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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 2 recite, in part, “and identifies that a light detected not to have cyclicity is identified as” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --and. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 7 recite, in part, “wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to determine, for a light” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to determine, for a light-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 - 5 of claim 7 recite, in part, “and groups the one or more lights” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --and to group the one or more lights-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a visible light image capturing unit that performs”, “an invisible light image capturing unit that performs” and “a display apparatus that display” in claims 1, 11 and 12.
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.
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.
Claims 5, 7 - 10 and 12 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the navigation mark image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is 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 because it is unclear as to which one or more lights “the one or more lights” recited on line 5 is referencing. Is it referring to the “one or more lights” recited on line 9 of claim 1 or the “one or more lights” recited on line 3 of claim 7? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the one or more lights” recited on line 5 of claim 7 as referencing the “one or more lights” recited on line 3 of claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the vessel in which the one or more lights are installed" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is 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 because it is unclear as to which invisible light video “the invisible light video” recited on line 4 is referencing. Is it referring to the “invisible light video” recited on line 6 of claim 1 or the “invisible light video” recited on line 3 of claim 12? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the invisible light video” recited on line 4 of claim 12 as referencing either one of the “invisible light video” recited on line 6 of claim 1 and the “invisible light video” recited on line 3 of claim 12.
Claims 9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujisawa U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351764 A1.
- With regards to claims 1, 13 and 14, Fujisawa discloses an image processing apparatus; (Fujisawa, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, 12 - 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 and 0042 - 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) a control method for an image processing apparatus; (Fujisawa, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, 12 - 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 and 0042 - 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a control method for an image processing apparatus; (Fujisawa, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, 12 - 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 and 0042 - 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) the image processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 12 - 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 and 0042 - 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) and one or more processors executing the instructions: (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 12 - 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 and 0042 - 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - 0067, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0088, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) to obtain a visible light video generated by a visible light image capturing unit that performs image capturing in a wavelength range of visible light; (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 [“camera 2 may be a visible light camera which can image at least a visible range” and “the plurality of time-series first images may be a plurality of still images (frames) included in a video”]) to obtain an invisible light video generated by an invisible light image capturing unit that performs image capturing in a wavelength range different from the wavelength range of the visible light; (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 [“camera 2 may be a visible light camera which can image at least a visible range. It may be capable of imaging not only the visible range but also an infrared range” and “the plurality of time-series first images may be a plurality of still images (frames) included in a video”]) to detect cyclicity of a temporal change of one or more lights included in a video from the video of at least one of the visible light video and the invisible light video; (Fujisawa, Figs. 17 - 19, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 7 ¶ 0137 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0140, Pg. 8 ¶ 0145 - 0146) to detect a color of the one or more lights from the visible light video; (Fujisawa, Figs. 2, 14, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007 - 0008, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0124 and 0128 - 0130, Pg. 7 ¶ 0137 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0142 [“The classification and the description of the sign of the buoy may be classified according to the color of the buoy, the shape of a top mark, etc.” and “FIG. 19 is a view illustrating the color, the shape of the top mark, and the lighting pattern corresponding to the description of the sign of the buoy. The description of the sign of the buoy may be classified according to the color of the buoy, the shape of the top mark, and the lighting pattern.” Figures 2 and 19 of Fujisawa illustrate that light color is also used to differentiate between types of navigational signs/lights.]) to identify a type of at least one light of the one or more lights based on the detected cyclicity and the detected color; (Fujisawa, Figs. 2, 14, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 3 ¶ 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0137 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0142, Pg. 8 ¶ 0145 - 0148, Pg. 9 ¶ 0153) and to overlap information regarding the identified type on the invisible light video. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116)
- With regards to claim 11, Fujisawa discloses an image capturing apparatus (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0088, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0120, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1; ([See analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) the visible light image capturing unit; (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0088, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0120) and the invisible light image capturing unit. (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0088, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0120)
- With regards to claim 12, Fujisawa discloses an image capturing system (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0064 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0088, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0120, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) comprising: the image capturing apparatus according to claim 11; ([See analysis of claim 11 included herein above.]) and a display apparatus (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0043, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0053 and 0059, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116, Pg. 9 ¶ 0158 - 0160) that displays an invisible light video on which information is overlapped, (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116) the invisible light video being obtained from the image capturing apparatus. (Fujisawa, Figs. 1, 3, 7, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0088, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0120)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351764 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blanton et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0337641 A1.
- With regards to claim 2, Fujisawa discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a light detected to have cyclicity is identified as a light of a navigation mark. (Fujisawa, Figs. 17 - 19, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0063, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100 - 0108, Pg. 7 ¶ 0135 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0140, Pg. 8 ¶ 0145 - Pg. 9 ¶ 0155) Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein a light detected not to have cyclicity is identified as a light of a navigation light installed in a vessel. Pertaining to analogous art, Blanton et al. disclose wherein identifies that a light detected not to have cyclicity is identified as a light of a navigation light installed in a vessel. (Blanton et al., Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008, Pg. 3 ¶ 0037 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0058, Pg. 6 ¶ 0066 - 0072, Pg. 8 ¶ 0089 - 0091 [“a plurality of markers 105a-c (collectively 105). The markers 105, as used herein, comprise objects configured to be indicators, signs, symbols, and/or the like of different points along a surface... The markers 105 can also be used to indicate the boundaries of landing sites, e.g., a landing site on a ship, or other objects of interest”, “the markers 105 are arranged in a predefined pattern, e.g., a geometric pattern such as a rectangle, a circle, a diamond, a triangle, a star, and/or the like. As explained in more detail below, the predefined pattern can be used to determine the ‘pose’ of the object associated with the markers 104, e.g., the payload 114, relative to the rotorcraft” and “a marker 105 of the plurality of markers is embodied as a beacon array, e.g., a plurality of beacons 106 in a single unit as illustrated in FIG. 4. In such an embodiment, more information may be propagated, displayed, presented, and/or the like in a single image that the camera 104 captures. For instance, the beacon array may display a beacon pattern that describes or defines the predefined pattern that the markers 105 are arranged in, the distances between the markers 105, the total number of markers 105, the frequencies or bandwidths being propagated by the markers 105, and/or the like.”]) Fujisawa and Blanton et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that determine navigational information based on identifying a characteristic(s) of a light(s) in an image(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Fujisawa with the teachings of Blanton et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Fujisawa with the well-known and applicable technique Blanton et al. applied to a similar device. Identifying a light detected not to have cyclicity as a light of a navigation light installed in a vessel, as taught by Blanton et al., would enhance the base device of Fujisawa by improving its ability to effectively and reliably navigate an environment since additional information pertinent to safely traversing the environment would be determined from the video data. In addition, this modification would enhance the base device of Fujisawa by allowing for it to be utilized in an increased number and variety of related and applicable applications, situations and/or environments, such as for recognizing navigation lights on ships and/or determining guidance information from navigation lights on ships, thereby improving its overall appeal, usefulness and marketability to potential end-users. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the base device of Fujisawa would identify a light detected not to have cyclicity as a light of a navigation light installed in a vessel so as to improve its ability to accurately, effectively and reliably determine navigational information for safely traversing an environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa with Blanton et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
- With regards to claim 3, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, for a light identified as a light of a navigation mark, a navigation mark type corresponding to the light is further identified based on a light color of the light, a cycle of a temporal change, and a light emission pattern. (Fujisawa, Figs. 2, 14, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 3 ¶ 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0137 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0142, Pg. 8 ¶ 0145 - 0148, Pg. 9 ¶ 0153)
- With regards to claim 4, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a label indicating the identified navigation mark type is overlapped on a navigation mark image included in the invisible light video corresponding to the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351764 A1 in view of Blanton et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0337641 A1 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kabel et al. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0290200 A1.
- With regards to claim 5, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein an image indicating a description of the light is overlapped on the navigation mark image included in the invisible light video corresponding to the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116) Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein an image indicating the light emission pattern is overlapped. Pertaining to analogous art, Kabel et al. disclose wherein an image indicating the light emission pattern of the light is overlapped on the navigation mark image included in video corresponding to the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. (Kabel et al., Abstract, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012 - 0013, Pg. 8 ¶ 0109 - 0111 [“the processing system 12 may cause the display 16 to display a red dot 76, blinking light, or other visual aid above buoys, lights, or other navigational aids… The visual aids may also be configured to blink in the same pattern as the navigational aids which they mark. For example, a lighted buoy which is known to blink every one second (from Coast Guard provided data stored in the database) may be marked with a visual aid that also turns on and off at the same frequency.”]) Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. and Kabel et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that detect and display navigational information and, similar to Fujisawa, Kabel et al. is also directed towards detecting and displaying maritime-related navigational information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with the teachings of Kabel et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa for the image indicating the light emission pattern of Kabel et al. The image indicating the light emission pattern of Kabel et al. could be substituted in place of the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, an image indicating the light emission pattern of the light of the navigational sign would be overlapped on the navigation mark image included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Fujisawa that navigation signs/marks may be classified according to a lighting pattern and that display data related to a navigation sign/mark, such as a symbol indicative of the description of the sign or a symbol having a shape indicative of the description of the sign, may be displayed on the display, see at least figures 10, 11 and 19, page 1 paragraph 0011, page 5 paragraphs 0104 - 0108 and page 7 paragraph 0135 - page 8 paragraph 0140 of Fujisawa. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Blanton et al. that markers may be arranged in predefined patterns and comprise various visual characteristics, such as color, and that an image of the off-board target with an overlay of the markers and/or geometry of the marker pattern may be displayed, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0037 - 0039 and page 7 paragraphs 0080 - 0081 of Blanton et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that an image indicating the light emission pattern of the light of the navigational sign would be overlapped on the navigation mark image included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with Kabel et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
- With regards to claim 6, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein display data corresponding to the identified navigation mark type is overlapped on a navigation mark image included in the invisible light video corresponding to the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116) Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein a color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type is overlapped. Pertaining to analogous art, Kabel et al. disclose wherein a color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type is overlapped on a navigation mark image included in video corresponding to the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. (Kabel et al., Abstract, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012 - 0013, Pg. 8 ¶ 0105 - 0106 and 0109 - 0111 [“the processing system 12 may cause the display 16 to display a red dot 76, blinking light, or other visual aid above buoys, lights, or other navigational aids… The visual aids may also be configured to blink in the same pattern as the navigational aids which they mark. For example, a lighted buoy which is known to blink every one second (from Coast Guard provided data stored in the database) may be marked with a visual aid that also turns on and off at the same frequency.”]) Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. and Kabel et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that detect and display navigational information and, similar to Fujisawa, Kabel et al. is also directed towards detecting and displaying maritime-related navigational information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with the teachings of Kabel et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa for the color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type of Kabel et al. The color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type of Kabel et al. could be substituted in place of the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, a color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type would be overlapped on the navigation mark image included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Fujisawa that navigation signs/marks may be classified according to a lighting pattern and that display data related to a navigation sign/mark, such as a symbol indicative of the description of the sign or a symbol having a shape indicative of the description of the sign, may be displayed on the display, see at least figures 10, 11 and 19, page 1 paragraph 0011, page 5 paragraphs 0104 - 0108 and page 7 paragraph 0135 - page 8 paragraph 0140 of Fujisawa. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Blanton et al. that markers may be arranged in predefined patterns and comprise various visual characteristics, such as color, and that an image of the off-board target with an overlay of the markers and/or geometry of the marker pattern may be displayed, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0037 - 0039 and page 7 paragraphs 0080 - 0081 of Blanton et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a color corresponding to the identified navigation mark type would be overlapped on the navigation mark image included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize the light identified as the light of the navigation mark. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with Kabel et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 7 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisawa U.S. Publication No. 2023/0351764 A1 in view of Blanton et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0337641 A1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Walker et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0378361 A1.
