (Par. [0035] discloses “the BG/FG component then identifies regions of the scene that contain a portion of scene foreground referred to as “blob” or “patch””, indicating a patching of pixels of a specific feature which is analogous to one bounding box as claimed since the patch also include edges, Par. [0039] discloses “other features of a foreground blob may include….motion characteristics of the foreground blobs…have non-sharp edges”);
further including the step of droplet detection (Par. [0039] discloses “detecting sea-surface oil, the features of a foreground object (a blob of pixels)” hence, a blob representing oil is analogous to “droplet” as claimed is part of a detection process of blob), wherein the element is detected as a droplet candidate element, or an element classified as a droplet (“or” indicates a selection hence, only one selection is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “wherein the element classified as a droplet” which is taught in COBB’s Par. [0036] which discloses “where blobs of pixels classified as foreground correspond to patches of sea-surface oil”);
estimating the motion (Par. [0037] discloses “the tracker component may be configured to attempt to track the motion of an object depicted by a given foreground patch as it moves about the scene” moreover, Par. [0039] discloses “the features of a foreground object may include….motion characteristics”); and creating two motion flow maps associated with the intermediate frame at time instant t+1 (Par. [0009] discloses “after deriving the expected patterns of occurrences of seas-surface oil, receiving a set of foreground blobs identified in a subsequent one of the video frames” wherein, a subsequent frame indicates a frame at a time instant later which is analogous to t+1, which is analogous to the recited intermediate frame; Furthermore, Par. [0029] discloses “the machine learning engine learns expected patterns of behavior for objects that map to a given cluster” indicating mapping of objects based on behaviors, wherein the behavior is determined based on motion characteristics of the foreground blobs, Par. [0059] discloses “features such as…motion characteristics of the foreground blobs….to discern patterns of object behaviors”; therefore, it’s analogous to the claimed limitation in terms of mapping objects into clusters to learn patterns of behaviors [motion characteristic] of the object based on such mapping hence, is motion mapping; in a case of a plurality of objects, there would have two or more motion mappings [two motion maps as claimed]), wherein the motion flow maps include vectors of the image (Par. [0067] discloses “when another oil patch having similar feature vector is received, the machine learning engine may map this oil patch to one of the dense clusters” indicating the motion mapping is based on feature vector); and
assign to each pixel of the frame at time instant t+1 the identifying number (Par. [0065] discloses “include an estimator/identifier component which identifies kinematic and/or appearance features of foreground objects such as size, height, width, and area (in pixels)” which indicates the pixels representing a features being identified with an identifier [analogous to the recited identifying number since size, height or area represented by a number], therefore, each pixel is being associated with an identifier as well, which is a processing performed on a subsequent frame of a video, as discussed, indicating at time instant t+1, Par. [0009] discloses “after deriving the expected patterns of occurrences of seas-surface oil, receiving a set of foreground blobs identified in a subsequent one of the video frames” wherein, a subsequent frame indicates a frame at a time instant later which is analogous to t+1) of the droplet that gave rise to the droplet oil present in that pixel (Par. [0065] discloses “determine sea-surface oil may include the locations and sizes of foreground blobs” indicating of the blob [droplet] that representing the sea-surface oil determined [analogous to giving rise to the droplet present in the pixels including the pixel being mentioned]), where the identifying number is an integer value greater than or equal to 1, or the value 0 if the pixel is not associated with the oil of any droplet (“or” indicates a selection, only one selection is the instant scope of the claim, the examine selects “where the identifying number is an integer value greater than or equal to 1” for mapping which is disclosed in COBB’s Par. [0038] which discloses “an estimator/identifier component may receive…features of foreground objects, e.g. size, height, width, and area (in pixels), reflectivity, shininess, rigidity, speed velocity, etc.” which includes a size, height, width, and area, etc., which carry values of integer would be greater or equal to one);
tracking the droplet and the spreading of the oil (Par. [0037] discloses “the tracker component provides continuity to other elements of the system by tracking a given object from frame-to-frame” moreover, Par. [0005] discloses “a blob may be tracked from frame-to-frame in order to follow the blob moving through the scene over time” which indicates the tracking of the blob [droplet] and the spreading of the oil [blob moving through the scene over time]) comprises defining that the pixels in the frame considered as the origin of the oil from a droplet that dissolves on the water surface (Par. [0040] discloses “generate a stream of context events regarding objects tracked…a complete trajectory includes the kinematic data obtained when an object is first observed in a frame…up to when it leaves the scene (or become stationary to the point of dissolving into the frame background)” which indicates that the defining of a trajectory of tracked object including when the object is first observed [origin of the oil] up to that point it dissolves into the background which, Par. [0026] discloses “background regions representing seawater”, is the water surface; moreover, Par. [0038] discloses “the output of the tracker component…identify…area (in pixels)” indicating the tracking is based on pixels of an area of the frame associated with the blob’s trajectory until dissolving) are those that correspond to the area occupied by the droplet (Par. Par. [0038] discloses “the output of the tracker component…identify…area (in pixels)” indicating the tracking is based on pixels of an area representing the blob [droplet]) in the last update made by it in the list of droplet candidates (Par. [0040] discloses “a trajectory for an object is updated every 200 milliseconds, until complete” indicating the tracking of the object is updated according to the kinematic data being obtained; moreover, Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates; moreover, the update to create new cluster indicating that a comparison of the feature vector to the previously updated cluster to determine if a new cluster needs to be created), before their promotion to the second list of those classified as droplet (Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the second cluster or the second list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]);
obtaining the results of processing, which includes obtaining the captured video (Par. [0024] discloses “a video input source….transmit video data recorded by the video input to the computer system”), a video with detected droplets and tracked droplets and spreading (Par. [0037] discloses “the tracker component provides continuity to other elements of the system by tracking a given object from frame-to-frame” moreover, Par. [0005] discloses “a blob may be tracked from frame-to-frame in order to follow the blob moving through the scene over time” which indicates the tracking of the blob [droplet] and the spreading of the oil [blob moving through the scene over time]); and
indication, for each detected droplet, of the moment relative to the beginning of the video wherein the beginning of its formation was detected (Par. [0005] discloses “a video surveillance system may be configured to classify a group of pixels (referred to as a “blob”) in a given frame as being a particular object (e.g., a person or vehicle)…thereafter, a new foreground object may appear and be classified as a person (a person-appear event)” indicating an indication of a moment when a new blob appears and be classified [beginning of the video where the beginning of the blob’s information is being classified], wherein the appear event indicating the moment), the moment wherein the droplet disintegrates on the water surface (Par. [0005] discloses “a video surveillance system may be configured to classify a group of pixels (referred to as a “blob”) in a given frame as being a particular object (e.g., a person or vehicle)…thereafter, a new foreground object may appear and be classified as a person (a person-appear event) and the person then walks out of frame (a person-disappear event)” indicating a disappear event, which is the moment when the droplet disintegrates on the water surface, since Par. [0040] discloses “generate a stream of context events regarding objects tracked…a complete trajectory includes the kinematic data obtained when an object is first observed in a frame…up to when it leaves the scene (or become stationary to the point of dissolving into the frame background)” which indicates that the defining of a trajectory of tracked object including when the object is first observed [origin of the oil] up to that point it dissolves into the background which, Par. [0026] discloses “background regions representing seawater”, is the water surface) and the relative area occupied by the oil of that droplet every t seconds of the video during spreading (Par. [0040] discloses “a complete trajectory includes the kinematic data…a trajectory for an object is updated every 200 milliseconds, until complete” wherein, Par. [0038] discloses “kinematic and/or appearance features of a foreground object…area (in pixels)” indicating that the trajectory of a tracked object includes its area information [relative area] occupied by that object being updated every 200 milliseconds, which indicates that the update is performed one every possible second of the tracking [the spreading], since Par. [0005] discloses “a blob may be tracked from frame-to-frame in order to follow the blob moving through the scene over time” which indicates the tracking of the blob [droplet] and the spreading of the oil [blob moving through the scene over time]).
However, COBB does not explicitly disclose estimating the motion flow, which comprises creating an intermediate frame t+1 from two frames of the video captured at time instants t and t+2, wherein the motion flow maps include vectors in the two-dimensional space of the image; wherein the first motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t went at time instant t+1 and the second motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame at time instant t+1; and wherein the motion flow maps maintain the same resolution in pixels as the video frames at time instants t and t+2; and wherein the estimate of the percentage of spreading flux is given by dividing the number of pixels associated with a droplet by the total number of pixels in the image, 100 times; wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels is given by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier on the map in question; and wherein the relative area is given by the area of the oil in pixels divided by the total area of the image.
In the same field of object tracking in video frames (Title, MANGAN), Robinson discloses estimating the motion flow (Par. [0102] discloses “pixel-level motion estimation may be performed using any suitable method, e.g., any suitable image motion estimation algorithms, such as any optical flow or 2D motion flow algorithm”), which comprises creating an intermediate frame t+1 from two frames of the video captured at time instants t and t+2 (Par. [0140] discloses “step 208 comprises a global aligning…on at least a subset of frame in sequence…a selected frame, e.g., a center frame, an intermediate frame, a middle frame, an end frame, etc., within sequence” indicating a sequence of frames [time series], any of which would be at time t and an intermediate frame to be the next frame in the sequence of t + 1, and the end frame to be at t+2; moreover, step 208 of Figure 2A is part of the motion vector field estimation or the motion flow algorithm), wherein the motion flow maps include vectors in the two-dimensional space of the image (Par. [0102] discloses “pixel-level motion estimation may be performed using any suitable method, e.g., any suitable image motion estimation algorithms, such as any optical flow or 2D motion flow algorithm” indicating the motion flow is in 2D space of a vector according to step 210 of Figure 2A); wherein the first motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t went at time instant t+1 (Par. [0081] discloses “determine motion vectors field that describe the transformation from every point in one frame to points in another frame (usually, between adjacent frames in a sequence of between all frames to one representative frame)” indicating the motion flow map [motion vectors field] indicates the pixel point in one representative frame go at adjacent frame including the next subsequent frame in the sequence) and the second motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame at time instant t+1 ar. [0081] discloses “determine motion vectors field that describe the transformation from every point in one frame to points in another frame (usually, between adjacent frames in a sequence of between all frames to one representative frame)” indicating the motion flow map [motion vectors fields] indicates the pixel point in one representative frame at t+2 comes from its adjacent frame including the preceding frame in the sequence, any of the motion vector fields can be understood to be a second motion flow map and any of the others can be understood to be the first motion flow map, Par. [0008] discloses “current motion vector field, inter-sequence motion vector field, and pixel values associated with the current representative pixel positions”); and wherein the motion flow maps maintain the same resolution in pixels as the video frames at time instants t and t+2 (Par. [0006] discloses “generating the motion field vectors at a pixel resolution” indicating that, in this particular instance of processing embodiment, all of the motion field vectors, or the motion vector field share a pixel resolution meaning having the same resolution in pixels; furthermore, Par. [0099] discloses “calculate pixel-level motion field vector for each pixel over current sequence using the motion estimated over all resolution levels and frame pairs” indicating the frame pairs such as t and t+2 share the same resolution at each resolution of the all resolution levels of that current processes resolution).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB’s method of estimating motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps;
Wherein COBB’s method of estimating motion flow can be modified to be based on creating an intermediate frame t+1 from two frames of the video captured at time instants t and t+2, wherein the motion flow maps include vectors in the two-dimensional space of the image; wherein the first motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t went at time instant t+1 and the second motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame at time instant t+1; and wherein the motion flow maps maintain the same resolution in pixels as the video frames at time instants t and t+2 as taught by Robinson as discussed in the mapping above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow the steps of the invention such as of Figure 2A of Robinson to perform better estimation of motion change overtime (Par. [0146], Robinson).
However, COBB in view of Robinson does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimate of the percentage of spreading flux is given by dividing the number of pixels associated with a droplet by the total number of pixels in the image, 100 times; wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels is given by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier on the map in question; and wherein the relative area is given by the area of the oil in pixels divided by the total area of the image.
In the same field of determining moving object detection (Title, Zhu), Zhu discloses wherein the estimate of the percentage of spreading flux is given by dividing the number of pixels associated with a droplet by the total number of pixels in the image, 100 times (Par. [0013] discloses “means for determining a histogram of percentage of strong motion pixels to total motion pixels in the identified blobs” indicating a determination of percentage of strong motion pixels in an image compared to total motion pixels, which is the same definition as of the definition given in this limitation for the spreading flux, moreover, the percentage here is being percentage of motion pixels hence, is analogous to the recited spreading flux; moreover, percentage of strong motion pixels to total motion pixels can be understood be dividing the number of strong motion pixels by the total motion pixels time 100 [such as reference examples of “40% or 50%” disclosed in Par. 0069]; such as, Par. [0033] discloses “percentage of the number of strong motion pixels of an object versus the total number of motion pixels of the object”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson’s method of estimating motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson to have a method of estimating motion flow can be modified to be based on creating an intermediate frame t+1 from two frames of the video captured at time instants t and t+2, wherein the motion flow maps include vectors in the two-dimensional space of the image; wherein the first motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t went at time instant t+1 and the second motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame at time instant t+1; and wherein the motion flow maps maintain the same resolution in pixels as the video frames at time instants t and t+2 as taught by Robinson as discussed in the mapping above which is further modified to have wherein the estimate of the percentage of spreading flux is given by dividing the number of pixels associated with a droplet by the total number of pixels in the image, 100 times as taught in Zhu.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method for object to determine peak performance of camera for object motion detection (Par. [0005], Zhu).
However, COBB in view of Robinson does not explicitly disclose wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels is given by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier on the map in question; and wherein the relative area is given by the area of the oil in pixels divided by the total area of the image.
In the same field of oil detection on water surface (Title and Abstract and Figure 1, CHIU), CHIU discloses wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels (Par. [0178] discloses “identifying an individual droplet(s) from the pixel set(s) based on the correspondence, and determining the volume of the identified droplet(s) based on the pixel set(s)” indicating determining an area of individual droplet based on its pixels, a volume will capture an area value as well) is given by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier on the map in question (Par. [0178] discloses “identifying an individual droplet(s) from the pixel set(s) based on the correspondence, and determining the volume of the identified droplet(s) based on the pixel set(s)”, wherein Par. [0129] discloses “methods disclosed herein by identifying, sizing or enumerating only those droplets” which indicates the individual droplet being identified according to the pixel set(s) by a number [analogous to the recited droplet identifier]; furthermore, Par. [0200] discloses “identifying one or more pixel sets in the generated map…the individual pixel set may be identified as a region of interest when the individual pixel set has an area above a minimum required area” indicating on the map in question as claimed); and wherein the relative area is given by the area of the oil in pixels divided by the total area of the image (Par. [0124] discloses “a sample concentration of a molecule of interest can be determined using the number of droplets in the plurality, the number of droplets in the plurality with one or more molecules of interest” and Par. [0129] discloses “sample concentration is determined by measuring or knowing the total volume of the sample and by identifying, sizing and enumerating only those droplets” indicating a concentration calculation can be determined by using a volume of a molecule of interest of the droplet by the total volume of droplets detected, hence the total volume of droplets is analogous to the total volume of droplets in the image, in other words, a total volume of data obtained from an image, which is analogous to the total volume information of an image, a volume will capture the scope of an area as well. And as for the volume of a molecule, since a molecule is detected within a droplet, it’s the volume information of that droplet as well, the concentration here can be understood to carry information of a relative volume, relative area).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu’s method of estimating motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu to have a method of estimating motion flow can be modified to be based on creating an intermediate frame t+1 from two frames of the video captured at time instants t and t+2, wherein the motion flow maps include vectors in the two-dimensional space of the image; wherein the first motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t went at time instant t+1 and the second motion flow map indicates where the frame pixels at time instant t+2 came from the intermediate frame at time instant t+1; and wherein the motion flow maps maintain the same resolution in pixels as the video frames at time instants t and t+2 as discussed in the mapping above which is further modified to have wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels is given by counting the number of pixels that contain the droplet identifier on the map in question; and wherein the relative area is given by the area of the oil in pixels divided by the total area of the image as taught in CHIU.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method to determine volumes of substance in order to accurately determine the presence of the substance in an improve approach (Pars. [0007-0009], CHIU).
Regarding claim 2, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein the at least one video is captured by at least one capture device comprising at least one camera (Par. [0003] discloses “a combination of a camera system and a computer vision engine and machine learning system configured to detect and evaluate the presence of sea-surface oil”).
Regarding claim 3, COBB in view of COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein in the step of video processing, a bounding box is discarded when the confidence in detection is lower than a temporal threshold (tc) (Par. [0067] discloses “when another oil patch having a similar feature vector is received, the machine learning engine may map this oil patch to one or the dense clusters and, given such a mapping, identify the patch as normal. That is, the system may learn to ignore commonly-occurring and spurious sea-surface oil patches caused by, e.g., normal operation of the oil platform, lighting artifacts or changes in the maritime environment” indicating patches can be discarded when its similarity is below or not meeting a similarity threshold).
Regarding claim 6, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein the identified element is classified as any of: a new oil droplet, an already known oil droplet that is on its way to the surface, an already known oil droplet and that is on the surface, an air bubble or a spurious element (“as any of” indicates a selection, only one of the selection is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “is classified as a new oil droplet” which is disclosed in COBB’s Par. [0066], which discloses “learn to classify foreground blobs by shape, location and appearance” and Par. [0067], wherein it discloses “create new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar the existing clusters”).
Regarding claim 7, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein an identified element is detected as a droplet candidate and inserted into a first droplet candidate list when the element is not associated with any element already present in the first droplet candidate list or on a second list of classified as droplet (“or” indicates a selection, only one of the selections if the current scope of the claim, the examiner selects “in the first droplet candidate list” which is disclosed in COBB’s Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates, when the blob; therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the cluster or the list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]).
Regarding claim 8, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein the element is inserted into the first droplet candidate list with the bounding box of this element (Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates, when the blob; therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the cluster or the list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]; moreover, the kinematic data includes detected edged representing the bounding box) and the number of the video frame where the first identification of this element occurred (Par. [0005] discloses “a video surveillance system may be configured to classify a group of pixels (referred to as a “blob”) in a given frame as being a particular object (e.g., a person or vehicle)…thereafter, a new foreground object may appear and be classified as a person (a person-appear event)” indicating an indication of a moment when a new blob appears and be classified [beginning of the video where the beginning of the blob’s information is being classified], wherein the appear event indicating the moment; moreover, Par. [0046] discloses “track objects frame-to-frame” indicating that the moment being identified being a frame in the video since the tracking is performed on frame-to-frame basis).
Regarding claim 9, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein an element is identified as previously included in the first droplet candidate list, when the bounding box of this element has a size equal to and overlaps with the bounding box of an element included in the first droplet candidate list (Par. [0020] discloses “engine determines, from the synthetic signal, foreground blobs representing patches of contagious pixels having values indicating a match to the IR signature of oil, and further extracts features such as position, size, change in size, etc. which are pertinent to sea-surface oil” which indicates the engine determine new foreground blob based on determining if it’s a match to a signature of oil based on size and share same or similar position to the previously detected oil blob [overlap in bounding box]); and
wherein the element is included in the first droplet candidate list with the new bounding box information and video frame number where the updated information was collected (Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates, when the blob; therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the cluster or the list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]; moreover, the kinematic data includes detected edged representing the bounding box; Par. [0005] discloses “a video surveillance system may be configured to classify a group of pixels (referred to as a “blob”) in a given frame as being a particular object (e.g., a person or vehicle)…thereafter, a new foreground object may appear and be classified as a person (a person-appear event)” indicating an indication of a moment when a new blob appears and be classified [beginning of the video where the beginning of the blob’s information is being classified], wherein the appear event indicating the moment; moreover, Par. [0046] discloses “track objects frame-to-frame” indicating that the moment being identified being a frame in the video since the tracking is performed on frame-to-frame basis).
Regarding claim 10, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein an element is identified as previously included in the second list of classified as a droplet, when the bounding box of this element has a size equal to and overlaps with the bounding box of an element included in the second list of elements classified as droplet (Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates, when the blob; therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the cluster or the list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]; moreover, the kinematic data includes detected edged representing the bounding box; Par. [0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the second cluster or the second list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]); and
wherein the element is included in the second list of classified as droplet with the new bounding box information and video frame number where the updated information was collected Par. ([0046] discloses “the ART network maps the micro-feature vector to a cluster…and updates that cluster (or creates new cluster if the input micro-feature vector is sufficiently dissimilar to the existing cluster)” therefore, the cluster here is analogous to the list as claimed, since it’s a cluster of micro-feature vector representing blob candidates, when the blob; therefore, when there is a new cluster created, the kinematic data is being added or promoted to the cluster or the list of the blobs [of those classified as droplet]; moreover, the kinematic data includes detected edged representing the bounding box; Par. [0005] discloses “a video surveillance system may be configured to classify a group of pixels (referred to as a “blob”) in a given frame as being a particular object (e.g., a person or vehicle)…thereafter, a new foreground object may appear and be classified as a person (a person-appear event)” indicating an indication of a moment when a new blob appears and be classified [beginning of the video where the beginning of the blob’s information is being classified], wherein the appear event indicating the moment; moreover, Par. [0046] discloses “track objects frame-to-frame” indicating that the moment being identified being a frame in the video since the tracking is performed on frame-to-frame basis).
Regarding claim 11, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein if an element remains for more than tP seconds in the first droplet candidate list without updating, the element is discarded from the first droplet candidate list; or if it is identified that the total lifetime of the element from the first and last detection of the element is greater than tL seconds, then the element moves to the second list of classified as a droplet (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the selections is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “wherein if an element remains for more than tP seconds in the first droplet candidate list without updating, the element is discarded from the first droplet candidate list” to be the selection of the instant scope of the claim which is taught in COBB’s Par. [0040], which discloses “a trajectory represents the kinematic data obtained when an object is first observed in a frame of video along with each successive observation of that object up to when it leaves the scene…a trajectory for an object is updated every 200 milliseconds, until complete” indicating that the object is tracked until it disappears, which its trajectory is updated continuously until complete, indicating a certain threshold in time for the trajectory to stop being tracked from its trajectory [list of the droplet candidate list as claimed]).
Regarding claim 18, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches a computer-readable storage media characterized by comprising, stored within itself, a set of computer-readable instructions, which when executed by one or more computers, the one or more computers performs the method for measuring the oil dispersion capacity on a water surface, as defined in claim 1 (Par. [0022] discloses “computer system with computer-readable storage media” which indicates the use of a computer, which is known, to have a processor to execute instructions stored in the memory to execute the instructions of the invention).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesley Kenneth COBB (“US 2016/0350908 A1” hereinafter as “COBB”) in view of Shmuel MANGAN (“US 2022/0279203 A1” hereinafter as “MANGAN”) further in view of Hongwei Zhu et. al. (“US 2013/0176430 A1” hereinafter as “Zhu”) and Daniel T. CHIU et. al. (“US 2017/0175174 A1” hereinafter as “CHIU”) and Jacob Richeimer et. al. (“US 11,030,495 B2” hereinafter as “Richeimer”).
Regarding claim 4, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein in the step of video processing (Title: “Method and System for Detecting Sea-Surface Oil”, Abstract discloses “detect and evaluate the presence of sea-surface oil on the water surrounding an offshore oil platform” including “identify unusual dispersions of oil floating on liquid surface” as disclosed in Par. [0019]).
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly teach the Jaccard coefficient is used to identify all the bounding boxes that delimit the same element, wherein the intersection area of a pair of bounding boxes divided by the area of union of the same bounding boxes must be greater than a Jaccard threshold (tj).
In the same field of object detection (Title, Richeimer), Richeimer discloses the Jaccard coefficient is used to identify all the bounding boxes that delimit the same element (Col. 5, lines 1-15, discloses “each pixel in the segmentation mask that are above a fixed threshold is processed, and for each pixel its predicted box’s overlap with each candidate box is calculated using, for example, a Jaccard index (i.e., an intersection over union)” indicating using a Jaccard index [Jaccard coefficient] to identify bounding boxes that share same element/overlap in pixels), wherein the intersection area of a pair of bounding boxes divided by the area of union of the same bounding boxes must be greater than a Jaccard threshold (tj) (Col. 5, lines 1-15, discloses “Non-max suppression is then applied to remove redundant/duplicate bounding boxes from the set of candidate boxes…each pixel in the segmentation mask that are above a fixes threshold is processes, and for each pixel its predicted box’s overlap with each candidate box is calculated using, for example, a Jaccard index (i.e., an intersection over union)” indicating the Jaccard index including an overlap area with its box and a candidate box [intersection area] must meet a certain Jaccard Index with intersection over union threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of processing video include determining bounding boxes and elements within the bounding boxes using a Jaccard coefficient, which is used to identify all the bounding boxes that delimit the same element, wherein the intersection area of a pair of bounding boxes divided by the area of union of the same bounding boxes must be greater than a Jaccard threshold (tj) as taught in Richeimer.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method of using Jaccard Index to predict the per-pixel boundary boxes in any image more efficiently (Col. 1, lines 22-39 and Col. 4, lines 61-67, Richeimer).
Regarding claim 5, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly disclose wherein the box most likely to delimit the same element is selected by applying the non-maximum suppression process.
In the same field of object detection (Title, Richeimer), Richeimer discloses wherein the box most likely to delimit the same element is selected by applying the non-maximum suppression process (Col. 5, lines 1-15, discloses “each pixel in the segmentation mask that are above a fixed threshold is processed, and for each pixel its predicted box’s overlap with each candidate box is calculated using, for example, a Jaccard index (i.e., an intersection over union)” indicating using a non-maximum suppression process to identify bounding boxes that share same element/overlap in pixels that is met a certain similarity threshold, or most likely delimit the same element).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of processing video include determining bounding boxes and elements within the bounding boxes with wherein the box most likely to delimit the same element is selected by applying the non-maximum suppression process as taught in Richeimer.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to follow such method of using Jaccard Index to predict the per-pixel boundary boxes in any image more efficiently (Col. 1, lines 22-39 and Col. 4, lines 61-67, Richeimer).
Claims 12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesley Kenneth COBB (“US 2016/0350908 A1” hereinafter as “COBB”) in view of Shmuel MANGAN (“US 2022/0279203 A1” hereinafter as “MANGAN”) further in view of Hongwei Zhu et. al. (“US 2013/0176430 A1” hereinafter as “Zhu”) and Daniel T. CHIU et. al. (“US 2017/0175174 A1” hereinafter as “CHIU”) and Wilko Karel Anthonius Pels et.al. (“US 2017/0291149 A1” hereinafter as “Pels”).
Regarding claim 12, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly disclose wherein tP and tL depend on the oil injection flow rate and the desired interval between the arrangement of droplets, ranging from 1 to 10 seconds.
In the same field of preparing an emulsion of two liquids (Abstract, Pels), Pels discloses wherein tP and tL (Par. [0039] discloses “fluctuating the injection of the first liquid to the second liquid…with a pulse duration of, for example, less than 1 seconds” can be understood to be the tP; moreover, Par. [0167] discloses “the pulse duration…with a pause of 10 seconds” can be understood to be tL) depend on the oil injection flow rate and the desired interval between the arrangement of droplets (Par. [0039] discloses “fluctuating the injection of the first liquid to the second liquid…with a pulse duration of, for example, less than 1 seconds” can be understood to be the tP, which depends on the injection flow rate and the desired interval between the arrangement of the two liquids [arrangement of droplets], Par. [0039] discloses “reducing risk of location high concentrations of the injected first liquid…the injected first liquid has moved away from the nozzle and is replaced by fresh second liquid”), ranging from 1 to 10 seconds ([0167] discloses “the pulse duration…with a pause of 10 seconds” can be understood to be tL at 10 seconds, which is within the ranging as claimed).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids can be modified to include tP and tL depend on the oil injection flow rate and the desired interval between the arrangement of droplets, ranging from 1 to 10 seconds as taught in Pels.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to prepare proper emulsion of two liquids for processing without risk of uneven concentration and perform he processing effectively (Par. 0004 and Par. 0041, Pels).
Regarding claim 14, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU and Pels in combination teaches the system according to claim 12.
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber is made of glass and has two measuring scales.
In the same field of preparing an emulsion of two liquids (Abstract, Pels), Pels discloses wherein the chamber is made of glass and has two measuring scales (Par. [0127] discloses “the first vessel was made of Plexiglass” and Par. [0065] discloses “pressure difference before a net…can be measured over injection nozzle” indicating a first measuring step can be understood to be measured by a scale; Par. [0142] discloses “volume rate (measured in the same time unit)” indicating a second measuring scale).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids can be modified to have a chamber is made of glass and has two measuring scales as taught in Pels.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to prepare proper emulsion of two liquids for processing without risk of uneven concentration and perform he processing effectively (Par. 0004 and Par. 0041, Pels).
Regarding claim 16, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB discloses a video capture device, wherein the video capture device is movably arranged on the top of the container (Par. [0024] discloses “a video input source….transmit video data recorded by the video input to the computer system” which can be understood to capture the field of view of the water surface of a certain area, Par. [0025] discloses “camera aimed at a certain area (e.g., a subway station, a parking lot, a building, etc.)” which can be understood to be in some instances of desired experience of a top of a container); wherein the video captured by the video capture device is processed in accordance with the method for measuring the oil dispersion capacity on a water surface defined in claim 1 (Title: “Method and System for Detecting Sea-Surface Oil”, Abstract discloses “detect and evaluate the presence of sea-surface oil on the water surrounding an offshore oil platform” including “identify unusual dispersions of oil floating on liquid surface” as disclosed in Par. [0019]).
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly disclose an oil release system comprising: a container with a septum, wherein the container is oriented so that the septum is arranged with its inlet downward; a hollow needle, wherein the hollow needle is inserted into the septum; and a measuring scale.
In the same field of preparing an emulsion of two liquids (Abstract, Pels), Pels discloses an oil release system comprising (Abstract): a container with a septum (Pars. [0126-0128] discloses a vessel with an injector and recirculation pump and a return pump [septum]), wherein the container is oriented so that the septum is arranged with its inlet downward (Par. [0122] discloses the installation configure with the pump inlet downward such as shown in Figure 4); a hollow needle (the injector, as discussed, can be understood be have the hollow needle), wherein the hollow needle is inserted into the septum (the injector, as discussed, would be understood to be installed with the pumps being the septum); and a measuring scale (Par. [0127] discloses “the first vessel was made of Plexiglass” and Par. [0065] discloses “pressure difference before a net…can be measured over injection nozzle” indicating a first measuring step can be understood to be measured by a scale).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by an oil release system comprising: a container with a septum, wherein the container is oriented so that the septum is arranged with its inlet downward; a hollow needle, wherein the hollow needle is inserted into the septum; and a measuring scale as taught in Pels.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to prepare proper emulsion of two liquids for processing without risk of uneven concentration and perform he processing effectively (Par. 0004 and Par. 0041, Pels).
Regarding claim 17, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU and Pels in combination teaches the system according to claim 12, wherein COBB explicitly teaches wherein the video capture device is movably arranged in the upper part of the container through a support (Par. [0017] discloses “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary geometry for mounting video cameras on an offshore oil platform”, the mounting here is analogous to the recited support; moreover, Par. [0060] discloses “mounting video cameras on an offshore oil platform…above a sea surface…a single set of cameras may be configured to perform a continuing guard-tour sweep to achieve full azimuthal coverage” indicating the cameras can performs weep recording, in other words, the view can be moveable from one camera to another in the way camera arranged).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesley Kenneth COBB (“US 2016/0350908 A1” hereinafter as “COBB”) in view of Shmuel MANGAN (“US 2022/0279203 A1” hereinafter as “MANGAN”) further in view of Hongwei Zhu et. al. (“US 2013/0176430 A1” hereinafter as “Zhu”) and Daniel T. CHIU et. al. (“US 2017/0175174 A1” hereinafter as “CHIU”) and David Luther Alan Stafford et. al. (“US 2024/0118187 A1” hereinafter as “Stafford”).
Regarding claim 13, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU in combination teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein COBB explicitly teaches a video capture device, wherein the video capture device is positioned parallel to the water surface, fixedly on a base (Par. [0024] discloses “a video input source….transmit video data recorded by the video input to the computer system” which can be understood to capture the field of view of the water surface of a certain area, Par. [0025] discloses “camera aimed at a certain area (e.g., a subway station, a parking lot, a building, etc.)” which can be understood to be in some instances of desired experience of a top of a container); wherein the video captured by the video capture device is processed in accordance with the method for measuring the oil dispersion capacity on a water surface defined in claim 1 (Title: “Method and System for Detecting Sea-Surface Oil”, Abstract discloses “detect and evaluate the presence of sea-surface oil on the water surrounding an offshore oil platform” including “identify unusual dispersions of oil floating on liquid surface” as disclosed in Par. [0019]).
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU does not explicitly disclose an oil release system comprising: an oleophilic crucible with a sheet of plastic material with a depression for containing oil; a camera with a mirror.
In the same field of preparing an emulsion of two liquids (Abstract, Stafford), Stafford discloses an oil release system comprising: an oleophilic crucible with a sheet of plastic material with a depression for containing oil (Par. [0035] discloses “a collection container defining a cavity for receiving the hydrophobic fluid…a hydrophobic membrane is both hydrophobic and oleophilic” indicating a hydrophobic membrane being a plastic sheet with oleophilic crucible); a camera with a mirror (Par. [0158] discloses “a lens attached to the camera, a mirror”).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU’s method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU to have a method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by an oil release system comprising: an oleophilic crucible with a sheet of plastic material with a depression for containing oil; a camera with a mirror as taught in Stafford.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have such system for monitoring the liquid effectively for processing (Par. [0002], Stafford) by accurate measurement of liquid (Par. [0315], Stafford).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesley Kenneth COBB (“US 2016/0350908 A1” hereinafter as “COBB”) in view of Shmuel MANGAN (“US 2022/0279203 A1” hereinafter as “MANGAN”) further in view of Hongwei Zhu et. al. (“US 2013/0176430 A1” hereinafter as “Zhu”) and Daniel T. CHIU et. al. (“US 2017/0175174 A1” hereinafter as “CHIU”) and Wilko Karel Anthonius Pels et.al. (“US 2017/0291149 A1” hereinafter as “Pels”) and Samuel Lemieux et. al. (“US 2019/0339126 A1” hereinafter as “Lemieux”).
Regarding claim 15, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU and Pels in combination teaches a system according to claim 12.
However, COBB in view of Robinson further in view of Zhu and CHIU and Pels does not explicitly disclose wherein the mirror comprises a physical indication for calibration.
In the same field of a measurement instrument (Title, Lemieux), Lemieux discloses wherein the mirror comprises a physical indication for calibration (Par. [0024] discloses a mirror used together with the measuring device for calibration using with reflectors using for calibration can be understood as the physical indication).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU and Pels’s method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids;
Wherein COBB in view of Robinson and Zhu and CHIU and Pels to have a method of preparing processing video to estimate motion flow on a sequence of video frame including multiple frames to create two motion flow maps by having a emulsion of two liquids can be modified to include a mirror comprises a physical indication for calibration as taught in Lemieux.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to use such method including the mirror to perform calibration more effectively with reflection of light more accurately (Par. [0022], Lemieux).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li Jun et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “CN 113808089 A” hereinafter as “Jun”): wherein the oil area for each droplet in pixels (Page 11, at step 7, it discloses “detecting the oil stain on the water surface…in the step S2-1, the gray values of all the pixels of the final water surface image are mapped” and at step s2-3-2: “and dividing the final water surface image into a final target area and a final background area according to the maximum mapping gray threshold and the maximum adjacent gray threshold”, which all together indicates that the processing of all the pixels of the image are mapped to certain gray values of all of the pixels in the image, and using these gray value to detect target area [each foreground oil stain] and background area [water surface]).
G. N. Bass et. al. (“ US 5,353,237” hereinafter as “Bass”) discloses wherein tP and tL (Col. 6, lines 12-32, discloses “the econominzer term is a unitless variable based on the number of time units that have elapsed since the water content in the emulsion exceeded a preset value. As time passes without the water content exceeding the preset threshold”; moreover, Col. 7, lines 27-55, discloses “if the threshold is crossed within one-half hour”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights