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 .
Claims 2-21 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 19/017,264 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Drawings
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See also [0044] of the corresponding publication US 2025/0371723 A1 disclosing traditional/‘Prior Art’ Matched Filter Tracking (MFT). See also the prosecution history(ies) associated with parent Application(s) 18/330,160 and 17/963,127. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 is understood as the method claim corresponding to system claim 3, however claim 17 features possibly unintended language “to established”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one or more claims of:
1) U.S. Patent No. 12,198,356 to parent Application No. 18/330,160 - CON of
2) U.S. Patent No. 11,748,897 to grand-parent Application No. 17/963,127.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of reference anticipate and/or render obvious independent claim(s) of the instant application. Reference may be made to the limitation mappings/table presented below in view of representative claim 1 of the ‘356 PN. Reference may also be made to Double Patenting rejection(s) as found in the corresponding Non-Final Office Action for the parent application listed above, commonly assigned and limited by means of Terminal Disclaimer. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner requests the same for the instant application. The conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
• Instant claims and claims of reference recite common subject matter, and recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” which does not preclude any additional elements recited by claims of reference – see the limitation mappings/table presented below;
• Language/terminology of instant claim(s) constituting minor/slight variations from the claims of reference, if/where present (e.g. “plurality of images” vs. “image data”), require interpretations under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and/or plain meaning definitions (MPEP 2173 and 2111) equivalent to/met by language of the reference claims in view of that corresponding/shared Specification. While the disclosure of reference may not be used as prior art (Double Patenting concerns the claims of reference), portions of the specification which provide support for reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the scope of claim(s) of reference and the issue of whether an instant claim defines an obvious variation or falls within the scope of an invention claimed in the claim(s) of reference. See MPEP 804 with reference to In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
• Whereby element(s) of instant claim(s) otherwise not present explicitly in corresponding reference claim(s) (i.e. distinguishing that ‘plurality of bins’ of reference further into spatial bins (intra-image pixel grouping(s)) and temporal bins (inter-image/frame selection – a count/number of frames in a stack, each image/frame comprising pixels), correspond to those same bins of reference (as permissibly/appropriately interpreted given that same/common disclosure) and/or as obvious variants of recited ‘bin’ equivalents as evidenced in literature of record and as-applied in the prior-art based rejections that follow. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify claims of reference such that the recited bins/pixel groupings for a shift-and-add processing further include spatial (Shao et al. (US 2017/0358103 A1), Murphy “Space Object Detection in Images using Matched Filter Bank and Bayesian Update” (2017), Fig. 6 localized searching partitions a-d, etc.,), and temporal groupings (Whidden et al. “Fast Algorithms for Slow Moving Asteroids: Constraints on the Distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects” (2019) - faster moving objects require fewer frames, slower/faint objects require more frames to exceed SNR based detection threshold(s) (v parameter of Section 2.1.5); Ma (US 10,032,285 B1), etc.), since such bins serve to effectively reduce a search space thereby reducing associated computational burden, in a manner characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
Instant Claims 19/017,264
Claims of Reference US 12,198,356 B2
Claim 2
A system for detecting faint moving objects, the system comprising:
Claim 9
A system for detecting faint moving objects, the system comprising:
an optically sensitive array configured to capture a plurality of images representing a moving object using an exposure time for each of the images, each of the plurality of images including a plurality of pixels;
an optically sensitive array configured to capture image data representing a moving object, the image data comprising a plurality of images in which each of the images is obtained using an exposure time;
a memory configured to store the plurality of images; and
a memory configured to store the image data; and
an image processing system configured to identify the moving object in the plurality of images by:
an image processing system configured to identify the moving object in the image data by:
establishing a plurality of bins, wherein each bin includes one of: i) a spatial bin comprising a first plurality of pixels from one of the images and ii) a temporal bin comprising a second plurality of pixels from two or more of the images;
establishing a plurality of bins, wherein each bin
includes at least a number of pixels sufficient to
capture a signal in the image data from the moving object as the signal of the moving object traverses the optically sensitive array; See also ODP bullet 3 above, regarding explicitly spatial and temporal bins, claim 4 of reference reciting temporal bins, and ‘bins corresponding to pixels’ inherently/necessarily satisfying a ‘spatial’ constraint in an image context
establishing the exposure time for obtaining the plurality of images, wherein a length of the exposure time is established based on a size of each of the bins; and
establishing an exposure time for obtaining the plurality of images, wherein the exposure time is established to provide a combined exposure time for a selected one of the bins, and wherein the exposure time is established based on an expected transit time for an expected speed of the moving object traversing the selected one of the bins; and
See also ODP Bullet 3 above – in view of Whidden as applied, Ma (US 10,032,285 B1) in view of col 8 lines 20-25 “increase the number of frames that may be used by eliminating assumptions…”, col 3-4 lines 60-10, etc.,
detecting the moving object based on the plurality of bins and the exposure time.
