DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuxen (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0156914) in view of Johnson (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0320476).
Re claims 1 and 11: Tuxen a method comprising:
receiving image data and radar data (see paragraph [0035]: “The first system 100 includes two tracking devices—a radar tracking device 102 and an image tracking device or imager 104”);
analyzing the image data to identify a golf shot (see paragraph [0048, 0058]: the system analyzes image data to identify a shot taking place);
comparing the radar data with one or more criteria to identify the golf shot (see paragraph [0045]: “Software on the data processing system 200 may then match the imager's image data to radar data from the radar device 102.”; [0064]: “Positive conformation of the presence of the ball 106 from the imager 104 may confirm the radar data in setting the region of interest. Alternatively, a failure of the image data to confirm the presence of the ball 106 may be used to reject the radar track. Furthermore, an image track of the imager 104 may confirm the region of interest for the radar 102. Furthermore, if the radar 102 previously defined a region of interest in step 340, the image track may identify an even smaller region of interest, resulting in further computational reduction of the radar 102. Positive confirmation of the presence of the ball 106 from the radar 102 may confirm the image track in setting the region of interest.”);
using one or more cross-checks between the image data and the radar data to facilitate identification of the golf shot in the image data and/or in the radar data (see paragraph [0045]);
combining, upon identification of the golf shot, angular information from the image data of the golf shot with data from the radar data of the golf shot to form three dimensional location information of a golf ball in flight in three dimensional space (see paragraph [0050; 0053]: “ In the exemplary embodiment described above, the radar 102 may generate one-dimensional radar data measuring ranges and the imager 104 may capture two-dimensional imager measuring vertical and horizontal angles. The computer 201 may merge the information such that all three parameters (e.g., dimensions) are known for the trajectory of the object”); and
providing the three dimensional location information of the golf ball in flight in three dimensional space to augment other data before display (see paragraph [0050]: “Thereafter, in step 360, the tracking data from the radar and imager are merged to calculate a three-dimensional position of the ball 106 (e.g., translated into the field coordinates) and this data may be provided as a live data stream available for other applications, such as overlaying tracking results on live video or 2D/3D computer graphics, f.ex. for broadcast purpose.”) .
Tuxen fails to disclose that the radar data is interpolated. However, Johnson teaches a system of tracking a moving sports objects that includes calibrating data from an imager and a radar device (see Abstract) and interpolates radar data (see paragraph [0139]: “ The video processor interpolates radar measurements to a time base corresponding to that of the camera measurements, or vice versa”), and then combines the interpolated radar data with camera data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled, to modify the method of tracking a moving object of Tuxen, with the interpolation of radar data as taught by Johnson, for the purpose of better predict where the ball and thus reducing the processing power used to track the ball frame by frame.
Re claims 2 and 12: Tuxen discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the image data comprises receiving a video stream comprising video frames of the image data from a camera, the analyzing comprises checking that a series of candidate balls across a set of the video frames meet or exceed one or more criteria for the golf shot (see paragraph [0038]: “The imager 104 may be any device configured to capture an image of the target area, the image can be configured to received radiation in the visual or non-visual spectrum (such as infra red). For example, the imager may be a still camera or a video camera;”), and using the one or more cross-checks between the image data and the radar data comprises adjusting the one or more criteria for the golf shot, which are used in the checking of the series of candidate balls, in response to the golf shot being identified in the radar data (see paragraph [0049]: “In step 330, the computer 201 makes a subsequent measurement corresponding to a new position of the baseball 106 in one or both of the radar data and the image data. Based on this new data, the system 100 defines, in step 340, a new ROI for the radar (i.e., a new range within which the subsequent detection of the ball is expected) and a new ROI for the imager (i.e., a portion of the subsequent image (frame) within which the ball is expected to be located). Using the previous location and the range and/or range rate data from the radar, the system 100 predicts where the ball 106 will be at the subsequent radar reading and in the subsequent frame to define new ROI's for each of the radar 102 and the imager 104.”).
Re claims 3 and 13: Tuxen discloses with respect to the method of claim 2, wherein the analyzing comprises using object classifiers to identify various objects comprising the candidate balls in the video stream (see paragraph [0053]: The object detection may be performed using any identification mechanisms. For example, the computer 201 may utilize pattern recognition algorithms to detect the presence of a target object in one or more images; [0050]: a baseball tracker classifies the moving object as a baseball in order to track said baseball).
Re claims 4 and 14: Tuxen discloses with respect to the method of claim 3, wherein the various objects further comprise a golfer (see paragraph [0034]: “In the same manner, the system may track a baseball bat, a golf club or any other item that is detectable in the image and that generates a signal in the radar data.”).
Re claims 10 and 20: Tuxen discloses with respect to the method of claim 1, wherein using the one or more cross-checks comprises using two or more cross-checks to improve robustness in an environment with multiple golfers (see paragraph [0049]: “Positive conformation of the presence of the ball 106 from the imager 104 may confirm the radar data in setting the region of interest. Alternatively, a failure of the image data to confirm the presence of the ball 106 may be used to reject the radar track. Furthermore, an image track of the imager 104 may confirm the region of interest for the radar 102. Furthermore, if the radar 102 previously defined a region of interest in step 340, the image track may identify an even smaller region of interest, resulting in further computational reduction of the radar 102. Positive confirmation of the presence of the ball 106 from the radar 102 may confirm the image track in setting the region of interest. Alternatively, if the radar device 102 fails to confirm the presence of the ball 106 from the image data, this may be used to reject the image track.” As shown in paragraph 0049, Tuxen discloses two cross checks of the data, wherein the imager verifies radar data and the radar verifies imager data. Additionally, the phrase “to improve robustness in an environment with multiple golfers” is considered intended use language that does not limit the scope of the claim and thus the language holds no patentable weight and rejection addresses the limiting features of the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen in view of Johnson in further view of Chen (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0177935)
Re claims 5 and 15: Tuxen fails to disclose with respect to the method of claim 3, wherein the analyzing comprises: automated adjustment of one or more thresholds to maximize sensitivity for objects of interest; and real-time filtering to enable identification of the golf shot before all the image data of the golf shot is received. However, Chen discloses an image analyzer that automatically adapts to the moving of a target, by adjusting the threshold sensitivity for which an object can be detected (see paragraph [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Tuxen with threshold adjustment feature of Chen, for the purpose of better identifying objects within video frames.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-9 and 16-19 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 REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights