DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 limitations 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12 recites “an imaging device configured to”
Claim 12 recites “one or more computing devices configured to”
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.
“an imaging device” (part of the fire detection apparatus 106, [¶0043, 47] in Fig. 1, and element 410 as part of the fire detection system 400 [0066] of Fig. 4, which performs steps 502 & 504 in Fig. 5 [¶0081-82], and steps 602 & 604 in Fig. 6 [¶0097-98])
The associated structure of the imaging device may include a photographic and/or videographic camera, a 1D,2D, or 3D-camera, an RGB camera, or a monochromatic camera [¶0043].
“one or more computing device” (may be included as part of the fire detection apparatus [¶0052] of Fig. 1, and element 416 of the fire detection system 400 [0069-72], and performs the associated processes detailed in ¶0052-65, steps 506-510 of Fig. 5 [¶0083-93], and steps 606-610 [¶0099-100])
The associated structure of the imaging device may be a mobile device, a programmable logic controller, desktop computer(s), laptop(s), server(s), cloud computing platform(s), controller system(s) [¶0071]
The associated algorithm performed by the imaging device is outlined more specifically in [¶0052-65]: wherein a flow vector is determined as a different in coordinates of a background feature 214 between a first and second image frame [¶0053-55], and discarding any older image frames if no movement occurs between two frames [¶0056], calculating the absolute value of the flow vector [¶0057] and comparing it to a variation threshold [¶0058]. It may further determine region 114 in the first and second image frame when the absolute value of flow vectors for the region is greater than a variation threshold [¶0059-60], and compare the surface area of the region to a surface area threshold to determine the region as a potential fire location [¶0061]. It may search for an image of a fire in an image frame and determine a center of the image of fire and a center of the region and compare the distances between centers to determine the location of a real fire and/or a source of a fire [¶0065].
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 § 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 3, 8, 14 & 19 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.
Regarding claims 3 & 14, they both recite similar limitations of “an image of a real fire” and “an image of a reflected fire”. An antecedent basis for both of these limitations has already been established in claims 1 & 12, respectively. If these limitations are intended to be distinct from the identically recited limitations of claims 1 & 12, they should be properly distinguished. The examiner interprets these limitations to be the same “image of a real fire” and “image of a reflected fire” first introduced in claims 1 & 12.
With respect to claims 8 & 19, they both similarly introduce the limitation “a potential cause of fire location”. The construction of these claims fails to properly distinguish the relationship between “the potential fire location” and “a potential cause of fire location”. The examiner interprets “a potential cause of fire location” to be a distinct location from “the potential fire location” that is the cause of the fire associated with the region first introduced in claim 4.
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(s) 1-4, 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (“A Novel Fire Identification Algorithm Based on Improved Color Segmentation and Enhanced Feature Data”, 2021, IEEE), hereinafter referred to as “Chen” in view of Freeman et al (US 2015/001690 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Freeman”.
Starting with claim 1, Chen teach A method for detecting fire (Chen: A fire identification process is outlined in Fig. 1 [Sec II. Proposed Method - ¶01]), the method comprising:
capturing a first image frame from a field of view;
capturing a second image frame from the field of view (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the j-th and (i + j)-th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame) [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03; eq. 17]);
and
differentiating between an image of a real fire and an image of a reflected fire (Chen: Fig. 1 outlines the general process used for identifying fire under reflective conditions [Sec II. Proposed Method - ¶01]; segmentation of fire is demonstrated in Fig. 22, with Fig. 22(b) and (f), wherein the reflective portions of the fires illustrated in Fig. 22(a) and (e) are filtered out [Sec III A. Performance Analysis of Fire Segmentation - ¶01-03] - the examiner is interpreting the "reflected fire" in accordance with the specification [¶ 0044, & 49] wherein the reflection of a fire 116 may be a reflection of a fire from a reflective surface, wherein a "reflective surface" may refer to a surface that reflects light and/or radiations).
Chen, however, fails to disclose tracking the particular displacement of background features across frames to calculate a flow vector. Freeman, on the other hand, is analogous art pertinent to the field of endeavor of the present application and disclose a method and apparatus for measuring and visualizing fluid flow via optical refraction. Chen teach
comparing a first location of a background feature in the first image frame with a second location of the background feature in the second image frame (Freeman: raw input video frames 102 of a burning candle 104 in front of a textured background 106 have optical flow calculations 103a applied; this helps visualize small visual deformations or motions of the textured background (referred to as "wiggles") like the visible plume 105b of the candle flame – the examiner notes that the distortions from these wiggles convey changes in the position of background features analogous to the background features of the instant application [¶0030]; the calculation of apparent motion vectors v(x,y) 114 across each frame convey the change in (i.e., compare) changes in location of these wiggles [¶0055-60; Fig. 1A, C & D]);
calculating a flow vector using the comparison of the first location of the background feature in the first image frame and the second location of the background feature in the second image frame (Freeman: fluid flow velocity vectors u(x,y) 118 (i.e., a flow vector) are calculated using apparent motion velocity vectors v(x,y) 114 across frames to capture dynamics of refractive flow 103b [¶0064-69; Fig. 1A, C & D]).
Freeman further describes that their method enables the visualization of fluid flow from ordinary video equipment by distinguishing fluid motion via changes in refraction of either textured or natural backgrounds [Abstract], further emphasizing the importance of visualizing air and fluid movement in combustion research [0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of utilizing the flow vector calculations of Freeman with the fire identification method of Chen to visualize the distortions from a plume of a flame, which would aid in distinguishing a real flame from a simple reflection of a frame.
With respect to claim 2, Chen in view of Freeman teach The method of Claim 1 (described above), further comprising:
determining a first location coordinates of the background feature in the first image frame;
determining a second location coordinates of the background feature in the second image frame (Freeman: raw input video frames 102 of a burning candle 104 in front of a textured background 106 have optical flow calculations 103a applied; this helps visualize small visual deformations of the background (i.e. wiggles) like the visible plume 105b of the candle flame – the calculation of apparent motion vectors v(x,y) 114 across each frame inherently conveys the coordinate locations of these wiggles across frames [¶0055-60; Fig. 1A, C & D]); and
determining the flow vector as a vector connecting the first location coordinates with the second location coordinates (Freeman: fluid flow velocity vectors u(x,y) 118 (i.e., a flow vector) are calculated using apparent motion velocity vectors v(x,y) 114 across frames to capture dynamics of refractive flow 103b – the examiner notes that the fluid flow velocity vector inherently connect coordinate data across frames [¶0064-69; Fig. 1A, C & D]).
Freeman describes that their method enables the visualization of fluid flow from ordinary video equipment by distinguishing fluid motion via changes in refraction of either textured or natural backgrounds [Abstract], further emphasizing the importance of visualizing air and fluid movement such as combustion research [¶0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of utilizing the flow vector calculations of Freeman with the fire identification method of Chen to visualize the distortions from a plume of a flame, which would aid in distinguishing a real flame from a simple reflection of a frame.
Turning to claim 3, Chen in view of Freeman teach The method of Claim 2 (as described above), further comprising:
and
differentiating between an image of a real fire and an image of a reflected fire (Chen: Fig. 1 outlines the general process used for identifying fire under reflective conditions [Sec II. Proposed Method - ¶01]; segmentation of fire is demonstrated in Fig. 22, with Fig. 22(b) and (f), wherein the reflective portions of the fires illustrated in Fig. 22(a) and (e) are filtered out [Sec III A. Performance Analysis of Fire Segmentation - ¶01-03]).
Chen, however, fails to teach determining an absolute value of the flow vector and comparing it to a threshold to make this differentiation between fire and reflected fire images.
Freeman, in contrast, describe determining an absolute value of the flow vector;
comparing the absolute value of the flow vector with a variation threshold; (Freeman: the magnitude of the fluid flow velocity vector is compared to a given threshold, and, when the threshold is exceeded, an alarm signal 476 is activated [¶0095]).
Freeman describes that their method enables the visualization of fluid flow from ordinary video equipment by distinguishing fluid motion via changes in refraction of either textured or natural backgrounds [Abstract], further emphasizing the importance of visualizing air and fluid movement such as combustion research [¶0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of using alarm system of Freeman when a fluid vector is of a sufficient magnitude to provide a threshold for what fluid flow is sufficient enough to indicate a flame for fire identification system of Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Freeman teach The method of Claim 2 (described previously), further comprising determining a region in the first image frame and the second image frame, wherein an absolute value of the flow vectors corresponding to a first subset of locations of background features of the region in the first image frame and a second subset of locations of the background features of the region in the second image frame have absolute values greater than the variation threshold (Freeman: the method can weight representations of motion proportional to the degree of texturing, with regions with greater texturing (indicating of greater fluid flow) are given a greater weight [¶0085] which is represented by the visible plume 105b having greater overall calculated fluid flow velocity vectors 118 [¶0060-70; Fig. 1A], whose magnitude can be compared to a given threshold [¶0095]).
Freeman describes that their method enables the visualization of fluid flow from ordinary video equipment by distinguishing fluid motion via changes in refraction of either textured or natural backgrounds [Abstract], further emphasizing the importance of visualizing air and fluid movement such as combustion research [¶0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of using alarm system of Freeman when the fluid vectors for a particular region are of a sufficient magnitude to provide a threshold to indicate a flame for the fire identification system of Chen.
Considering claim 10, Chen in view of Freeman teach The method of Claim 1 (described previously), wherein the first image frame and the second image frame are subsequent image frames (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the j-th and (i + j)-th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame) - given that these are images in a sequence the above described method can be applied across consecutive friends [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03 & Sec III B. Performance Analysis - ¶06; eq. 17]).
As for claim 11, Chen teach A method for detecting fire (Chen: A fire identification process is outlined in Fig. 1 [Sec II. Proposed Method - ¶01]), the method comprising:
capturing a first image frame from a field of view;
capturing a second image frame from the field of view (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the jth and (i + j)-th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame) [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03; eq. 17]);
comparing a group of pixels in the first image frame with the group of pixels in the second image frame (Chen: fire segmentation is guided based on a region growing algorithm based on seed points and adjacent points (i.e., a group of pixels) across frames [Sec II B. Fine Segmentation of Fire Based on the Improved Region Growing - ¶01-05; Figs. 7 & 8; algorithm 2]);
identifying an image of a fire in a third image frame (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the jth and (i + j)th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame), depicting a flame - the examiner notes that any of the frames within the image sequence may be an image of a fire [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03; eq. 17]); and,
determining whether the image of a fire is from a real fire or from a reflection of the real fire (Chen: Fig. 1 outlines the general process used for identifying fire under reflective conditions [Sec II. Proposed Method - ¶01]; segmentation of fire is demonstrated in Fig. 22, with Fig. 22(b) and (f), wherein the reflective portions of the fires illustrated in Fig. 22(a) and (e) are filtered out [Sec III A. Performance Analysis of Fire Segmentation - ¶01-03]).
Chen, fails to describe a process of identifying and tracking background features displayed by the group of pixels. Freeman, however, teach identify background features displayed by the group of pixels that are displaced between the first image frame and the second image frame based on the comparison; (Freeman: wiggles (i.e., background features) are identified for a given plume of a candle 105b (the plume being defined as a group of pixels) as they are displaced across consecutive frames, as captured by the apparent motion velocity vectors v(x,y) 114 [¶0055-60; Fig. 1A, C & D]).
Freeman describes that their method enables the visualization of fluid flow from ordinary video equipment by distinguishing fluid motion via changes in refraction of either textured or natural backgrounds [Abstract], further emphasizing the importance of visualizing air and fluid movement such as combustion research [¶0055]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of identifying and tracking the displacement of wiggles using the system of Freeman with the fire identification method of Chen to visualize the distortions from a plume of a flame to properly differentiate between real and reflected fire.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (“A Novel Fire Identification Algorithm Based on Improved Color Segmentation and Enhanced Feature Data”, 2021, IEEE), hereinafter referred to as “Chen” in view of Freeman et al (US 2015/001690 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Freeman”, further in view of Pu et al (US 2012/0195462 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Pu”.
As for claim 5, Chen in view of Freeman teach The method of Claim 4 (as previously described), however, neither Chen, nor Freeman, disclose determining a potential fire region utilizing a comparison of the surface area of a region to a threshold.
Pu, however, is analogous art pertinent to the field of endeavor of the present application that describe a flame identification method based on image intensity for segmenting regions large enough to be considered a fire. More particularly, Pu teach further comprising:
determining a surface area of the region (Pu: pixels above a given threshold of intensity and saturation values corresponding to a fire in the form of an intensity foreground area (i.e., a surface area of the region) [¶0035-37, 52-53; illustrated in Fig. 3a & b and steps S4 & 5 of Fig. 4a]);
comparing the surface area of the region with a surface area threshold (Pu: the intensity foreground area is compared to an intensity foreground area threshold [¶0054; step S6 of Fig. 4a]); and,
determining the region as a potential fire location when the surface area is greater than the surface area threshold (Pu: the fire-like image region is defined when the intensity foreground area is greater than the intensity foreground area threshold [¶0054-55; step S7 of Fig. 4a]).
Pu further detail that their method utilizing a area threshold comparison improves the overall accuracy of flame detection without the need of high computational capability [¶0047]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would recognize the benefit of implementing Pu's area thresholding for fire detection to the system taught by Chen in view of Freeman for a computationally efficient method to limit detected fire regions to only areas sufficiently large enough to be considered a fire.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (“A Novel Fire Identification Algorithm Based on Improved Color Segmentation and Enhanced Feature Data”, 2021, IEEE), hereinafter referred to as “Chen” in view of Freeman et al (US 2015/001690 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Freeman”, further in view of Pu et al (US 2012/0195462 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Pu”, further in view of Bonn; David (US 2021/0049789 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Bonn”.
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Freeman, further in view of Pu teach The method of Claim 5 (described previously), further comprising:
detecting an image of a fire in a third image frame (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the j-th and (i + j)-th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame), depicting a flame – the examiner notes that any of the frames within the image sequence may be an image of a fire [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03; eq. 17]); but they fail to disclose leveraging a distance between centers of an image and of a fire region.
Bonn, per contra, is analogous art in the same field of endeavor of the present application and disclose an automated flame finding analysis system for locating likely fires. Bonn teach determining a center of the image of fire (Bonn: a centroid of a hot spot in an IR image (i.e., an image of a fire) can be calculated [¶0028-29]);
determining a center of the region (Bonn: once a hot spot is detected, the system can detect one or more turbulent regions, and calculates the centroid of the turbulent motion region [¶0039-43; Fig. 3]); and,
determining a distance between the center of the region and the center of the image of fire (Bonn: the system determines if the centroids of the turbulent motion region and the hotspot overlap - the examiner notes that, checking for overlap between these two regions implies a determination of distance between the two centroids [¶0043; Fig. 3]).
Bonn further describe that this comparison of proximity between a turbulent motion region with a high-temperature (hot spot) region, aids in estimating the location of a fire [¶0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to utilize the centroid comparisons of Bonn with the overall fire detection system outlined by Chen in view of Freeman, further in view of Pu, to efficiently correlate turbulent motion and hotspots to locate a fire.
Considering claim 7, Chen in view of Freeman, further in view of Pu and Bonn teach The method of Claim 6 (described above), further comprising determining the potential fire location to be a real fire location when the distance between the center of the region and the center of the image of fire is less than a distance threshold (Bonn: if the hot spot and centroid of the turbulent motion region overlap, the system checks if the centroid is above the hot spot in the frame (within a specified proximity) and if so, the combined hot spot and turbulent motion region are identified as a candidate region for a fire (i.e., a potential fire location) [¶0007, 43]).
Bonn further describe that this comparison of proximity between a turbulent motion region with a high-temperature (hot spot) region, aids in estimating the location of a fire [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to utilize the centroid comparisons of Bonn with the overall fire detection system outlined Chen in view of Freeman further in view of Pu, to efficiently correlate turbulent motion and hotspots to locate a fire.
With respect to claim 9, Chen in view of Freeman, further in view of Pu and Bonn teach The method of Claim 6 (described previously), wherein the third image frame is the same image frame as any of the first image frame or the second image frame (Chen: an image sequence is captured from a video of a scene, wherein the segmented fire area is calculated for the j-th and (i + j)-th frame (i.e., a first and second image frame), depicting a flame - the examiner notes that any of the frames within the image sequence may be an image of a fire [Sec II C. Identification of Fire Based on the Multifeature Description - ¶02-03; eq. 17]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 15-18 & 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, the primary reason for allowance is that the prior art neither teach nor fail to suggest “one or more computing devices” as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in accordance with its associated algorithm outlined in the specification. More particularly, the prior art cited or made of record fail to recite the flow vector calculations, discarding of older image frames when no movement occurs between frames, nor the distance comparison to locate the source of a fire.
Claims 13, 15-18 & 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on an allowable claim.
Claims 8, 14 & 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 8, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art neither teach nor fail to suggest “determining the potential fire location to be a potential cause of fire location when the distance between the center of the region and the center of the image of fire is greater than a distance threshold”. The closest cited prior art, Bonn, outline the distance comparison utilized in claim 8, but fail to teach using this comparison to identify the location of a cause of fire. The closest prior art of record, Yu et al (CN 115578684 A) disclose a fire-fighting robot that leverages computer vision to locate the source of a fire via comparison of centroids, however they fail to disclose that this comparison is greater than a defined distance threshold.
Claims 14 & 19 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence claim 12, which was previously indicated to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mueller et al (“Optical Flow Estimation for Flame Detection in Videos”, July 2013, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vo. 22, No. 7) outline a method for calculating optical flow for detecting fires in videos.
Mei et al (“Machine Vision Based Fire Flame Detection using Multi-Features”, 2012, IEEE) teach a video image segmentation program for detecting a flame via optical flow.
Park et al (US 2023/0201642 A1) disclose a fire detection system for recognizing features of and positions of fire elements in image sequences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael M. Sofroniou whose telephone number is (571)272-0287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, John M. Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/MICHAEL M SOFRONIOU/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
