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 Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 07/16/2026
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the objection to the specification
The amendments are sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 1 was amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10-11 of the remarks, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 USC§ 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Repasi1 and Boufounos et al. (US 20160245920 A1, “Boufounos”).
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200200913 A1, "Smith") in view of Repasi2 and Boufounos et al. (US 20160245920 A1, “Boufounos”)
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an active imaging system comprising:
a first laser illuminator and a second laser illuminator, each configured to illuminate a scene, including a target, with pulses of light (Smith, Para [0054] Fig. 4, where the first laser illuminator is second light emitter 32, and the second laser illuminator is first light emitter 30), longer pulse duration compared with pulses of light from the second laser illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground);
a camera system configured and arranged to receive light from both the first laser illuminator and second laser illuminator that has been reflected by a scene (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively);
However, Smith does not teach broader spectral linewidth
wherein the camera system is configured to:
use a
use a second gate period, which is shorter than the first gate period, to receive returns from the second laser illuminator to obtain a second image of the target that selectively excludes non-target elements within the scene; and
an image processing means configured to use the second image as a template to selectively remove the non-target elements from the first image.
On the other hand, Repasi teaches the broadening of spectral line width to mitigate speckle noise (Repasi, Section 3: Monostatic Measurements, Subsection A. Medium and Long-Range Imaging Experiments, Para [0003], where the speckle reduction by broadening the spectral emission of the transmitter is done by broadening the spectral line width).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active system of Smith in view of Repasi, by broadening the spectral line width of a laser transmitter to mitigate speckle noise and reduce coherence effects (Repasi, Section 3: Monostatic Measurements, Subsection A. Medium and Long-Range Imaging Experiments, Para [0003]).
However, Smith in view of Repasi does not teach wherein the camera system is configured to:
use a
use a second gate period, which is shorter than the first gate period, to receive returns from the second laser illuminator to obtain a second image of the target that selectively excludes non-target elements within the scene; and
an image processing means configured to use the second image as a template to selectively remove the non-target elements from the first image.
On the other hand, Boufounos teaches different gating timings, where the scene point arriving at the sensor is a measurement and therefore image denoted by yi (Boufounos, Para [0045]-[0047], Fig 3, where both long and short as determined by the length of time a gate is open with differing timings), and is used to determine a depth image by a processor, using the scene points to estimate background and therefore remove it (Boufounos, Para [0048]-[0051], Fig 3, where scene points yi are used and therefore act as a template to estimate background radiation to be subtracted in a depth image determined by a processor).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active system of Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos by having multiple scene point measurements to remove non negligible background noise while still having improved dynamic range (Boufounos, Para [0045] and [0048]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene at different times (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground).
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 4, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at substantially a same centre wavelength (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at different centre wavelengths (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene simultaneously (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where the first time period initiates simultaneously with light from both second light emitter 32 and first light emitter 30).
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the camera system comprises;
a first camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the first laser illuminator, and a second camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the second illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively).
Claims 2-3, 7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan et al. (US 5585913 A, "Hariharan").
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1.
However, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos does not teach wherein the first laser illuminator is configured to operate at a pulse repetition rate that is higher than the second laser illuminator.
On the other hand, Hariharan teaches two laser sources with differing pulse repetition rates (Hariharan, Col. 8, lin. 60-66, Fig. 4, where two pulse sources have differing repetition rates. In this case Smith Fig. 4 second light emitter 32 would have the higher repetition rate compared to first light emitter 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active imaging system of Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan, by setting the pulse repetition rate of Smith Fig. 4 second light emitter 32 higher than first light emitter 30 such that a more equally detailed map of the scene’s background, compared to the foreground, can be mapped . See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the first illuminator is configured to operate at a pulse repetition rate of at least 2 KHz (Hariharan, Col. 7, lin. 8-24, Fig. 4, where two pulse sources have differing repetition rates where the first repetition rate can reach up to 100 MHz).
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1.
However, Smith in view of Repasi and Boufounos does not teach wherein the camera system comprises:
a single detector configured and arranged to capture returns from both the first and second laser illuminators to obtain first and second images.
On the other hand, Hariharan teaches a single detector that captures the return pulses from two source lasers (Hariharan, Col. 9, lin. 22-26, Fig. 4, where filter/detector collects returns from dual sources 101 and 102).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active imaging system of Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan, by using a single detector to capture return pulses instead of two to improve efficiency. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene at different times (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground).
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at substantially a same centre wavelength (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths).
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at different centre wavelengths (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths).
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the camera system comprises:
a single detector configured and arranged to capture returns from both the first and second laser illuminators to obtain first and second images (Hariharan, Col. 9, lin. 22-26, Fig. 4, where filter/detector collects returns from dual sources 101 and 102).
Regarding claim 14 Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 7, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene simultaneously (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where the first time period initiates simultaneously with light from both second light emitter 32 and first light emitter 30).
Regarding claim 15 Smith in view of Repasi, Boufounos and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 7, wherein the camera system comprises:
a first camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the first laser illuminator, and a second camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the second illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively).
Conclusion
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 ZAKI HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-6595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ZAKI KEHINDE HAWKINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Endre Repasi, Peter Lutzmann, Ove Steinvall, Magnus Elmqvist, Benjamin Göhler, and Gregor Anstett, "Advanced short-wavelength infrared range-gated imaging for ground applications in monostatic and bistatic configurations," Appl. Opt. 48, 5956-5969 (2009)
2 Endre Repasi, Peter Lutzmann, Ove Steinvall, Magnus Elmqvist, Benjamin Göhler, and Gregor Anstett, "Advanced short-wavelength infrared range-gated imaging for ground applications in monostatic and bistatic configurations," Appl. Opt. 48, 5956-5969 (2009)
Prosecution Insights