detecting the moving object based on the plurality of bins.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Clam(s) 2/16 recite(s) the limitation “establishing the exposure time for obtaining the plurality of images, wherein a length of the exposure time is established based on a size of each of the bins;” which is unclear because as recited the language appears to require establishing something already determined/fixed (pgpub at [0063] “exposure time is set before taking imagery”, [0072] “When operating a telescope however, a fixed exposure time is selected before an observation and exposure period can not be dynamically adjusted during post-processing to optimize for specific target objects. (Bin size however, can be dynamically adjusted during the OMFT processing. This will be discussed in a subsequent section.)”), given the manner in which the recited/relied upon ‘bins’ are derived from images previously captured at that ‘an exposure time’. Stated differently, a combined/new exposure time, that is an aggregate/summed exposure time may be determined based on a known/determined/select number of frames (each with their own individual exposure(s)), however in such an instance the combined/new exposure time is not that same exposure time that is “for obtaining the plurality of images” (antecedent basis is established at line 2 “for each of the images”). The limitation in question is followed by the limitation in part “wherein a length of the exposure time is established based on a size of each of the bins”, which is additionally unclear as to if the “size of each of the bins” is a size of spatial bin(s) only, a ‘size’ of a temporal bin with dimensions other than temporal (temporal bins themselves also comprise ‘a plurality of pixels’ and hence have some spatial component), and/or some combination of the two. Applicant’s pgpub at [0066] discloses “selecting a pixel exposure or a camera integration time to increase or maximize the time the target will remain in a bin during the exposure” for which it is not clear what if any relationship that disclosed ‘pixel exposure’ has with the recited/understood combined exposure, nor is it clear if and how any ‘size’ (in spatial/pixel domain) of a temporal bin (if one of the recited ‘each’ bin) may be used to determine/set that established/combined exposure time. Does Applicant intend for a reading where the established/combined exposure time is simply a function/summation of a ‘size’ (i.e. duration in time domain) of at least one temporal bin? For the purposes of compact prosecution, the broadest permissible reading is adopted.
Dependent clam(s) 3-8 and 17-21 inherit and fail to cure that/those deficiencies identified above for the case(s) of independent claim(s) 2/16 and are rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao al. (US 2017/0358103 A1) in view of Whidden et al. “Fast Algorithms for Slow Moving Asteroids: Constraints on the Distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects” (2019).
As to claim 2, Shao discloses a system for detecting faint moving objects (Figures 2-3 System 210 in view of e.g. [0106], [0128] “Object tracking systems and methods in accordance with many embodiments of the invention may also be applied to detecting objects in space. In detecting objects in space, such as but not limited to satellites or asteroids, it may be important not only to detect them but also to at least roughly measure their orbits. While approximately 1200 new near-Earth asteroids are detected every year, the majority of these are subsequently lost. Orbit measurement is similarly applicable in the monitoring of spacecraft and space debris in Earth's orbit”, [0129-0130]), the system comprising:
an optically sensitive array configured to capture image data representing a moving object using an exposure time for each of the images, each of the plurality of images including a plurality of pixels (camera 202 in conjunction with telescope(s) disclosure of e.g. [0074], [0128-0130], photodetector/CMOS/sCMOS/monochrome/RGB/near-IR detectors (transducing/converting photos to electrons for digital processing) of camera 202 transmitting digital signals/data to processing system 210 as per e.g. [0074], Fig 4 402 image sequence, Figure 5 frames 1-4, [0070] “According to several embodiments of the invention, an object tracking system applies a shift-and-add process to a sequence of short high-frame rate exposures of a scene, to synthetically render a long-exposure image of a moving object within the scene. Clustering processes can be utilized to determine the number of moving objects that are present based upon the content of the synthetically rendered long-exposure images”, [0074] “The images may include consecutive exposures of a scene 100. The processing system 210 may receive the images via its input/output or communications interface 214 ... The images may be short-exposure shots, resulting in the moving object 110 appearing frozen at various points in its path 106”, [0075] “In that case, the exposure time could be decreased until the part of the image, in which a target is expected to be seen, is no longer saturated. Some CMOS sensors can go down to exposures of a few microseconds, and then wait for 33 msec until it is time to capture the next image. This may also be implemented to reduce motion blur”);
a memory configured to store the plurality of images (Fig. 3 Memory 220, 230a received sequence of images, [0079]); and
an image processing system configured to identify the moving object in the plurality of images (Abs “an object tracking system comprises a processor, a communications interface, and a memory configured to store an object tracking application”, Fig. 3 processing system 210, processor 212) by:
establishing a plurality of bins, wherein each bin includes one of: i) a spatial bin comprising a first plurality of pixels from one of the images (image patches/sub-images ‘relevant to the moving object(s), Fig. 5, Fig. 11, etc., see also Shao at [0080] disclosing the manner in which segmenting the image space enables parallelization/GPU processing) and ii) a temporal bin comprising a second plurality of pixels from two or more of the images (Fig. 5, [0076] “Although the moving object 110 may appear faint or undetectable within a single frame, according to a number of embodiments of the invention, processing system 210 performs an object tracking process that can include a series of shift-and-add computations. These shift-and-add computations can be conceptually viewed as a processing in which the images within the sequence are shifted so that the moving object 110 within one image is matched up with the position of the moving object 110 within other images. Upon summing the pixels of the shifted images, the moving object 110 may appear more prominently in this synthetically rendered long-exposure image”, [0077] “As can readily be appreciated, the location of moving objects in the images is not known a priori. Accordingly, the shift-and-add computations involve adopting a hypothesis that a given pixel within a frame images an object that is moving, and summing pixels across a sequence of preceding images corresponding to locations that would be occupied assuming that the object is moving at a given velocity. Each possible velocity (i.e. speed and direction) involves the generation of a different sum of pixel locations across the sequence of images. The specific pixels that are summed can be determined based upon shifts in pixel locations between successive frames in the sequence corresponding to a specific pixel per frame interval velocity. In practice, the shifts and sum process can result in a single object causing a number of pixel sums corresponding to different velocities. The pixel sum with the highest intensity can provide the best estimate of the true location and velocity of an object”, [0077] spatial bins facilitate parallel processing recognized/known for shit-add-processing with multiple/varied motion hypothesis “As can readily be appreciated, the ability to process individual pixel locations independently creates significant opportunities to accelerate the shift-and-add computations through parallelization”; Examiner notes, permissible interpretation for language “a plurality” and each of said plurality requiring “one of” two bin types, appears to include instances wherein a plurality minimally includes two bins, and both bins are type ‘spatial’ – regardless Shao suggests at least one temporal bin given the shift-add processing (Shao Fig. 5) is for a stack of images/frames (number of frames in the stack = the size/dimension of the temporal bin));
establishing a combined/total exposure time associated with the plurality of images ([0069] “An object at a distance , such as but not limited to a UAV of < 40 cm diameter at a distance of > 2 km, may appear dim, and thus may require a long exposure to be captured in an image. If the object is also moving, it will appear blurry in a long-exposure shot, and its position can be difficult to ascertain. Attempting to capture the object using a short exposure, however, typically results in the object appearing too faint for positive identification. In addition, faint or blurry objects can be difficult to classify as, for example, a UAV as differentiated from a bird”; Shao discloses the manner in which some objects generally require an aggregate/synthetic exposure sufficient for a detection given some signal over background noise ratio (such that the object is not too faint/dimly/ weakly represented), however not so long of an exposure so as to appear with a blur/tail/artifacts that render its true position difficult to determine – that is to say that temporal binning to generate a synthetically long exposure image enables a more accurate detection of slower/faint moving objects, and similarly the manner in which faster and/or brighter moving objects may adversely be impacted by a synthetic exposure that is too/overly long; [0075] “each frame could be exposed for up to 33 msec, less some time for reading out the pixel. If the pixels are saturated, then information about the subthreshold target could get lost. In that case, the exposure time could be decreased until the part of the image, in which a target is expected to be seen, is no longer saturated. Some CMOS sensors can go down to exposures of a few microseconds, and then wait for 33 msec until it is time to capture the next image. This may also be implemented to reduce motion blur”; Examiner notes that combined (‘synthetically long’) exposure time is ‘provided’ as a consequence of the summing of those exposures for each image/frame in the temporal bin/stack – Applicant’s specification in support of such a combined exposure appears limited to e.g. [0085-0086]), wherein a length of the combined exposure time is established based on a size/duration of each of the temporal bins (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation identified above, in view of Shao’s synthetic exposure time constituting a summation/aggregate of individual exposure times/sizes/durations); and
detecting the moving object based on the plurality of bins and the combined exposure time ([0077-0078] “Once the processing system 210 has detected and determined information regarding at least one moving object, it can transmit information about the moving object via its input/output interface 214 to another device, such as but not limited to a display device 204”).
Shao further suggests adjusting the number of exposures/frames/images contributing to a synthetic total exposure based on an expected object motion in addition to object intensity and expected motion blur ([0074-0075] suggesting POSITA in view of Shao and more broadly, would recognize that bright objects pose a risk of oversaturation that would result in lost data that could not be recovered/only made worse by a larger/additional stacking, also [0125] “noise in the image triggering a detection that looks like a moving object in a single set of frames, but when overlayed on a longer time series, they disappear and reappear possibly without even following a random walk”; Shao further suggests the manner in which a higher number of exposures (a longer time series) may serve to further eliminate erroneous detections if they later (when considered in the aggregate) do not feature characteristic/expected motion – of which e.g. both direction and velocity constitute parameters of said expected/characteristic motion; see also Shao’s ‘velocity shift’ distinct from fractional pixel shift).
Should Applicant assert Shao’s temporal bin(s) (number of frames in a stack for the disclosed shift-and-add processing) does not vary in any way directly related to object velocity, and that this non-recited feature is required by the claim(s), Whidden further teaches/suggests adjusting a number of exposures for a shift-add processing (page 3 section 2 “Creating a stack optimized for faint, moving objects must include astrometric offsets between the images that correspond to the distance that an object has moved between observations. Unfortunately, this angular velocity is not known a priori, and in fact differs for each moving object in the field. Thus a stacked search for Solar System objects in time-series data requires a sequence of coadds, each optimized for a particular motion vector”, pages 8-9 Section 2.2 Object detection as Optimization “The computational complexity of this algorithm is bounded by O(na(tu)2/p) where n is the number of images to be stacked, a is the area on the sky to be searched, p is the area of a single pixel, t is the duration between the first and last image, and u is the range of an object's apparent velocity. The complexity scales with time and velocity range quadratically because all trajectories ending anywhere inside an area with radius tu must be considered”; Fig. 2 at page 9, illustrating temporal bin that is a stack of images in addition to spatial bins that are e.g. 32x16 blocks, etc.,).
Whidden further suggests a stacking/temporal binning wherein the stack size is based on a size of each of the bins (Whidden’s Fig. 2 evidences an obvious relationship between a spatial size/dimensions of a sub-image to be considered (e.g. those darker 32x16 pixel windows/sub-images), and a number of frames in the stack, given the manner in which velocity estimates for later frames of the stack involve position predictions encompassing a larger area of the 32x16 spatial bin/window – see Fig. 2 reproduced below, illustrating a clear difference between the spatial area of the darker bin portions for a predicted object location for frames on the left vs. those later occurring frames on the right). Posita would also recognize that for a single spatial bin in a frame to encompass all predicted locations, for a much later frame (or a sooner occurring subsequent frame but for a faster velocity), a larger spatial bin would be required (size of cone increases as progress to the right, later in a frame sequence).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system and method of Shao such that the number of frames in a stack processing (for a synthetic/combined exposure time) is/are adjusted on the basis of a predicted object velocity as taught/suggested by Shao and Whidden, and further so as to select for an optimum synthetic/combined exposure based on considerations of motion blur, intensity/oversaturation, and computational cost constraints associated with hardware implementation, image resolution, and stack (N frames) and spatial window sizes, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein that such a selection of configurable shift-and-stack processing parameters may optimize object detection in a manner characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 3, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein the plurality of bins includes a plurality of the temporal bins, and wherein multiple exposure times are used together to establish a combined exposure time for a selected one of the temporal bins (Shao [0069], [0070] “According to several embodiments of the invention, an object tracking system applies a shift-and-add process to a sequence of short high-frame rate exposures of a scene, to synthetically render a long-exposure image of a moving object within the scene”, [0075], etc.,).
As to claim 4, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein the combined exposure time is established based on an expected transit time for an expected speed of the moving object traversing a selected one of the bins (Shao [0029] “In a still further embodiment again, the given per frame pixel offset is determined based on the fractional pixel shift and a velocity shift”, [0077] “As can readily be appreciated, the location of moving objects in the images is not known a priori. Accordingly, the shift-and-add computations involve adopting a hypothesis that a given pixel within a frame images an object that is moving, and summing pixels across a sequence of preceding images corresponding to locations that would be occupied assuming that the object is moving at a given velocity. Each possible velocity (i.e. speed and direction) involves the generation of a different sum of pixel locations across the sequence of images. The specific pixels that are summed can be determined based upon shifts in pixel locations between successive frames in the sequence corresponding to a specific pixel per frame interval velocity. In practice, the shifts and sum process can result in a single object causing a number of pixel sums corresponding to different velocities. The pixel sum with the highest intensity can provide the best estimate of the true location and velocity of an object”, [0097] “A further assumption may be applied that the object is moving at a given velocity, and a per-frame pixel shift determined based on that velocity”; Whidden further suggests the same in view of that disclosure identified above for the case of claim 2 – e.g. “The computational complexity of this algorithm is bounded by O(na(tu)2/p) where n is the number of images to be stacked… and u is the range of an object's apparent velocity”).
As to claim 5, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein the size of a selected one of the bins includes a total number of pixels in the selected bin (Shao’s image patches/segments for parallel GPU processing and Whidden’s 32x16 spatial bins (page 3 similarly facilitating GPU implementation/parallelization) both/each comprise pixels (since they are sub-regions in an image domain) indicative of an associated ‘size’ in terms of pixel dimensions).
As to claim 7, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein the wherein the number of pixels contributing to a selected one of the bins and the exposure time are determined a priori by analytical calculations designed to enhance the signal-to-noise-ratio for detection of a restricted class of moving objects that are expected to pass through a field of view of the optically sensitive array (Shao [0077] “As can readily be appreciated, the location of moving objects in the images is not known a priori. Accordingly, the shift-and-add computations involve adopting a hypothesis that a given pixel within a frame images an object that is moving, and summing pixels across a sequence of preceding images corresponding to locations that would be occupied assuming that the object is moving at a given velocity. Each possible velocity (i.e. speed and direction) involves the generation of a different sum of pixel locations across the sequence of images. The specific pixels that are summed can be determined based upon shifts in pixel locations between successive frames in the sequence corresponding to a specific pixel per frame interval velocity. In practice, the shifts and sum process can result in a single object causing a number of pixel sums corresponding to different velocities. The pixel sum with the highest intensity can provide the best estimate of the true location and velocity of an object”, in further view of SNR disclosure of [0095], [0074] “This may assist in retaining maximum pixel information and/or in increasing contrast relative to the background”, etc.,; Whidden further discloses various SNR thresholds, e.g. page 11 “For this search, we went down to a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) threshold of 10, as measured by the v parameter introduced in Section 2.1.5.”, page 14 “stacks corresponding to the predicted locations. One of the objects was recovered when we reduced our SNR threshold to 5.96. The final object ran from the edge of one image stack to another between the first and second night. Our code cannot currently account for this situation in our search. However, we ran the search using only the second and third nights of data to find the object and our code was able to find it at a reduced SNR value of 5.31. This means that when going to a faint enough search threshold we were able to recover all of the known KBOs in the search area”, etc.,).
As to claim 8, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein each bin includes at least a number of pixels sufficient to capture a signal in the image data from the moving object as the signal of the moving object traverses the optically sensitive array (Shao Fig. 5, [0075-0077], etc.; Whidden Fig. 2, etc; Examiner understands what number of pixels is sufficient to be variable/object dependent (but not necessarily warranting rejection under 112(b)), and that both Shao and Whidden disclose such a spatial bin/patch given the shift-add-processing therein is expressly for object detection purposes).
As to claim 9, this claim is an alternate system claim similar to that of claim 2, and is rejected accordingly in view of that disclosure identified for the case of Shao and Whidden as applied. Claim 9 omits the requirement/limitation that is “establishing a combined exposure time” of claim 2, and more explicitly requires both of spatial and temporal bins, however this broader embodiment/recitation is taught/suggested in the combination of Shao as modified by Whidden as presented above for the case of claim 2.
As to claims 10-12, these claims are the alternate system claims (omitting establishing exposure time) corresponding to that of system claim 4, and are rejected accordingly in view of that disclosure identified for the case of Shao and Whidden as applied (expected transit time given velocity based location hypothesis/prediction pertains to bins broadly (12/4), to include spatial (10) and temporal (11)).
As to claim 13, this claim is the alternate system claim (omitting establishing exposure time) corresponding to that of system claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
As to claim 15, this claim is the alternate system claim (omitting establishing exposure time) corresponding to that of system claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
As to claim 16, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system of claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
As to claims 17-19, these claims are the method claims corresponding to system claims 3-5 respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
As to claim 21, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system of claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
2. Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao al. (US 2017/0358103 A1) in view of Whidden et al. “Fast Algorithms for Slow Moving Asteroids: Constraints on the Distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects” (2019) and Ma (US 10,032,285 B1).
As to claim 6, Shao in view of Whidden teaches/suggests the system of claim 2.
Shao in view of Whidden further teaches/suggests the system wherein the plurality of bins includes a plurality of the temporal bins, and the image processing system is further configured to identify the moving object in the image data by adjusting a number of exposures in a selected one of the temporal bins (see claim 2 above, re. Shao’s disclosure/teachings aimed at minimizing motion associated blur artifacts and oversaturation for a stack/number of exposures, and Shao’s and Whidden’s disclosures regarding a stack size/number of exposures significant enough to exceed associated SNR threshold given intensity characteristics of the spatial bin/patch).
Ma similarly evidences the obvious nature of a moving object detection system implementing a shift and add processing further comprising a step of adjusting a number of exposures in each of one or more temporal bins col 8 lines 20-25 “With the analysis up to the current time, an increased accuracy in detecting an object at the prior time may occur with more images being available for analysis. One or more of the technical solutions in the illustrative examples increase the number of frames that may be used by eliminating assumptions used by current techniques, such as constant velocity and constant trajectory”, col 3-4 lines 60 – 10, etc.,).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify the system and method of Shao in view of Whidden so as to adjust a number of exposures in each of one or more temporal bins as taught/suggested by Shao, Whidden and Ma, the motivation as similarly taught/ suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA, that implementing a variable number of exposures/frames to be considered would for at least select instances (e.g. given hardware associated computational cost constraints, predicted/known object velocities, and desired/predetermined SNR thresholds) facilitate a computationally efficient object detection balancing for detection accuracy given object specific characteristics (intensity and velocity).
As to claims 14, this claim is the alternate system claim (omitting establishing exposure time) corresponding to that of system claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
As to claim 20, this claim is the method claim corresponding to the system of claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
Additional References
Prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the art.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached on 571-272-7409. 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.
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights