DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. Patent application filed on January 13, 2023, has been received and made of record. There are 1-20 claims in the application of which claims 1, 10, and 13 are independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2023, was filed after the mailing date of the application on January 13, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 17-20 recites “apparatus of claim” in Line-1 of respective claims. However, the parent claim 13 or 16 claims “laser rangefinder” on which the claims 17-20 depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BANERJEE et al.(2020/0174130 A1) (herein after BANERJEE) in view of Edwards(US 2019/0041516 A1).
Regarding claim 13, BANERJEE teaches a laser rangefinder (Para-34), comprising:
an imaging device(camera 404, fig.4A, Para-64);
a laser(pulsed laser light, Para-34);
[a display];
a hardware processor(processing module 14, fig.1B, Para-31); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions(Para-68) that when executed cause the hardware processor to perform operations(Para-68) comprising:
activating a laser of a laser rangefinder(Para-37: the method may further comprise triggering the lidar sensor to capture a point cloud for the lidar sensor data based on the time synchronization);
causing an image capture device to activate based on activating the laser(Para-38: when the lidar sensor completes or commences a recording of a point cloud of one rotation of the lidar sensor, the camera sensor may be triggered);
capturing an image of an object in a scene with the image capture device(step 110, fig.1C, Para-32, 33);
determining a range of the object in the scene(distance information, Para-34); and
[displaying the image of the object in the scene with the range of the object on the [[a]] display]; and
a housing to house the laser, [the display], the hardware processor, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium(fig.4A).
Nevertheless, BANERJEE is not found to teach expressly the laser rangefinder comprising: a display, wherein the display displaying the image of the object in the scene with the range of the object on the [[a]] display.
However, Edwards teaches a distance detector, comprising: a display(digital display 22, figs.1A-4, 6A-6C and related text), wherein the display(22) displaying the image of the object (Para-75) in the scene with the range of the object on a display(Para-80). Edwards further discloses a housing(main body 11) a housing to house the laser(figs.1A-1B, Para-73), the display(22), the hardware processor(controller 38, fig.4), and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium(memory 42, fig.4, Para-89, 95).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BANERJEE with the teaching of Edwards to include the feature in order to provide a range-finding system that displays an image of an object along with a distance of the object on the digital display.
Regarding claim 16, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 13, wherein the housing houses the imaging device(figs.1A-1B& 3A-3B, and related text, Edwards).
Regarding claim 20, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 13, wherein the imaging device is mounted on an external side of the housing (fig.4A, BANERJEE) and the imaging device is optically aligned to the laser(Para-8, 36, BANERJEE).
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 13 since both claims 1 and 13 recite identical claim limitations with broader limitation in claim 1. The additional limitations, “an imaging device aligned to an optical path of the laser rangefinder” are also taught by BANERGEE throughout the specification.
Regarding claim 2, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the laser rangefinder comprises an illumination source(pulse laser light, Para-34, BANERJEE) and a housing to house the illumination source(it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that illumination source is enclosed in a housing).
Regarding claim 3, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the housing houses the imaging device(fig.4A, BANERJEE; figs.1A-1B, 3A-3B, 7A-8B, 10A-10B, Edwards).
Regarding claim 7, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the imaging device(404, fig.4A, BANERJEE) is mounted on an external side of the housing (fig.4A) and the imaging device is optically aligned to the laser rangefinder(Para-8, 36, BANERJEE).
Regarding claim 8, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the illumination source comprises a laser(Para-34, BANERJEE).
Regarding claim 9, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the imaging device comprises a charge-coupled device(CCD, Para-33, BANERJEE).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 13 since both claims 10 and 13 recite identical claim limitations except different formats.
9. Claims 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BANERJEE et al.(2020/0174130 A1) in view of Edwards(US 2019/0041516 A1) and further in view of Van Toorenburg (US 2013/0335559 A1)(herein after Van Toorenburg).
Regarding claim 17, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards is not found to teach expressly the laser rangefinder of claim 16, wherein the imaging device comprises an imaging device optical aperture and the laser rangefinder comprises a transmission aperture and a reception aperture.
However, Van Toorenburg teaches a mobile measurement device, wherein the imaging device comprises an imaging device optical aperture(window is at camera 3, fig.9) and the laser rangefinder comprises a transmission aperture(first window 80, fig.9, Para-91) and a reception aperture(second window 81, fig.9, Para-91; figs.12-13, Para-97, 98).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BANERJEE further with the teaching of Van Toorenburg to include the feature in order to provide a device that enables user alignment of a camera, laser rangefinder and one or more orientation sensors.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 17 since both claims 4 and 17 recite identical claim limitations except minor word change.
10. Claims 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BANERJEE et al.(2020/0174130 A1) in view of Edwards(US 2019/0041516 A1) and further in view of Young et al.(US 8,400,625 B1) (herein after Young).
Regarding claim 18, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards is not found to teach expressly the laser rangefinder of claim 16, wherein the imaging device shares an optical aperture with the laser.
However, Young teaches a tracker system, wherein the imaging device shares an optical aperture with the laser(fig.6, Col-10, Lines 23-33).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BANERJEE further with the teaching of Young to include the feature in order to provide a novel shroud for safe containment of a high-power laser that is adjacent a sensitive imaging system.
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 18 since both claims 5 and 18 recite identical claim limitations except minor word change.
11. Claims 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BANERJEE et al.(2020/0174130 A1) in view of Edwards(US 2019/0041516 A1) and further in view of Kepler(US 2015/0369565 A1).
Regarding claim 19, BANERJEE as modified by Edwards is not found to teach expressly the laser rangefinder of claim 16, further comprising a beam splitter residing in an optical path of the laser, the beam splitter to direct light from the scene through an aperture of the laser into the imaging device.
However, Kepler teaches an optical device having a light separation element further comprising a bean splitter residing in an optical path of the laser, the beam splitter to direct light from the scene through an aperture of the laser into the imaging device(step 704, 706, fig.7, Para-60, 61).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BANERJEE further with the teaching of Kepler to include the feature in order to improve image quality or achieve a desired characteristic or look for an image.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19 since both claims 6 and 19 recite identical claim limitations except minor word change.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 11-12, and 14-15 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.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11 and 14: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”wherein causing the image capture device to activate comprises causing the image capture device to store image data of the scene during an operating cycle of the laser rangefinder”.
Claims 12 and 15: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”the method of claim 10, further comprising: continuously displaying image data from the scene on the display; upon activating the laser of the laser rangefinder, capturing and storing image data for a period of time until the range is determined; and displaying the captured image data with the range”.
Examiner Note
14. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Lun-Yi Lao can be reached on (571)272-7671. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621