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 .
Application Status
This Office action has been issued in response to application filed on 11/04/2024.
Claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-001322, filed on
01/09/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a control device comprising an acquisition unit and an estimation unit. Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and further recite acquiring a visible image and masking corresponding regions in the infrared image. therefore claims 1-5 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing information, and outputting the results of the analysis, which is a type of mental process. Estimating an imaginary horizontal axis from an atmospheric temperature distribution encompasses applying mathematical relationships and rules to image data to produce a derived reference axis which is an abstract idea.
Additionally, claims 2-5 also recite abstract ideas that further comprise masking a region in the infrared image corresponding to an object detected in the visible light image, estimating a degree of reliability, comparing a proportion to a predetermined value to decide whether to increase altitude, and calibrating measured attitude based on the imaginary horizontal axis. Accordingly claims 1-5 recite judicial exceptions
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1-5’s judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The steps described can be carried out using broad components such as an acquisition unit, estimation unit, processing unit, control unit, measurement unit, and calibration unit, without detailing a particular improvement to the function of the technology itself. The specification and claims do not demonstrate specific improvements to image sensing, infrared imaging or attitude estimation beyond the abstract results of estimating a horizontal axis. For example the claims do not specify a particular method of extracting atmospheric temperature distribution features, identifying a boundary, fitting a line, or registering visible and infrared imagery. The claims instead recite elements at a high level of generality as generic functional blocks performing routine functions of receiving image data. Such recitations amount to merely using generic sensor components as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Although claim 4 recites increasing altitude based on cloud proportion thresholds, and claim 5 recites measuring and calibrating attitude, these limitations are still expressed as result oriented control outcomes driven by the abstract analysis without particular improved control techniques or a specific tie to a specialized machine beyond the generic moving control.
Step 2B:
Claims 1-5, taken individually or collectively do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These concepts are akin to organizing information and analyzing it by applying mathematical relationships and rules to image data to produce a derived reference axis. As discussed above the claims are directed to an abstract idea characterized as collecting, processing, selecting, transmitting, and storing results; which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor component. This alone cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1-5 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-5 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 1-5, otherwise styled as other means, would be subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (Fast infrared horizon detection algorithm based on gradient directional filtration).
Regarding claim 1 Dong discloses, a control device, characterized by comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires an infrared image including at least part of surroundings of a moving object (Introduction, in the shipboard infrared imaging search and rescue system, horizon detection is an important step before infrared target detection and tracking); and an estimation unit that estimates an imaginary horizontal axis (Introduction, the horizon line segments are stitched to obtain the whole horizon line based on random sample consensus), based on an atmospheric temperature distribution shown by the infrared image (B. Rough Extraction of Sea–Sky Region, it can be found that the gray scale in the sky region and the sea region have different distributions, and the horizon line is a sign to separate the two regions and it contains the two different gray-scale distributions. So the gray scale in the sea–sky region will have abrupt changes, and the sea–sky region can be extracted by the characteristics of such mutation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (Fast infrared horizon detection algorithm based on gradient directional filtration) in view of Grigsby et al. (US10055648B1).
Regarding claim 2, Grigsby Dong discloses, the control device according to claim 1 as discussed supra. Additionally, Dong discloses, the estimation unit estimates the imaginary horizontal axis based on the atmospheric temperature distribution shown by the infrared image resulting from masking the region (B. Rough Extraction of Sea–Sky Region, the result of rough extraction is called region of horizon (herein after referred to as ROH)and is used for the next line segment detection). However, Dong does not disclose aspects of claim 2.
Nevertheless, Grigsby who is in the same field of endeavor of filtering methods of detection and classification discloses, the acquisition unit acquires a visible light image including the at least part (Methodology, 2, the image data is multispectral and the sensors may include, for example, electro-optic sensors, infrared sensors, radar sensors, laser sensors and/or any other suitable type of sensor) … (Pseudo-Code Listing, load imagery a. Load RGB (red-green-blue) image b. Load MWIR (medium wavelength infrared) image), the control device includes a processing unit (Example System, 3, Processor 1020 can be any suitable processor, and may include one or more coprocessors or controllers, such as an audio processor or a graphics processing unit, to assist in control and processing operations associated with system 1000), that, when the visible light image includes an object other than an atmosphere masks a region corresponding to the object in the infrared image (Pseudo-Code Listing, Filtmask is used to filter out anything above horizon or where RGB and MWIR do not overlap).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine Dong and Grigsby because Dong’s horizon extraction algorithm would be improved by using Filtmask to filter out anything above horizon or where RGB and MWIR do not overlap. This would improve the reliability and speed of the horizon estimate used for tracking and range computations.
Further justification for combining Dong and Grigsby not only comes from the state of the art but from Dong (4. Conclusion, the results show that the method can reduce the detection time without reducing the accuracy and has better stability. What is more, it is concluded that the method is more suitable for real-time horizon detection in infrared sea–sky scenes).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (Fast infrared horizon detection algorithm based on gradient directional filtration) in view of Grigsby et al. (US10055648B1), further in view of Liu et al. (A method for restraining gyroscope drift using horizon detection in infrared Video).
Regarding claim 3 Dong and Grigsby disclose the control device according to claim 2, as discussed supra. Additionally, Liu who is in the same field of endeavor of gyroscope drift using horizon detection in infrared video discloses, the estimation unit estimates a degree of reliability of the imaginary horizontal axis based on the masked region in the infrared image (2.5. Verification of sea-sky line detection result, Based on the above image Feature analysis, the validity analysis method of sea-skyline detection results is proposed).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine Dong, Grigsby and Liu because using Liu’s attitude measurements and reliability readings verify attitude accuracy and report that the method yields reliable results or non-reliable results given from the gyro or images alone.
Further justification for combining Dong and Grigsby not only comes from the state of the art but from Dong (4. Conclusion, the results show that the method can reduce the detection time without reducing the accuracy and has better stability. What is more, it is concluded that the method is more suitable for real-time horizon detection in infrared sea–sky scenes).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (Fast infrared horizon detection algorithm based on gradient directional filtration) in view of Grigsby et al. (US10055648B1), further in view of Zaltzman (WO2020121301A1).
Regarding claim 4, Dong and Grigsby disclose the control device according to claim 2, as discussed supra. Additionally, Zaltzman who is in the same field of endeavor of remote control based on visible light imagery discloses, a control unit that increases an altitude of the moving object when a proportion of a region corresponding to a cloud in the visible light image is equal to or larger than a predetermined value (General Description Paragraph 1, using an image sensor that is mounted on the autonomous vehicle for obtaining an image that includes at least a portion of the cloud; and using a computer for performing the following: determining a seeding location within the cloud to begin seeding of the cloud based on the image, wherein the determination is based at least in part on image processing identifying a characteristic of the cloud that is indicative of the cloud's suitability for seeding; and generating one or more flight instructions for directing the autonomous vehicle towards the determined seeding location).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine Dong, Grigsby and Zaltzman because using Zaltzman’s visible light imagery to detect and control aircraft based on the sightings of a cloud yields reliable results for having a plurality of different authentication methods for automated control of the aircraft thus yielding safer flight maneuvers.
Further justification for combining Dong and Grigsby not only comes from the state of the art but from Dong (4. Conclusion, the results show that the method can reduce the detection time without reducing the accuracy and has better stability. What is more, it is concluded that the method is more suitable for real-time horizon detection in infrared sea–sky scenes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE E DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (703)756-1417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/S.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665