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 .
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on August 13th, 2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitation(s) that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 recite(s) limitation(s) that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language but do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “a vision processor configured to process…,” [Lines 4-5].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “a second processor configured to process…,” [Line 8].
Claim 10; recites the limitation, “at least one of the multiple detectors is configured to process…,” [Line 2].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “receiving, at a vision processor of a device, thermal image….,” [Line 2].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “processing, at a second processor of the device, the candidate locations….,” [Line 7].
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) “…a vision processor…” have a structure associated with it a processor.
(ii) “…a second processor…” have a structure associated with it a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claims 10 , recite(s) limitation(s) that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 10; recites the limitation, “at least one of the multiple detectors is configured to process…,” [Line 2].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claim 10;
(i) “at least one of the multiple detectors is configured to process…”, as disclosed in Paragraphs [0048-0050] of the instant specification, filed on August 13th, 2024, include a gradient-based circle detector, a gradient-based spoke detector, and/or a transform-based matching detector, wherein the gradient-based circle detector performs gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of the drogue basket (e.g., a Hough gradient-based circle detection of the outer basket skirt), the gradient-based spoke detector performs a gradient-based spoke detection of inner basket spokes of the drogue basket (e.g., a gradient-based spoke detection of the inner basket spokes), the transform-based matching detector performs a transform-based template matching/detection of the drogue basket (e.g., a fast Fourier transform FFT-based phase correlation template matching and/or an FFT-based convolutional template matching), thus have sufficient structure or material/act of any of these structure and associated algorithms).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruce M. Sabol et. al. (“US 2011/0081043 A1” hereinafter as “Sabol”).
Regarding claim 1, Sabol explicitly teaches a device comprising (Title and Abstract): a thermal imaging sensor configured to generate a thermal image (Par. [0018] discloses “detect, track and count moving objects digitally captured with video-based thermal imagery. A camera with IR lens…” indicating the use of a thermal imaging sensor to generate thermal image to track object) depicting a drogue attached to a vehicle (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue associated with a vehicle); a vision processor coupled to the thermal imaging sensor (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed), wherein the vision processor is configured to process the thermal image to obtain multiple candidate locations (Par. [0034] discloses “a Tracking Algorithm processes detected candidate objects in motion across video frames producing a time and spatial history for each” indicating candidate objects with spatial history [analogous for candidate locations] for each frame) of the drogue in the thermal image (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue detected in the thermal video frame) and one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations (Par. [0033] discloses “candidate objects in motion having at least one characteristic of their signature in a range that is approximately equal to the range of a characteristic in the signature of an established temporal background behind the object in motion” indicating a characteristic signature generated for each candidate object in a range that is measurable, therefore, is analogous to one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations as claimed); and a second processor configured to process the candidate locations and the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations to generate a tracked position of the drogue (Par. [0033] discloses “the specially configured computer processes the capture images by employing algorithms, a first algorithm applies so that for each candidate object in motion…to predict a next position of a candidate object in motion, and each algorithm is iterated for successive video frames to generate an output of individual tracks of each candidate object in motion” indicating using a specially configured computer [second processor as claimed] to process the candidate locations and their signatures to obtain output of individual tracks of the object [tracked position of the drogue]).
Regarding claim 2, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein the vision processor is configured to generate a first set of the candidate locations (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List” indicating a set of candidate locations) based on a first image processing operation (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) and a second set of the candidate locations based on a second image processing operation (any of the four lists, that was not selected as the first set, indicated is analogous to the second set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which, that was not selected as the first processing operation, is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) that is distinct from the first image processing operation (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List… in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” indicating the four distinct processes, therefore, the fist and the second selected processes accordingly would be distinct from each other).
Regarding claim 5, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein the vision processor is configured to perform thermal thresholding on the thermal image to identify pixels having intensity values that satisfy a thermal threshold (Par. [0037] discloses “present invention, un-calibrated video-rate thermal imagery…was captured…frames were then differenced with an adaptive temporal background to remove stationary clutter, and thresholded to select only pixels at the tail ends of the statistical distribution of differenced pixels” indicating a thresholding on thermal image based on pixel to identify certain pixels meeting the threshold [thresholding on thermal image according to pixels being analogous to thermal thresholding as claimed and the threshold is analogous to a thermal threshold as claimed]; furthermore, Par. [0022] discloses “temporal filtering process…the location and value of difference pixels meeting a user-specified threshold are save to a detected pixel report for subsequent processing…the value for each pixel…is determined by taking the mode of the histogram of pixel values for each location” indicating the threshold, as discussed, is based on pixel values meeting a threshold of a histogram of pixel values [analogous to intensity values as claimed]).
Regarding claim 8, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein the second processor is configured to provide information associated with the tracked position of the drogue to the vision processor (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed, the selected embodiments being transferred to a suitable processor indicating that the information associated with the tracked position of the drogue, as being one of the embodiments as discussed, being provided to the vision processor as claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 8, Sabol further teaches wherein the information associated with the tracked position includes at least one of an updated range to the drogue or an updated range to the vehicle (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “updated range to the drogue” which is taught in Sabol’s Par. [0029], which discloses “the method further identifies object son the Tracking List that have not had any recent track updates, a user specifying a number of consecutive video frames that may elapse without an update to the track such that when a specified number…is reaches a track is considered lost” indicating the output of the individual tracks, being analogous to the tracked position as discussed, includes update to the track, the update including a specified number of consecutive frames have elapsed [a range] therefore, the track being updated include updated range, the object can be of a drogue as discussed above).
Regarding claim 11, Sabol explicitly teaches a method comprising (Title and Abstract): receiving, at a vision processor of a device, a thermal image (Par. [0018] discloses “detect, track and count moving objects digitally captured with video-based thermal imagery. A camera with IR lens…” indicating the use of a thermal imaging sensor to generate thermal image to track object) depicting a drogue attached to a vehicle (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue associated with a vehicle); processing, at the vision processor, (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed) , the thermal image to obtain multiple candidate locations (Par. [0034] discloses “a Tracking Algorithm processes detected candidate objects in motion across video frames producing a time and spatial history for each” indicating candidate objects with spatial history [analogous for candidate locations] for each frame) of the drogue in the thermal image (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue detected in the thermal video frame) and one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations (Par. [0033] discloses “candidate objects in motion having at least one characteristic of their signature in a range that is approximately equal to the range of a characteristic in the signature of an established temporal background behind the object in motion” indicating a characteristic signature generated for each candidate object in a range that is measurable, therefore, is analogous to one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations as claimed); and processing, at a second processor of the device, the candidate locations and the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations to generate a tracked position of the drogue (Par. [0033] discloses “the specially configured computer processes the capture images by employing algorithms, a first algorithm applies so that for each candidate object in motion…to predict a next position of a candidate object in motion, and each algorithm is iterated for successive video frames to generate an output of individual tracks of each candidate object in motion” indicating using a specially configured computer [second processor as claimed] to process the candidate locations and their signatures to obtain output of individual tracks of the object [tracked position of the drogue]).
Regarding claim 12, Sabol explicitly teaches the method of claim 11, Sabol further teaches wherein processing the thermal image to obtain multiple candidate locations (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List” indicating a set of candidate locations) includes generating, at the vision processor, a first set of the candidate locations based on a first image processing operation (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) and a second set of the candidate locations based on a second image processing operation (any of the four lists, that was not selected as the first set, indicated is analogous to the second set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which, that was not selected as the first processing operation, is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) that is distinct from the first image processing operation (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List… in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” indicating the four distinct processes, therefore, the fist and the second selected processes accordingly would be distinct from each other).
Regarding claim 15, Sabol explicitly teaches the method of claim 11, Sabol further teaches further comprising performing, at the vision processor, thermal thresholding on the thermal image to identify pixels having intensity values that satisfy a thermal threshold (Par. [0037] discloses “present invention, un-calibrated video-rate thermal imagery…was captured…frames were then differenced with an adaptive temporal background to remove stationary clutter, and thresholded to select only pixels at the tail ends of the statistical distribution of differenced pixels” indicating a thresholding on thermal image based on pixel to identify certain pixels meeting the threshold [thresholding on thermal image according to pixels being analogous to thermal thresholding as claimed and the threshold is analogous to a thermal threshold as claimed]; furthermore, Par. [0022] discloses “temporal filtering process…the location and value of difference pixels meeting a user-specified threshold are save to a detected pixel report for subsequent processing…the value for each pixel…is determined by taking the mode of the histogram of pixel values for each location” indicating the threshold, as discussed, is based on pixel values meeting a threshold of a histogram of pixel values [analogous to intensity values as claimed]).
Regarding claim 17, Sabol explicitly teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors that include a vision processor and a second processor, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Title and Abstract and Par. [0024] discloses “embodiments of the present invention, a method for tracking bats employs one or more specially configured computers incorporating computer readable storage media containing…software” indicating the use of a computer which is known to have a processor executing instruction program stored in the storage media for processing the instructions of the invention): receiving, at the vision processor, a thermal image (Par. [0018] discloses “detect, track and count moving objects digitally captured with video-based thermal imagery. A camera with IR lens…” indicating the use of a thermal imaging sensor to generate thermal image to track object) depicting a drogue attached to a vehicle (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue associated with a vehicle); processing, at the vision processor, the thermal image (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed) to obtain multiple candidate locations (Par. [0034] discloses “a Tracking Algorithm processes detected candidate objects in motion across video frames producing a time and spatial history for each” indicating candidate objects with spatial history [analogous for candidate locations] for each frame) of the drogue in the thermal image (Par. [0064] discloses “employ algorithms using a visible light imagery to track vehicles at an intersection and to track lighted drogues progressing through an hydraulics model” indicating the object to be tracked can be a drogue detected in the thermal video frame) and one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations (Par. [0033] discloses “candidate objects in motion having at least one characteristic of their signature in a range that is approximately equal to the range of a characteristic in the signature of an established temporal background behind the object in motion” indicating a characteristic signature generated for each candidate object in a range that is measurable, therefore, is analogous to one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations as claimed); and processing, at the second processor, the candidate locations and the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations to generate a tracked position of the drogue (Par. [0033] discloses “the specially configured computer processes the capture images by employing algorithms, a first algorithm applies so that for each candidate object in motion…to predict a next position of a candidate object in motion, and each algorithm is iterated for successive video frames to generate an output of individual tracks of each candidate object in motion” indicating using a specially configured computer [second processor as claimed] to process the candidate locations and their signatures to obtain output of individual tracks of the object [tracked position of the drogue]).
Regarding claim 18, Sabol explicitly teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the operations further include generating, at the vision processor, a first set of the candidate locations (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List” indicating a set of candidate locations) based on a first image processing operation (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) and a second set of the candidate locations based on a second image processing operation (any of the four lists, that was not selected as the first set, indicated is analogous to the second set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which, that was not selected as the first processing operation, is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations) that is distinct from the first image processing operation (Par. [0027] discloses “a tracking algorithm establishes a four lists: a Pixel Cluster List loaded for each selected video frame; a Potential List; a Tracking List; and a Target List… in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” indicating the four distinct processes, therefore, the fist and the second selected processes accordingly would be distinct from each other).
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 3-4, 10, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce M. Sabol et. al. (“US 2011/0081043 A1” hereinafter as “Sabol”) in view of Walter Clark et. al. (“US 2004/0071346 A1” hereinafter as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 3, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 2, Sabol further teaches wherein the first image processing operation includes (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “four processes:…clearing unmatched bats from the Potential List, creating new candidate objects for each pixel cluster remaining in the Pixel Cluster List and placing all unmatched bats in the current video frame on a potential list for input into a next process for a next video frame, and adding candidate bats to the Potential List” which is analogous to the first processing operation as claimed).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the first process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have a first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 4, Sabol in view of Clark explicitly teaches the device of claim 3, Sabol further teaches wherein the second image processing operation includes another of (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “and Identifying Completed Tracks, that accepts an input from the Potential List, and identifies any bats on the Tracking List that have not had any recent track updates and, based on processing rules, discards bats without recent track updates or moves bats without recent track updates to the Target List, such that the tracking algorithm processes detected bats across the video frames, producing a time and spatial history for each” which is analogous to the second processing operation as claimed, which includes identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]; therefore, Sabol’s process, as stated above, that is based on first identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked, can be modified to be performed a step of template matching based on Fourier Transform to identify the tracked locations, since the processes of Sobel are distinct, but sharing the same component of tracked locations, and Clark teaches such tracking can be done through Fourier Transform template matching, Clark’s teaching can be applied to both processed still be distinct but share same component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the second process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been have a second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 10, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein the vision processor includes multiple detectors, and wherein at least one of the multiple detectors (“at least one” indicates a selection, only one detector is required to be the instant scope of the claim, which is taught in Sabol’s Par. [0061], which discloses “thermal imager incorporating…focal plane array detector”; moreover, Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed; therefore, the suitable processor that perform the function to capture information from the processor) is configured to process the thermal image to generate an accumulation map, processed thermal image data, score values, or a combination thereof (“or a combination thereof” indicating a selection, that, a combination or two or more of the previously stated options can be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects a combination of “processed thermal image data, sore values” to be the combination which is disclosed in Sabol’s Par. [0033], which discloses “candidate objects in motion having at least one characteristic of their signature in a range that is approximately equal to the range of a characteristic in the signature of an established temporal background behind the object in motion” indicating a characteristic signature generated for each candidate object in a range that is measurable, therefore, is analogous to one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations as claimed; Par. [0034] discloses “a Tracking Algorithm processes detected candidate objects in motion across video frames producing a time and spatial history for each” indicating candidate objects with spatial history [analogous for candidate locations] for each frame; therefore, the thermal image processed data according to the candidate spatial history is analogous to the recited processed thermal image data as claimed), corresponding to one or more of the candidate locations Par. [0034] discloses “a Tracking Algorithm processes detected candidate objects in motion across video frames producing a time and spatial history for each” indicating candidate objects with spatial history [analogous for candidate locations] for each frame, which the processed thermal image data are being associated with).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the multiple detectors include a gradient-based circle detector, a gradient-based spoke detector, and/or a transform-based matching detector, wherein the gradient-based circle detector performs gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of the drogue basket (e.g., a Hough gradient-based circle detection of the outer basket skirt), the gradient-based spoke detector performs a gradient-based spoke detection of inner basket spokes of the drogue basket (e.g., a gradient-based spoke detection of the inner basket spokes), the transform-based matching detector performs a transform-based template matching/detection of the drogue basket (e.g., a fast Fourier transform FFT-based phase correlation template matching and/or an FFT-based convolutional template matching).
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the multiple detectors include a gradient-based circle detector, a gradient-based spoke detector, and/or a transform-based matching detector, wherein the gradient-based circle detector performs gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of the drogue basket (e.g., a Hough gradient-based circle detection of the outer basket skirt), the gradient-based spoke detector performs a gradient-based spoke detection of inner basket spokes of the drogue basket (e.g., a gradient-based spoke detection of the inner basket spokes), the transform-based matching detector performs a transform-based template matching/detection of the drogue basket (e.g., a fast Fourier transform FFT-based phase correlation template matching and/or an FFT-based convolutional template matching) (“or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “transform-based matching detector” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]; therefore, Sabol’s process, as stated above, that is based on first identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked, can be modified to be performed a step of template matching based on Fourier Transform to identify the tracked locations, since the processes of Sobel are distinct, but sharing the same component of tracked locations, and Clark teaches such tracking can be done through Fourier Transform template matching, Clark’s teaching can be applied to both processed still be distinct but share same component, the processor that is configured to perform such process here is analogous to the one of the detectors as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have a detector associated with a processor to be of a transform-based template matching detector as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a processor includes one or more detectors. Moreover, Sabol’s detector can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket detector, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket detector, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket detector as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been have a detector can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket detector, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket detector, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket detector in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 13, Sabol explicitly teaches the method of claim 12, Sabol further teaches wherein the first image processing operation includes (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “four processes:…clearing unmatched bats from the Potential List, creating new candidate objects for each pixel cluster remaining in the Pixel Cluster List and placing all unmatched bats in the current video frame on a potential list for input into a next process for a next video frame, and adding candidate bats to the Potential List” which is analogous to the first processing operation as claimed).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the first process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have a first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 14, Sabol in view of Clark explicitly teaches the method of claim 13, Sabol further teaches wherein the second image processing operation includes another of (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “and Identifying Completed Tracks, that accepts an input from the Potential List, and identifies any bats on the Tracking List that have not had any recent track updates and, based on processing rules, discards bats without recent track updates or moves bats without recent track updates to the Target List, such that the tracking algorithm processes detected bats across the video frames, producing a time and spatial history for each” which is analogous to the second processing operation as claimed, which includes identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]; therefore, Sabol’s process, as stated above, that is based on first identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked, can be modified to be performed a step of template matching based on Fourier Transform to identify the tracked locations, since the processes of Sobel are distinct, but sharing the same component of tracked locations, and Clark teaches such tracking can be done through Fourier Transform template matching, Clark’s teaching can be applied to both processed still be distinct but share same component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the second process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been have a second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 19, Sabol explicitly teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 18, Sabol further teaches wherein the first image processing operation includes (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the first processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “four processes:…clearing unmatched bats from the Potential List, creating new candidate objects for each pixel cluster remaining in the Pixel Cluster List and placing all unmatched bats in the current video frame on a potential list for input into a next process for a next video frame, and adding candidate bats to the Potential List” which is analogous to the first processing operation as claimed).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the first image processing operation includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the first process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have a first processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Regarding claim 20, Sabol in view of Clark explicitly teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 19, Sabol further teaches wherein the second image processing operation includes another of (any of the four lists indicated is analogous to the first set of the candidate locations, moreover, Par. [0027] discloses “in addition to the above lists, the method implements four processes” any of which is analogous to the second processing operation and its associated list to be analogous to the first set of the candidate locations; wherein Par. [0027] discloses “and Identifying Completed Tracks, that accepts an input from the Potential List, and identifies any bats on the Tracking List that have not had any recent track updates and, based on processing rules, discards bats without recent track updates or moves bats without recent track updates to the Target List, such that the tracking algorithm processes detected bats across the video frames, producing a time and spatial history for each” which is analogous to the second processing operation as claimed, which includes identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket.
In the same field of object detection and tracking (Title and Abstract, Clark), Clark explicitly teaches the second image processing operation includes another of the gradient-based circle detection of the outer edge of the drogue basket, the gradient-based spoke detection of the inner spokes of the drogue basket, or the transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket (“at least one of….or” indicating a selection, therefore, only one of the options is required to be the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket” which is disclosed in Clark’s Par. [0098]”, which discloses “such as frequency domain Fourier Transform are performed…in order to accomplish template matching” indicating a transform-based template matching detection of the object to track the object through images [analogous to the process of Sabol as discussed above]; therefore, Sabol’s process, as stated above, that is based on first identifying tracked locations of the object to be tracked, can be modified to be performed a step of template matching based on Fourier Transform to identify the tracked locations, since the processes of Sobel are distinct, but sharing the same component of tracked locations, and Clark teaches such tracking can be done through Fourier Transform template matching, Clark’s teaching can be applied to both processed still be distinct but share same component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have the second process of tracking of objects through images through matching of object to a criteria to be modified to be based on a transform-based template matching detection as taught by Clark. Thus in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a first and second processing algorithms to process the images. Moreover, Sabol’s second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket as taught in Clark.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Clark share the same endeavor of object detection and tracking through template matching. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been have a second processing algorithm can be modified to includes at least one of a gradient-based circle detection of an outer edge of a drogue basket, a gradient-based spoke detection of inner spokes of the drogue basket, or a transform-based template matching detection of the drogue basket in order to have a method that can process template matching process without drawback when a certain condition is not met such as a function of the Sobel-chaincode is not cyclical, therefore, it is more effectively and robust to use transform-based templating matching through Fourier Transform, see Clark’s Par. [0098].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce M. Sabol et. al. (“US 2011/0081043 A1” hereinafter as “Sabol”) in view of Koba Natroshvili et. al. (“US 8,391,612 B2” hereinafter as “Natroshvili”).
Regarding claim 6, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein the vision processor is configured to perform (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed, which is to detect and track object).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image that is based on the thermal image to detect edges associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold.
In the same field of image processing for object detection (Natroshvili, Title and Abstract), Natroshvili discloses perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image (Col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses “all pixels in the gradient image having an intensity higher than the upper threshold are considered real edges in the image” indicating an edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image as claimed) that is based on the thermal image to detect edges (Col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses “all pixels in the gradient image having an intensity higher than the upper threshold are considered real edges in the image” indicating an edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image as claimed to detect edges, moreover, the image here can be understood to be any type of image such as thermal image which was already mapped to Sabol being performed the edge thresholding to detect edges of an object) associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold (Col. 4, lines 10-20, discloses, “an edge detection operator….used to determine the edge gradient and direction…a search is performed to determine if the gradient magnitude is a local maximum in the gradient direction” indicating that the gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have to perform object detection to be modified to be through edge detection by performing edge thresholding such as taught by Natroshvili. Thus in order to have a method that can perform object detection effectively through an edge detection process to achieve a good localizing by marking edge point, see Natroshvili’s Col. 1, lines 35-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a vision processor to perform object detection. Moreover, Sabol’s object detection can be modified to be through performing of an edge thresholding in a intensity gradient image to detect edged through gradient magnitude being compared to satisfy an edge threshold as taught in Natroshvili.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Natroshvili share the same endeavor of object detection. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have vision processor is configured to perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image that is based on the thermal image to detect edges associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold in order to have a method that can perform object detection effectively through an edge detection process to achieve a good localizing by marking edge point, see Natroshvili’s Col. 1, lines 35-47.
Regarding claim 16, Sabol explicitly teaches the method of claim 11, Sabol further teaches further comprising performing, at the vision processor (Par. [0038] discloses “thermal imagery is digitally recorded and in select embodiments of the present invention transferred to a suitable processor” indicating a vision processor coupled with the imager, is analogous to the vision processor as claimed, which is to detect and track object).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image that is based on the thermal image to detect edges associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold.
In the same field of image processing for object detection (Natroshvili, Title and Abstract), Natroshvili discloses perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image (Col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses “all pixels in the gradient image having an intensity higher than the upper threshold are considered real edges in the image” indicating an edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image as claimed) that is based on the thermal image to detect edges (Col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses “all pixels in the gradient image having an intensity higher than the upper threshold are considered real edges in the image” indicating an edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image as claimed to detect edges, moreover, the image here can be understood to be any type of image such as thermal image which was already mapped to Sabol being performed the edge thresholding to detect edges of an object) associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold (Col. 4, lines 10-20, discloses, “an edge detection operator….used to determine the edge gradient and direction…a search is performed to determine if the gradient magnitude is a local maximum in the gradient direction” indicating that the gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have to perform object detection to be modified to be through edge detection by performing edge thresholding such as taught by Natroshvili. Thus in order to have a method that can perform object detection effectively through an edge detection process to achieve a good localizing by marking edge point, see Natroshvili’s Col. 1, lines 35-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with a vision processor to perform object detection. Moreover, Sabol’s object detection can be modified to be through performing of an edge thresholding in a intensity gradient image to detect edged through gradient magnitude being compared to satisfy an edge threshold as taught in Natroshvili.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Natroshvili share the same endeavor of object detection. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have vision processor is configured to perform edge thresholding of an intensity gradient image that is based on the thermal image to detect edges associated with gradient magnitudes that satisfy an edge threshold in order to have a method that can perform object detection effectively through an edge detection process to achieve a good localizing by marking edge point, see Natroshvili’s Col. 1, lines 35-47.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce M. Sabol et. al. (“US 2011/0081043 A1” hereinafter as “Sabol”) in view of Reza Rassool (“US 2022/0207916 A1” hereinafter as “Rassool”)
Regarding claim 7, Sabol explicitly teaches the device of claim 1, Sabol further teaches wherein at least one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations (Par. [0033] discloses “candidate objects in motion having at least one characteristic of their signature in a range that is approximately equal to the range of a characteristic in the signature of an established temporal background behind the object in motion” indicating a characteristic signature generated for each candidate object in a range that is measurable, therefore, is analogous to one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations as claimed).
However, Sabol does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations corresponds to a confidence value for a candidate location.
In the same field of determining candidate object through motion signature (Abstract, Rassool), Rassool discloses wherein at least one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations corresponds to a confidence value for a candidate location (Par. [0026] discloses “generate identification information representing a set of candidate identities of persons associated with one of the stored biometric signatures for which the biometric motion signature satisfies the criterion for similarity. The identification information may include a record, such as confidence score, indicating a degree of similarity of the corresponding stored biometric signature to the biometric motion signature” indicating the motion signature [analogous to Sabol’s characteristic motion signature to identify objects] is used to be compared between a stored one and the detected one to identify similar or the same object, which is based on confidence value for the candidate identity [analogous to candidate location as claimed and Sabol’s candidate location, since the target of the similarity determination is a candidate result/identity/location/object information]; Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have to perform object detection using one or more scores associated with the candidate locations which can be modified to be based on confidence scores associated with the candidate locations taught by Rassool. Thus in order to have such method to recognize and identify object, constantly moving in images, more accurately, see Par. [0003] of Rassool).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Sabol of a device with one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations. Moreover, Sabol’s device can be modified to be based on the at least one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations corresponds to a confidence value for a candidate location as taught in Rassool.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements, wherein both Sabol and Rassool share the same endeavor of object detection through motion signatures. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have a device wherein at least one of the one or more scores associated with each of the candidate locations corresponds to a confidence value for a candidate location in order to have method to recognize and identify object, constantly moving in images, more accurately, see Par. [0003] of Rassool.
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Carlbom I. B. et. al. (“US 20030142210 A1”) discloses a method involves determining a second motion vector corresponding to the second direction of motion of an object based on obtained second current frames from each video image and based on the determined location of change in the direction of the object. The second motion vector represents the direction of motion of the object after the change in the direction of the object has occurred.
Minoru Kikuchi, (“US 6298143 B1”) discloses a moving target detecting system for identifying a moving target by distinguishing the moving target from a background precisely and quickly is disclosed. In the system, an image pick-up unit for picking up images of an objective area including at least an identical region up to two screens or more on a time series basis, a feature value detecting unit for dividing respective images, which have been picked up by the image pick-up unit into plural segments to have substantially identical profiles and then detecting image feature values in connection with brightness information in respective segments from each of the plural segments, and a discriminating unit for discriminating the moving target based on differences in locations between respective segments which can exhibit substantially identical image feature values, by comparing the image feature values in respective segments on one screen out of the screens, from which the image feature values are detected by the feature value detecting unit, with the image feature values in respective segments on another screen on a time series basis provided.
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