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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant and listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
27 March 2023
05 November 2024
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“Laser beam Wedge Position 1” as indicated in Fig. 1
“Laser beam Wedge Position 2” as indicated in Fig. 1
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Varshneya anticipates a method comprising:
checking an optical detector with a field of view for degradation by ([0019]):
directing the optical detector ([0019]; Fig. 4, detector (102)) to a surface of an object in the field of view, wherein the surface is positioned at a given distance from the optical detector, and wherein the surface has a known reflectance ([0019], [0023]; Fig. 4, where a surface such as an optical element (104) is aligned with housing of detector at a known distance and made of known material);
detecting an optical return from the surface with the optical detector to generate a return signal ([0019] - [0020]; Fig. 4 detector (102) collects reflections of signal emitted by LEDs (106) after striking surface (104));
and determining whether the return signal is representative of a degraded signal ([0020], where system determines if surface is contaminated and therefore signal changed);
and outputting an alert for maintenance action if the return signal is indicative of a degraded signal ([0024], where if contamination is present system emits signal alerting player).
Regarding claim 2, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 1, wherein
degradation includes contamination on a window through which the optical detector views the field of view, and wherein the maintenance action includes replacing the window or clearing the window of contamination ([0024]; where warning is issued when surface is covered by contaminants and an alert for cleaning surface issued).
Regarding claim 5, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 1, wherein
determining whether the return signal is representative of a degraded signal includes comparing the return signal with an expected return signal ([0023] - [0024]; where signal is compared to an expected return based on a clean optical surface).
Regarding claim 6, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 1, wherein
checking an optical detector with a field of view for degradation is repeated regularly until there is a return signal indicative of a degraded signal ([0024]; system may energize test emitters on a pre-planned schedule, until scattered light intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold.).
Regarding claim 7, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 6, wherein
determining whether the signal is representative of a degraded signal includes comparing the return signal with an historical signal return from the surface over time ([0023] - [0024]; where system continues to run built-in-tests and compare each signal to a threshold value, and if a prior signal was determined to be above the threshold within a given timeframe, system issues a different command than if just a single above-threshold value is determined).
Regarding claim 8, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 7, wherein determining whether the return signal is representative of a degraded signal includes
determining if signal degradation is due to degradation of the surface by outputting an alert to service the surface and repeating checking the optical detector after servicing the surface to see if the return signal is still representative of a degraded signal
and if so, outputting an alert for maintenance action other than servicing the surface ([0023] - [0024]; where system, when contamination has been detected, signals to system to warn player to clean surface, and upon rechecking surface status, a command may be updated if failure to clean surface has occurred).
Regarding claim 10, Varshneya anticipates the method as recited in claim 1, wherein
the optical detector and the surface are both aboard a vehicle ([0003]; system may be mounted on a person or vehicle).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1) in view of Grau (US 20210018590 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on specific degradation due to scratches on a lens within the detector.
Grau teaches a sensor data evaluation device which processes sensor data to note deficiencies within the data and potential sources, where noted degradation includes a scratch on a lens of the optical detector, and wherein the maintenance action includes replacing the lens ([0074] - [0075], [0090] - [0091]; where system determines errors in signals may be due to scratches on optical components such as lenses, and may be performed in a repair shop where faulty components may be replaced.).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Grau to further include damage to optical components, such as a scratch, to the degradations of signals which render a system to operate at less than optical with a reasonable expectation of success. Grau points to mechanical damage of optical components such as lenses, in addition to sensor degradation, as one of the factors which contribute to change an output of a sensor in an imaging system ([0053] - [0054]). Thus, incorporation into the system of Varshneya would have a predictable result of including an additional source of reduced sensing to players who are wearing an optical device which may be tampered with during an active situation.
Regarding claim 4, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on specific degradation due to the detector itself.
Grau teaches a sensor data evaluation device which processes sensor data to note deficiencies within the data and potential sources, where noted degradation includes one or more degraded photodiodes of the optical detector, wherein the maintenance action includes replacement of the one or more degraded photodiodes ([0074] - [0075], [0090] - [0091]; where system determines errors in signals may be due to non-operational/dead pixels within the sensor, and may be performed in a repair shop where faulty components may be replaced.).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Grau to further include degraded photodiodes within a sensor as a source of degradations of signals which render a system to operate at less than optical with a reasonable expectation of success. Grau notes that sensor degradation, sensor damage, sensor aging, and the like are all sources of change in sensor signals ([0053] - [0054]). Thus, incorporation into the system of Varshneya would have a predictable result of including an additional source of reduced sensing to players who are wearing an optical device which may be tampered with during an active situation.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1) in view of Tariq et al. (hereinafter Tariq, US 20210201464 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 7, but is silent on allowing specific tolerances of acceptable return signals .
Tariq teaches a sensor degradation detection and remediation system, such as in LIDAR systems, where determining whether a return signal is representative of a degraded signal includes tolerancing of acceptable signal return limits for degradation of the surface over time ([0086] - [0088]; where system determines image degradation based on probabilities of regions of potential degradation and compares the probability to a probability threshold, which may take into account allowable amount of degradation of images) .
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Tariq to utilize tolerances within the data analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowing tolerable variations in data is well known in data analysis, and especially within optical systems where there is a large variation is signal levels depending on environmental factors. Tariq additionally notes that additional other techniques, such as machine-learning, are usable to determine confidence is signals, either as undegraded or degraded ([0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on checking atmospheric conditions before a check of an optical detector.
Tariq teaches a sensor degradation detection and remediation system, such as in LIDAR systems, where prior to checking the optical detector, determining whether atmospheric conditions permit checking the optical detector ([0082] ; where system may take weather conditions into account for degradation analysis).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Tariq to utilize tolerances within the data analysis with a reasonable expectation of success. Tariq teaches that variable such as weather conditions, road surface and vehicle speed all may affect the analysis of what type of degradation has affected the signals, as precipitation will affect signals differently than optical flare or degraded sensors ([0082] – [0085]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1) in view of Alfano et al. (hereinafter Alfano, US 20070216536 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on the optical detector specifics usages or mounting orientations.
Alfano teaches an ice formation detection method and system, where an optical detector is an optical ice detector mounted on a side of an aircraft, and wherein the surface is on a winglet or engine nacelle of the aircraft ([0040], [0044] , Fig. 7, where an ice detector is mounted on or in an aircraft, and a surface/window being observed for ice buildup may be located on a wing, such as on a leading edge).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Alfano to specifically use the optical detector of Varshneya as an ice detector on an airplane, as it is a system which detects contamination or coverage on a detector surface, with a reasonable expectation of success. Alfano notes that ice detection on planes leads to decreases in safety of operation of the airplanes [0003]), and therefore use of the system of Varshneya on an airplane, which detects ice or other contamination on a detector window would have a predictable result of increasing safety of operation in harsh weather conditions.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1) in view of Curlander et al. (hereinafter Curlander, US 9986233 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on the optical detector specifics usages or mounting orientations.
Curlander teaches a camera calibration process for use in aerial vehicles, where an optical detector is aboard an aircraft, and wherein the surface is a surface of a garage, hangar, airport terminal, or portable device at an airport terminal (Col. 4, lines 12-65; Figs. 1, 3 where sensors for calibration (108a,b) are mounted on an aerial vehicle (108), and the targets may be located on a side of a building, held by a tester, or the like).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Curlander to utilize the sensor system on an aerial vehicle with a target located on the side of a hanger, garage, etc. with which the vehicle is usually associated with during calibration with a reasonable expectation of success. As Curlander notes, optical systems such as those used in vehicles for object detection and vehicle navigation may need periodic recalibration as maintenance to support safe operation as well as to check operation of components (Col. 1, lines 18-28). As the system of Varshneya checks for contamination or tampering within a sensor system, incorporation into an airplane (and calibration while grounded) would have predictable results of preventing contamination or tampering which would hinder safe operation.
Regarding claim 14, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but is silent on the motion of the field of view surrounding a surface check.
Curlander teaches a camera calibration process for use in aerial vehicles, where the aerial vehicle is operated to reorient itself so that the field of view of the optical detector to include the surface prior to checking the optical detector, and moving the field of view after checking to a field of view that does not include the surface (Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 21, Col. 26 lines 9-42; Fig.8, where the aerial vehicle is moved so that a target comes into an FOV, then moves so that the target is no longer within an FOV, and may repeat these steps).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Curlander to orient the sensor’s field of view (FOV) so that a target is within the FOV during calibration, and not within the FOV when not calibrating with a reasonable expectation of success. Curlander notes that for optical sensors where calibration is required which are mounted on a vehicle, such as an aerial vehicle (drone), use of calibration targets mounted on known locations such as a hanger or loading dock may allow the system to calibrate the sensors with little to no interruption of normal operation (Col. 11, line 58 – Col. 12, line 39). Additionally, only having a system focus on a calibration target for a small window while actively calibrating is known in the arts of optical sensing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshneya (US 20030082501 A1) in view of Clayburn et al. (hereinafter Clayburn, US 20200182987 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Varshneya teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein checking an optical detector with a field of view for degradation is repeated regularly until there is a return signal indicative of a degraded signal ([0024]; system may energize test emitters on a pre-planned schedule, until scattered light intensity exceeds a predetermined threshold.), and wherein the optical detector and the surface are arranged so the surface is always in the field of view (Fig. 4), but is silent on the use of range gating.
Clayburn teaches sensor calibration which comprises using range-gating to ignore the return from the surface when not performing the degradation check ([0023]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Varshneya to incorporate the teachings of Clayburn to utilize range gating to ignore the specific range of a known surface during non-calibration times with a reasonable expectation of success. Range gating is a well-known process in optical sensors and imagers, and is useful for blocking specific ranges based on time of flights/arrivals. Integration of range gating into the system of Varshneya would have a predictable result of reducing the amount of data or errant signals collected during non-calibration times, thus reducing the load on a processor or memory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jamison (US 20220135237 A1) teaches an ice detection test apparatus, system and method for use on aircraft engines, wings, etc. which may be used on or adjacent to an aircraft, where the ice detection apparatus may be an optical sensor.
Adler et al. (US 20170115215 A1) teaches a remote reflective materials sensor, which may be utilized in ice detection and debris detection, which incorporates an optical sensor and a remote reflective material as a test surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645