DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from the Chinese patent application CN202311832199.X filed on 12/28/2023.
Drawings
The 21-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (CN 111462451 A) in view of Edelman (US 2018/0058850 A1) and in further view of Higgins et al. (US 2024/0214527 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches, A method for terrain-integrated ranging of straw burning (Jian, page 3, Background, ¶02: “straw burning monitoring method”) smoke images based on monocular Pan/Tilt/Zoom (PTZ), (Jiang, page 1, Abstract: “acquisition unit acquires real-time video information through a pan-tilt camera”) comprising the following steps: S1: capturing, by a camera, a highly identifiable scene view as a calibration image, (Jiang, page 5, ¶08: “the image of the scene at each visual angle is calibrated and set as a smoke-free area”) and capturing, by the camera, a test image; and sending the calibration image and the test image to a computer; (Jiang, page 4, ¶08: “collecting a data set, wherein the data set comprises an image with straw burning smoke and an image without smoke”). However, Jiang does not explicitly teach, S2: determining, by the computer, a pitch angle of a calibration position in the calibration image according to a calibration distance between the calibration position and a camera deployment position of the camera, an elevation value of the calibration position, an elevation value of the camera deployment position and a mounting height of the camera; and determining, by the computer, a pitch angle of a position of the test image according to the pitch angle of the calibration position; S3: calibrating, by the computer, the position of the test image based on the pitch angle of a position of the test image and natural terrain elevation information at the camera deployment position to obtain a position of an observed target; S4: sending, by the computer, the position of the observed target to an alarm device; and S5: sending, by the alarm device, an alarm comprising the position of the observed target to timely eliminate straw burning smoke in the position of the observed target.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Edelman teaches, S2: determining, by the computer, a pitch angle of a calibration position in the calibration image (Edelman, ¶0011: “roll and pitch angles of the target object are estimated by the procedure described above”; calibration position is interpreted as a position of a target object) according to a calibration distance between the calibration position and a camera deployment position of the camera, an elevation value of the calibration position, an elevation value of the camera deployment position and a mounting height of the camera; (Edelman, ¶0039: “an estimate of the distance between the target objects and the camera is made and an estimate of the height difference between the target objects and the camera is made”) and determining, by the computer, a pitch angle of a position of the test image (Edelman, ¶0047: “the single camera is set at a second known location (or point), each of the target object”; position of the test image is interpreted as the position of known target object) according to the pitch angle of the calibration position; S3: (Edelman, ¶0045: “known geometric properties of the target objects (e.g., the length, diameter, and the pitch and roll angles”) calibrating, by the computer, the position of the test image based on the pitch angle of a position of the test image and natural terrain elevation information at the camera deployment position to obtain a position of an observed target; (Edelman, ¶0047: “the position of the target object is determined using the known positions of the single camera and backsight, the computed angle from the backsight to the target object, and the computed distance and height difference from the camera to the target object”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang using the teachings of Edelman to introduce computing angular and height difference of the camera and the target object. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of estimating a location of the target object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Jiang and Edelman to obtain the above-described limitations in claim 1. However, the combination of Jiang and Edelman does not explicitly teach, S4: sending, by the computer, the position of the observed target to an alarm device; and S5: sending, by the alarm device, an alarm comprising the position of the observed target to timely eliminate straw burning smoke in the position of the observed target.
In another analogous field of endeavor, Higgins teaches, S4: sending, by the computer, the position of the observed target to an alarm device; and S5: sending, by the alarm device, an alarm comprising the position of the observed target (Higgins, ¶0066: “system uses elevation modeling or landmarks to determine the location of the object of interest. At 1025, a GPS location of the object of interest is determined. At 1030, the system sends an alert to relevant personnel including imagery of the object of interest and its location”) to timely eliminate straw burning smoke in the position of the observed target. (Higgins, ¶0067: “identification of an object of interest or the creation of an incident such as a new spot fire outside of a predetermined fire perimeter boundary, or the presence of smoke in a location where smoke is not normally present”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang using the teachings of Edelman to introduce computing angular and height difference of the camera and the target object. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of estimating a location of the target object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Jiang, Edelman and Higgins to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of system claim 5 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Jiang, Edelman and Higgins presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. Additionally, Jiang further teaches, An outdoor smoke alarming and positioning system (Jiang, page 9, ¶06: “The smoke detection system adopting the smoke detection method comprises a candidate area generation unit, a smoke detection unit and a smoke alarm unit which are sequentially connected”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
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, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights