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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that several amendments appear to be copied from parts of the Specification which are not directed to the invention being claimed and thus raise contradictions in terms and general indefiniteness. Examiner suggests checking the claims for technical consistency with the terms of art and the embodiments in the Specification. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Regarding section 112(f), Applicant argues: “The Office Action interprets the terms "emitter", "element", "device", and "sensor" under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the aforementioned terms cannot invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(±) because they each recite specific structure as would be understood by one skilled in the art and do not include "means plus function" claim language.
Examiner notes that Applicant does not cite evidence or understanding of skill in the art that the claimed elements name specific structures known in the art to perform the claimed function.
Applicant argues: “More specifically, as explained in MPEP § 2181(1), "a claim limitation that does not use the terms 'means' or 'step' will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply" and "[t]his presumption is a strong one that is not readily overcome." ( emphasis added).”
Examiner notes that this argument is not more specific, rather it presents a completely different argument. This argument is also not persuasive, because it simply cites part of MPEP § 2181(1) without application to the present claims and without addressing the specific reasons for claim construction below.
Applicant further argues: “The claim limitations at issue in this patent application are clearly intended not to invoke § 112(f), and there is a strong presumption that they do not invoke § 112(f), because Applicant did not use the term "means."”
Examiner notes that this argument also fails to address the specific reasons for claim construction below. This argument also fails to establish the relevance of Applicant’s subjective intention to objective interpretation of the language as claimed.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, even if assuming arguendo that a term in the claim limitation at issue may act as a substitute for the term "means," "35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand the term to be the name for the structure that performs the function, when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function." (See MPEP § 218 l(I)(A); emphasis added.) In this regard, MPEP § 218 l(I)(A) emphasizes that "[t]he term is not required to denote a specific structure or a precise physical structure to avoid the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f}" and provides example phrases "modernizing device" and "computing unit" as claim terms found not to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph since they "when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art" (citing Inventio A.G. v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (emphasis added).”
Examiner notes that the claims are not directed to "modernizing device" and "computing unit," and the claims are not in the same art and do not provide the same disclosure as the disclosures considered in Inventio.
The present claims use the term such as an optical element and a detection device, generic terms that clearly require interpretation in the context of the Specification.
Applicant argues: “Similarly, the phrases including the terms "emitter", "element", "device", and "sensor" cannot be found to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(±), since each of these phrases is similar to the examples "modernizing device" and "computing unit" provided in MPEP § 218 l(I)(A) and is a well-understood "name for the structure that performs the function."”
Examiner notes that” the phrases including the terms "emitter", "element", "device", and "sensor" are nothing like the terms "modernizing device" and "computing unit" and are claimed in a completely different context. See reasons for construction below.
Applicant further argues: “In addition, Applicant's disclosure identifies various structural features for each term. For example, regarding the claimed "laser light emitter," Applicant's specification recites ( emphasis added): … For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the phrases including the terms "emitter", "element", "device", and "sensor" recited in the claims cannot be interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and are not placeholders.”
Examiner notes that support in the Specification does not contradict invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Regarding section 103, Applicant argues: “The Office Action relies on Lacaze to allegedly provide Applicant's claimed feature of "detect[ing] a first light pulse." Lacaze describes a system for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that enables mapping and obstacle avoidance using laser line projection and multiple cameras.”
Examiner notes that a system for unmanned aerial vehicles does not contradict citations to the parts of Lacaze that teach embodiments of the claim language. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “However, Lacaze teaches that the camera(s) and laser are secured to the same device (e.g., UAV) so that the disparity between the laser emitter and the camera is known in order to perform the triangulation of a vertical stripe of the world using the laser lines.”
Examiner notes that the claimed laser emitter and imaging device are claimed to be part of the beacon, i.e. the same device.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, the Office Action relies on Schumacher to allegedly teach the Applicant's feature of "determin[ing] that the first light pulse is associated with a first pulse sequence of a plurality of predetermined pulse sequences." Schumacher describes a laser device for supporting work on a construction site. Schumacher, Abstract.”
Examiner notes that this does not contradict the specifically cited portion of Schumacher in the reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “However, Schumacher does not teach determining that the first light pulse is associated with a first pulse sequence of a plurality of predetermined pulse sequences …”
Examiner notes that the newly amended language is rejected for reasons in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-30 are similarly 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.
Claims 27-28 are directed to: “The system of claim 1, wherein the light pulse detection device is configured to determine a location of the third light pulse based on an azimuth angle and an elevation angle.” Claims 29-30 are similarly directed to “The system of claim 14, wherein the light pulse detection device is configured to determine a location of the third light pulse based on an azimuth angle and an elevation angle.” However, Examiner did not find support for this feature in the Specification. The claimed first, second, and third pulses represent instances in time when the laser is rotated past the laser detector. The claimed pulses being instances in time, do not define “a location based on an azimuth angle and an elevation angle.” It is indefinite how “an azimuth angle and an elevation angle” applies to measurements defined in units of time, and Specification does not support this manner of determination with respect to time-based pulses or with respect to vertical planes of light produced by the beacon and rotated, as in Claims 1 and 14.
Examiner suggests checking the various embodiments in Specification and claiming features that apply to the claimed embodiments.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 20-27, 29 recite “a laser light emitter configured to transmit … an optical element configured to disperse the laser light beam to … a control device configured to control a rotation speed of the optical element and rotate the optical element … a light pulse detection device comprising a mid-wave infrared (MWIR) imaging sensor, the light pulse detection device configured to: …” generic terms (emitter, element, device, sensor) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification provides supported examples of these elements in Paragraphs 89 (“the light emitter is a laser;”); 96, 106 (“optical elements (e.g., mirrors, lenses, beamsplitters, beam couplers, etc.)”); 90 (“control device 1115 may include one or more actuators”); 105 (“each detector may be a photodetector, such as an avalanche photodiode, an infrared photodetector, a quantum well infrared photodetector, a microbolometer, or other detector”) .
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 § 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 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.
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 1-2, 7-8, 11, 14-15, 17, 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11323687 to Lacaze (“Lacaze”) in view of US 20160209209 Schumacher (“Schumacher”) in view of US 9766060 to Honkanen (“Honkanen”) and US 10101455 to Maclin (“Maclin”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A system comprising:
a beacon configured to mark a location, the beacon comprising a laser light source comprising: a laser light emitter configured to transmit a [mid-wave] infrared (MWIR) laser light beam; (“The laser projection system will create vertical lines, … At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. [marking a horizontal location] … A laser projection unit consists of a solid-state laser diode,” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 21-26, Column 5, lines 19-20.)
an optical element configured to disperse the laser light beam to provide a vertical plane of laser light; (“beam splitter, … creates a laser line” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 19-31.)
wherein the optical element comprises a dispersing lens configured to disperse the vertical plane of laser light as a fan of light, (As a general case, note that splitting a beam to illuminate a plurality of different directions necessarily creates a plurality of beams having different directions. Prior art provides a specific example: “The laser beam is then split into an [discrete] upward and downward beam 403 and 404 [fan of light comprising discreted sub-fans]. Each beam 403 and 404 is reflected off a small rotating mirror coupled to a laser line lens. The upward beam 403 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to positive 80 degrees pitch, while the downward beam 404 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to negative 80 degrees pitch.” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 25-31. It appears to be known and obvious to split a beam using a mirror, a beam splitter, or a combination. It also appears that the discrete and continuous laser lines were known substitutes within this methodology as noted in Lacaze, Column 5, lines 25-31 and confirmed in Specification, Paragraph 98.)
a control device configured to control a rotation speed of the optical element and rotate the optical element about a vertical axis of the optical element according to the rotation speed, wherein rotation of the optical element causes rotation of the fan of light;” (The optical element is exemplified as a “small rotating mirror … ” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 19-23. Here, “the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 25-28. “The yaw scan rate can be varied, depending upon the current mission needs.” Column 5, lines 42-43 and Fig. 4.)
a light pulse detection device [comprising a mid-wave infrared (MWIR) imaging sensor], and configured to detect pulses by detecting light as it flashes briefly over a position of the light pulse detection device during the rotation of the fan of light, (“the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 25-28. “as viewed by different cameras [light pulse detection device], enables the lines to be triangulated in 3D space. At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles to provide full 360 degree range sensing capabilities,” as the vertical stripe is rotated [flashed] through the field of view of each camera individually. Lacaze, Column 3, lines 14-28 and Figs. 3b-3c. See treatment of specific sensors below.)
wherein the light pulse detection device is configured to: detect a first light pulse, wherein the first light pulse is a detection of a portion of the laser light during a first rotation at a first rotation speed of the optical element; (Prior art teaches a light pulse detection device as “cameras” and that “At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles to provide full 360 degree range sensing capabilities,” indicating that the cameras are configured to detect light pulses at each point in time. Lacaze, Column 3, lines 14-28. Cumulatively, note embodiments of detecting light pulses to determine rotation rates and patterns in Degnan, Paragraph 13 and Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10. See treatment of specific sensors below.)
detect a second light pulse, wherein the second light pulse is a portion of the vertical plane of laser light during a second rotation (Prior art teaches a light pulse detection device as “cameras” and that “At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles to provide full 360 degree range sensing capabilities,” indicating that the cameras are configured to detect light pulses at each point in time. Lacaze, Column 3, lines 14-28. Cumulatively, note embodiments of detecting light pulses to determine rotation rates and patterns in Degnan, Paragraph 13 and Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10. See treatment of specific sensors below.)
at a second rotation speed of the optical element different from the first rotation speed; (“FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a pattern according to which the rotation speed of a laser beam is changed.” Schumacher, Paragraph 82 and similarly in Dengan, Paragraph 13. See statements of motivation below.)
determine that the first light pulse is associated with a first pulse sequence of a plurality of predetermined pulse sequences based at least on a time difference between detection of the first light pulse and detection of the second light pulse; (Note that the claimed pulse sequence is a detected rotation pattern, having at least one rotation, i.e. between the first and the second pulses. Prior art teaches: “Accordingly, the rotation speed can be changed so that the same laser device may use different identifying rotation patterns at different times to make itself clearly distinguishable from other laser devices with other rotation patterns. [one of a plurality of predetermined pulse sequences] … so that a complex rotation pattern with continuously varying rotation speed can be provided enabling an unambiguous association of the detected light of a laser beam with a laser light emitting laser device.” Schumacher, Paragraphs 10-11, 41. See similarly in Degnan, Paragraph 13. See statements of motivation below.)
determine first timing information associated with a third light pulse of the first pulse sequence, wherein the third light pulse is subsequent to the first light pulse and the second light pulse; and (“Accordingly, it is possible that the rotation pattern [timing information] is customized by continuously changing the rotation speed so that a complex rotation pattern with continuously varying rotation speed can be provided enabling an unambiguous association of the detected light of a laser beam with a laser light emitting laser device [light pulse].” Schumacher, Paragraph 11 and similarly in Degnan, Paragraph 13. Thus, the detection is synchronized with the laser emission pattern.)
generate first data associated with the first timing information; and (Claim does not particularly define the first data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “first data associated with the determined arrival time of the second light pulse” can be a frame trigger to the imager that is adapted to the timing of the laser pulse. Lacaze teaches this: “The laser circuitry pulses the laser while also providing a frame trigger to each imager” where the determined frame trigger for the imager indicate the pulse arrival time at the imager. Lacaze, Column 5, lines 21-23. Cumulatively, note embodiments of detecting light pulses to determine rotation rates and synchronization patterns in Degnan, Paragraph 13 and Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10. Examiner suggests elaborating on the steps of this determination.)
an imaging device configured to: ( “the lines, as viewed by different cameras [imaging devices], enables the lines to be triangulated in 3D space. At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles to provide full 360 degree range sensing capabilities,” representing a light pulse sequence defining a 360 degree range, or a portion of a light pulse sequence defining larger than a 360 degree range. Lacaze, Column 3, lines 14-28. Cumulatively, note embodiments of cameras in Degnan, Paragraph 13 and Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10.)
determine when a first integration period of the imaging device will overlap the third light pulse based on the first data; and (“The laser circuitry pulses the laser while also providing a frame trigger to each imager” where the determined frame trigger for the imager ensures that the pulse can be captured during the image capture time (integration period) of the imager. Lacaze, Column 5, lines 21-23. Similarly, note embodiments of detecting light pulses to determine rotation rates and synchronization patterns in Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10 and Degnan, Paragraph 13. Examiner suggests elaborating on the steps of this determination.)
capture, using the first integration period, a first image that includes the third light pulse of the first pulse sequence.” (“The laser circuitry pulses the laser while also providing a frame trigger to each imager” where the determined frame trigger for the imager ensures that the pulse can be captured during the image capture time (integration period) of the imager. Lacaze, Column 5, lines 21-23. Similarly, note embodiments of triggering capture based on known rotation / pulse patterns in Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10 and Degnan, Paragraph 13.)
“wherein the first light pulse is a portion of the vertical plane of laser light during a first rotation at a first rotation speed of the optical element, and … wherein the second light pulse is a portion of the vertical plane of laser light during a second rotation at a second rotation speed of the optical element different from the first rotation speed.” (“The yaw scan rate can be varied, depending upon the current mission needs.” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 42-43. So, Lacaze teaches the capability but does not explicitly state that the yaw rate of the scanner is varied dynamically during the scan / pulse sequence.
Schumacher teaches the above claim feature in the context of scanning and imaging lasers: “it is possible that the rotation pattern is customized by continuously changing the rotation speed so that a complex rotation pattern with continuously varying rotation speed can be provided enabling an unambiguous association of the detected light of a laser beam with a laser light emitting laser device.” Schumacher, Paragraph 11.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Lacaze to dynamically vary the scan rate over the pulse sequence, such that the first light pulse occurs at a first rotation speed of the optical element, and the second light pulse occurs during a second rotation at a second rotation speed of the optical element different from the first rotation speed, as taught in Shumacher, in order “to enable the provision of an individualized characteristic distinguishing from other rotation patterns.” Schumacher, Paragraph 10.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Further, Lacaze does not teach using “a mid-wave infrared laser light beam,” however prior art indicates that any other wavelength of light can be used in a laser scanning system:
Honkanen teaches this in the context of scanning laser light sources: “while the infrared light can be used for depth scanning … other implementations using different techniques for combing laser light of different wavelengths can instead be used,” thus both including the claimed range of infrared light in the disclosure and indicating that use of different wavelengths of light has been considered. Honkanen, Column 8, lines 15-24 and similarly in Column 10, lines 43-45.
Where necessary, Maclin indicates that midwave infrared wavelengths are useful in certain situations such as overcoming interference or for a countermeasures capability. Maclin, Column 7, lines 21-25.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Lacaze to use a laser light of mid wavelengths of infrared spectrum as taught in Honkanen, in order to scan features that reflect that particular wavelength of light as discussed in Honkanen, Column 2, lines 12-13 where midwave infrared in particular can be beneficial in certain situations as in Maclin, Column 7, lines 21-25.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Further, Lacaze does not teach: “[a light pulse detection device] comprising a mid-wave infrared (MWIR) imaging sensor.” Lacaze uses near-infrared, however Honkanen is directed to infrared in total:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, such an imaging sensor is “capable of observing flashing mid-wave emissions … and/or any desired IR wavelengths” and may include: “By way of non-limiting example, each detector may be a photodetector, such as an avalanche photodiode, an infrared photodetector, a quantum well infrared photodetector, a microbolometer, or other detector capable of converting EM radiation (e.g., of a certain wavelength) to a pixel value.” Specification, Paragraphs 38, 44, 104-105.
Honkanen teaches: “infrared laser light is reflected off the surface and received by the optical sensor 202, … the optical sensor 202 can comprise any suitable sensor. For example, the optical sensor 202 could be implemented with a suitable photodiode implemented to be sensitive to infrared light, including silicon photodiodes and avalanche photodiodes.” Honkanen, Column 4, lines 12-27. And, as noted above, “while the infrared light can be used for depth scanning … laser light of different wavelengths can instead be used,” indicating substitutability of wavelengths in this methodology. Honkanen, Column 8, lines 15-24 and similarly in Column 10, lines 43-45.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Lacaze to detect laser light of different wavelengths within the infrared (and visible) spectrum as taught in Honkanen, in order to scan features that reflect that particular wavelength of light. Honkanen, Column 2, lines 12-13.
Regarding Claim 2: “The system of claim 1, wherein the mid-wave infrared laser light beam comprises a wavelength range between 3 μm to 5 μm. (“A near-infrared laser projection” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 17-18. Lacaze does not teach the specific wavelength to be used, however Honkanen indicates “while the infrared light can be used for depth scanning … other implementations using different techniques for combing laser light of different wavelengths can instead be used,” thus both covering the claimed range of infrared and indicating use of different wavelengths. Honkanen, Column 8, lines 15-24. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The system of claim 5, wherein: the light pulse detection device is configured to detect the first light pulse when the optical element is at an angular position at a first time; and the light pulse detection device is further configured to detect the second light pulse when the optical element is at the angular position at a second time subsequent to the first time.” (“lines, as viewed by different cameras, enables the lines to be triangulated in 3D space. At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles to provide full 360 degree range sensing capabilities.” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 25-28.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, wherein: the light pulse detection device is further configured to determine arrival time of a third light pulse of the first pulse sequence.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this embodiment can be exemplified in not capturing images between predetermined times or below a particular rate or by cameras that do operate at the time of the third light pulse but do not capture it in their field of view. Lacaze indicates that (a) the images are captured only at predetermined times/rates and corresponding angles in Column 3, lines 23-28 and Column 5, lines 42-46, and (b) that the laser line may not be in the field of view of some cameras at particular pulse times in Column 3, lines 13-17.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The system of claim 1, wherein the light pulse detection device is further configured to generate second data based on whether one or more non-light-pulse images can be captured by the imaging device between capture of the first image and capture of the second image, and wherein the second data is based at least on a pulse interval between two temporally adjacent pulses of the first pulse sequence and a desired frame rate of the imaging device.” (“The laser circuitry pulses the laser while also providing a frame trigger to each imager. … With each imager capturing approximately 180 images/second, the sensor will be able to generate over 370 k points per second. … The yaw scan rate can be varied, depending upon the current mission needs. The sensor can be operated with a fine yaw resolution and slow scan rate, providing detailed scans of the environment; or, the sensor can be operated with a faster yaw rate, providing faster updates at a coarser rate.” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 20-46. This indicates that the imager can capture images at a maximum rate which can be higher than the pulse rate depending on mission needs.)
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the method steps of Claim 14 describe the operation of the apparatus elements of Claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2 in view of the claim 14 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 8 in view of the claim 14 rejection.
Regarding Claim 21: “The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined pulse sequences defines a respective plurality of light pulses and a time difference between emission of any two light pulses of the respective plurality of light pulses.” (See examples of pulse patterns having a plurality of pulses having a particular time spacing between them, in Honkanen, Fig. 4 and Column 7, lines 16-24. See statement of motivation in Claim 1. See other relevant embodiments in Degnan, Paragraph 13 and Schumacher, Paragraphs 4, 9-10.)
Regarding Claim 22: “The system of claim 1, wherein the fan of light comprises an asymmetric pattern relative to the vertical axis.” (For example “The upward beam 403 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to positive 80 degrees pitch” and thus asymmetric with respect to the vertical axis. Lacaze, Column 5, lines 28-29. Also note that “field-of-view. Quadrotors of a small size and weight create significant pitch when traveling at high speeds,” which creates further vertical axis asymmetry while in operation. Lacaze, Column 1, lines 47-48.)
Regarding Claim 23: “The method of claim 14, wherein the fan of light comprises an asymmetric pattern relative to the vertical axis.” (For example “The upward beam 403 creates a laser line [pattern] that extends from horizontal to positive 80 degrees pitch” and thus asymmetric with respect to the vertical axis. Lacaze, Column 5, lines 28-29. Also note that “field-of-view. Quadrotors of a small size and weight create significant pitch when traveling at high speeds,” which creates further vertical axis asymmetry while in operation. Lacaze, Column 1, lines 47-48.)
Regarding Claim 24. “The system of claim 1, wherein the fan of light comprises a plurality of discrete light beams.” (As noted in Claim 1, “The laser beam is then split into an [discrete] upward and downward beam 403 and 404 [fan of light comprising discreted sub-fans]. Each beam 403 and 404 is reflected off a small rotating mirror coupled to a laser line lens. The upward beam 403 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to positive 80 degrees pitch, while the downward beam 404 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to negative 80 degrees pitch.” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 25-31. It appears to be known and obvious to split a beam using a mirror, a beam splitter, or a combination. It also appears that the discrete and continuous laser lines were known substitutes within this methodology as noted in Lacaze, Column 5, lines 25-31 and confirmed in Specification, Paragraph 98.)
Claim 25 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 24 in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
Regarding Claim 26: “The system of claim 1, wherein the fan of light comprises a substantially continuous plane.” (“The laser beam is then split into an upward and downward beam 403 and 404. Each beam 403 and 404 is reflected off a small rotating mirror coupled to a laser line lens. The upward beam 403 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to positive 80 degrees pitch, while the downward beam 404 creates a laser line that extends from horizontal to negative 80 degrees pitch.” Lacaze, Column 5, lines 25-31. Thus the upward and the downward laser lines exemplify how to make a substantively continuous plane.)
Regarding Claim 27: “The system of claim 1, wherein the light pulse detection device is configured to determine a location of the third light pulse based on an azimuth angle and an elevation angle.” (See reasons for rejection in section 112 above. Cumulatively prior art teaches: “as viewed by different cameras, enables the lines to be triangulated in 3D space. At each point in time, a vertical stripe of the world will be triangulated. Over time, the laser line will be rotated over all yaw angles” Lacaze, Column 3, lines 23-27.)
Claim 29 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 27 in view of Claim 14 rejection.
Claims 12, 20, 28, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze, Schumacher, Honkanen, Maclin in view of US 20190094149 to Troy (“Troy”).
Regarding Claim 12: “The system of claim 11, further comprising a display device configured to: display the first image during a first time duration; … display the one or more non-light-pulse images during a second time duration subsequent to the first time duration; and … display the second image during a third time duration subsequent to the second time duration.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the display device can display all the captured images in the order in which they are captured. Lacaze does not teach this feature.
Troy teaches the above claim feature in the context of a UAV captured image frames including spinning laser scanner information: “for users of remotely operated mobile platforms such as UAVs is watching a display monitor showing the video from the on-board camera. … to use a spinning laser scanner on-board the mobile platform to provide a point cloud with distance data” Troy, Paragraph 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Lacaze to perform the above claimed functions as taught in Troy, in order to provide display including depth information so that an operator can inspect an area remotely and has “frame of reference to determine the size of the objects displayed on the screen” Troy, Paragraphs 1-4.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 12 in view of the Claim 14 rejection.
Regarding Claim 28: “The system of claim 27, further comprising a display device configured to display the first image and a first overlay on the first image, wherein the first overlay is indicative of the location of the third light pulse.” (See reasons for rejection under section 112. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “In accordance with one embodiment, the distance information is used to generate a scale indicator which is overlaid on the displayed image. In accordance with another embodiment, the distance information is used to measure the distance between two points on the surface of the structure being imaged, which point-to-point distance value is overlaid on the displayed image. … displayed ( e.g., superimposed or virtually overlaid) on the screen of the display monitor 152 along with the camera image of the portion of the surface of the target object 102 that includes points Pl and P2.” Troy, Paragraphs 7, 108. Thus it was known and obvious to overlay information regarding an object in the video over the object in the video. See statement of motivation in Claim 12.)
Claim 30 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 28 in view of Claim 14 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150273863 to Stowe (“Stowe”) as cited in previous Office Actions.
US 20120150589 to Xian (“Xian”) as cited in the previous Office Actions.
US 20110051121 Degnan (“Dengan”) relevant to determining periodic nature of the scanning light as triggers for detectors.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483