- With regards to claim 7, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 2. Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to determine, for a light identified as a light of a navigation light, one or more lights having a mutual distance less than a predetermined distance in a video as one or more lights installed in identical vessels, and groups the one or more lights. Pertaining to analogous art, Walker et al. disclose wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions (Walker et al., Figs. 2, 4 & 5A, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023, Pg. 3 ¶ 0030 - 0032, Pg. 11 ¶ 0089 - 0098) to determine, for a light identified as a light of a navigation light, one or more lights having a mutual distance less than a predetermined distance in a video as one or more lights installed in identical vessels, (Walker et al., Abstract, Figs. 3A, 3B & 5B, Pg. 3 ¶ 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0033 - 0036, Pg. 7 ¶ 0050 - 0053, Pg. 12 ¶ 0103 - 0107 [“label each pixel from the frames 212 as non-background pixels (e.g., pixels corresponding to buoys, boat markings, lights on the boat, etc.), and background pixels. The segmentation module 222 may then group non-background pixels that share similar vicinities into groups 282 (FIG. 3A). For example, the separate groups 282 may correspond to separate buoys 130, a boat, etc., and other slalom course markers” and “model fitting module 224 may be configured to identify which of the groups 282 correspond to the lights 562 on the boat 560”]) and groups the one or more lights. (Walker et al., Abstract, Figs. 3A & 3B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0008 - 0009, Pg. 3 ¶ 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0033 - 0036, Pg. 5 ¶ 0040 - 0041, Pg. 7 ¶ 0050 - 0054, Pg. 12 ¶ 0103 - 0107) Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. and Walker et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that determine navigational information based on identifying a characteristic(s) of a light(s) in an image(s) and, similar to Fujisawa, Walker et al. is also directed towards determining and displaying maritime-related navigational information and, similar to Blanton et al., Walker et al. is also directed towards identifying characteristics of lights installed on a maritime vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with the teachings of Walker et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Walker et al. applied to a similar device. Grouping lights having a mutual distance less than a predetermined distance as lights installed in identical vessels, as taught by Walker et al., would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to accurately and reliably determine navigational information from video data since multiple lights belonging to a single navigational sign or vessel would be identified as belonging to a single same sign or vessel thereby helping ensure that the navigational information the multiple lights intend to represent is determined correctly and not recognized as multiple distinct navigational signs and/or vessels which could cause unreliable and potentially navigational guidance information to be output. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Blanton et al. that markers may be arranged in predefined patterns with information determined based on the distances between the markers and/or a relative spacing between the markers in the predefined patterns, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0037 - 0039 and 0041, page 6 paragraph 0072, page 7 paragraph 0079 and page 8 paragraphs 0089 - 0091 of Blanton et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that lights having a mutual distance less than a predetermined distance would be grouped as lights installed in identical vessels so as to improve the ability of the combined base device to accurately, effectively and reliably determine navigational information for safely traversing an environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. with Walker et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
- With regards to claim 8, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 7. Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein, for the grouped one or more lights, an orientation of the vessel in which the one or more lights are installed is further identified, based on a light color and a positional relationship of each of the one or more lights. Pertaining to analogous art, Blanton et al. disclose wherein, for the grouped one or more lights, an orientation of the vessel in which the one or more lights are installed is further identified, based on a light color and a positional relationship of each of the one or more lights. (Blanton et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 - 0009, Pg. 3 ¶ 0037 - 0039, Pg. 3 ¶ 0041 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 5 ¶ 0057 - 0058, Pg. 6 ¶ 0063, Pg. 6 ¶ 0068 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 7 ¶ 0079 - 0081, Pg. 8 ¶ 0089 - 0091) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. with additional teachings of Blanton et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Blanton et al. applied to a similar device. Identifying an orientation of the vessel in which the one or more lights are installed, as taught by Blanton et al., would enhance the combined base device by further improving its ability to effectively and reliably navigate an environment since additional information pertinent to safely traversing the environment would be derived from the video data and displayed to help users successfully navigate the environment. In addition, this modification would enhance the combined base device by allowing for it to be utilized in an increased number and variety of related and applicable applications, situations and/or environments, such as for recognizing and outputting an orientation of nearby vessels based on image data, thereby improving its overall appeal, usefulness and marketability to potential end-users. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Fujisawa that target-object tracking data indicative of a position and speed of a target object and/or another ship may be identified and/or obtained and that a symbol of another ship, which figure 11 illustrates as having a particular orientation, may be displayed, see at least figure 11, page 3 paragraphs 0048 - 0050 and page 5 paragraph 0107 of Fujisawa. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would further identify and display an indication of an orientation of vessel in which one or more identified navigation lights are installed so as to improve its ability to accurately, effectively and reliably determine navigational information for safely traversing an environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. with additional teachings of Blanton et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
- With regards to claim 9, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein an icon is overlapped on a vessel image included in the invisible light video corresponding to a light identified as a navigation light. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116) Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly an icon indicating the identified orientation of the vessel is overlapped on a vessel image corresponding to a light identified as a navigation light. Pertaining to analogous art, Blanton et al. disclose wherein an icon indicating the identified orientation of the vessel is overlapped on a vessel image included in the invisible light video corresponding to a light identified as a navigation light. (Blanton et al., Fig. 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0009 - 0010, Pg. 5 ¶ 0057 - 0058, Pg. 6 ¶ 0068, Pg. 7 ¶ 0073 - 0074 and 0079 - 0081, Pg. 8 ¶ 0089 - 0091)
- With regards to claim 10, Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein display data is overlapped on each of one or more light positions of a vessel image included in the invisible light video corresponding to a light identified as a navigation light. (Fujisawa, Figs. 4 - 6, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0067 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0108, Pg. 6 ¶ 0116) Fujisawa fails to disclose explicitly wherein the detected color is overlapped. Pertaining to analogous art, Blanton et al. disclose wherein the detected color is overlapped on each of one or more light positions of a vessel image included in the invisible light video corresponding to a light identified as a navigation light. (Blanton et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0010, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0039, Pg. 6 ¶ 0068 - 0069 and 0072, Pg. 7 ¶ 0079 - 0081 [“the markers 105 comprise various visual characteristics such as a color, a shape, and/or the like” and “the presentation module 208 may present an image of the off-board target with an overlay of the markers 105 and/or geometry/orientation of the pattern that the markers 105 are positioned to convey.”]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. with additional teachings of Blanton et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa for the detected color corresponding to navigation light of Blanton et al. The detected color corresponding to the navigation light of Blanton et al. could be substituted in place of the symbol indicative of the description of Fujisawa using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, a detected color corresponding to the navigation light would be overlapped on light positions included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize light identified as a navigation light. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Fujisawa that navigation signs/marks may be classified according to a lighting pattern and that display data related to a navigation sign/mark, such as a symbol indicative of the description of the sign or a symbol having a shape indicative of the description of the sign, may be displayed on the display, see at least figures 10, 11 and 19, page 1 paragraph 0011, page 5 paragraphs 0104 - 0108 and page 7 paragraph 0135 - page 8 paragraph 0140 of Fujisawa. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a detected color corresponding to the navigation light would be overlapped on light positions included in the invisible light video in order to signify and emphasize light identified as a navigation light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujisawa in view of Blanton et al. in view of Walker et al. with additional teachings of Blanton et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biancale et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0392351 A1; which is directed towards a system and method for detecting a risk of collision between a boat and a luminous object in water, wherein a vessel is identified based on detecting a color and/or configuration of light sources on the vessel from a sequence of images.
Hara et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0331357 A1; which is directed towards a system and method for identifying navigational signs, wherein a navigational sign is identified based on detecting a lighting pattern of the navigational sign from a plurality of images.
Ozaki et al. U.S. Publication No. 2005/0200468 A1; which is directed towards an indicator light apparatus of a marine vessel, wherein the indicator light apparatus indicates a posture and a direction of the marine vessel to other persons based on an arrangement, such as an installation position, an illuminating pattern, etc., of the indicator light apparatus of the marine vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights