DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the double patenting rejection below, claims 3, 8, 12, 16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,692.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim would have been anticipated by the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of predicting and tracking an object trajectory with a camera, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
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 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,692 in view of Kulik et al., US 2020/0137308.
10 and 19. The parent claims are silent on EIS. Kulik teaches an imaging method further comprising: executing Electric Image Stabilization (EIS) cropping which reduces an image size to maintain visual stability based on the spatial information and the image captured by the camera [paras. 34, 61, 75, 92].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, stabilizing the motion capture images so that vibration of the camera or sensor does not cause errors in trajectory prediction. The camera/sensor may be used near players/spectators and so may be subject to vibration that can be corrected using EIS/cropping.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,692 in view of Doescher et al., US 2020/0057136.
20. The parent claims are silent on chirps per frame. Doescher teaches a radar system wherein the radio-wave sensor transmits 32 chirps per frame [para. 46, 56; also see paras. 53-55, 57, 62].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17 are objected to because the first limitation merely repeats a limitation of claim 1 and is unnecessarily redundant.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jansson et al., US 2023/0199295, which disclosure is fully supported by the provisional application US 63/292,379, dated 12/21/2021, predating the effective filing date of the present claims.
1 and 11. Jansson teaches a method for motion prediction, comprising:
receiving spatial information output by a radio-wave sensor [sensor unit 110 may be radar, Fig. 1A, para. 12, 44], wherein the spatial information comprises position [ball position, paras. 26, 27, 32] and velocity of at least one point [ball speed, Fig. 3, paras. 36, 44];
receiving an image captured by a camera [camera 130, Figs. 1A, 1B, 3, paras. 22, 24];
tracking at least one object based on the spatial information and the image to obtain a consolidated tracking result [initial spatial data is determined, i.e. a tracking result is obtained based on spatial object tracking, Figs. 1A, 1B, 3, paras. 22, 26, 34, 36, 44, 50];
predicting a motion trajectory of the at least one object based on the consolidated tracking result to obtain a prediction result [predict future trajectory of ball based on initial data, step 310, Fig. 3, paras. 22, 30, 31, 34, 44, 45, 49]; and
controlling the camera according to the prediction result, wherein the step of controlling the camera according to the prediction result comprises: setting at least one of camera parameters and image parameters based on the prediction result; and wherein the camera parameters include at least one of a shutter timing, a shutter speed, a shutter gain, and a focal length of the camera [e.g. focal length is controlled according to predicted trajectory, paras. 11, 24, 25, 45], and
capturing a final image based on at least one of the set camera parameters and the set image parameters [camera tracks ball, Figs. 1A, 1B, 3, paras. 22, 24, 26, 27, 36-38, 45, 46, 49, 50], wherein the image parameters include coordinates, depth distance, velocity, and acceleration of the at least one object [e.g. a graphic showing ball speed is set as an image parameter, para. 30].
4 and 13. Jansson teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of tracking the at least one object based on the spatial information and the image to obtain the consolidated tracking result comprises:
processing the image to obtain at least one property of the at least one object in the image;
fusing the spatial information with the at least one property of the at least one object in the image to obtain the consolidated tracking result [tracking can be based on combination (fusion) of position and speed of ball (spatial information as cited in claim 1) and launch angle (property of object), Figs. 1A, 3, paras. 36, 39, 44].
5 and 14. Jansson teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the at least one property of the at least one object in the image is obtained by processing the image using at least one of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) content detection [machine learning, paras. 51, 53] and computer vision (CV).
6 and 17. Jansson teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the camera parameters comprise at least one of a shutter timing, a shutter speed and a focal length of the camera based on the prediction result; wherein the image parameters are dedicated for image processing [e.g. focal length is controlled according to predicted trajectory, paras. 11, 24, 25, 45; note “dedicated for image processing” is vague and broad enough to cover any imaging parameter].
7 and 15. Jansson teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of tracking the at least one object based on the spatial information and the image to obtain the consolidated tracking result comprises:
generating a first tracking result based on the spatial information [initial prediction, Fig. 3, paras. 44, 45];
generating a second tracking result based on the image [receive further data from camera to generate refined trajectory, i.e. second tracking result, Fig. 3, paras. 48-50]; and
unifying the first tracking result and the second tracking result to obtain the consolidated tracking result [using both initial prediction (first result) and refined camera measurements (second result) to generate accurate model of ball path (consolidated result), Fig. 3, paras. 48-50].
9 and 18. Jansson teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: executing an artificial intelligent (AI) and machine learning (ML) content detection on the image from the camera to detect the at least one object in the image [machine learning, paras. 51, 53].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson as cited above in view of Lianides et al., US 2022/0105389.
2 (from 1). Jansson is silent on a confidence indicator. Lianides teaches an imaging and analyzing motion wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator [frames are analyzed to generate confidence data, paras. 5, 32, 38].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references in order to determine whether the prediction is adequate for further use, such as displaying a predicated path on a broadcast. If the confidence level of the prediction is low, the system can disregard that result and instead wait for motion capture to determine the actual path of an object.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson as cited above in view of Kulik et al., US 2020/0137308.
10 and 19 (from 1 and 11). The above references are silent on EIS. Kulik teaches an imaging method further comprising: executing Electric Image Stabilization (EIS) cropping which reduces an image size to maintain visual stability based on the spatial information and the image captured by the camera [paras. 34, 61, 75, 92].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, stabilizing the motion capture images so that vibration of the camera or sensor does not cause errors in trajectory prediction. The camera/sensor may be used near players/spectators and so may be subject to vibration that can be corrected using EIS/cropping.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights