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 12-15-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Schrabler does not disclose an optical signature of interesting comprising scattered infrared radiation, the examiner notes that Schrabler provides a barcode (optical signature) which reflects infrared radiation (¶76).
With respect to applicant’s argument that Schrabler fails to disclose acquiring imagery and or data related to the target, the examiner notes that imagery is not in the claims. Schrabler acquires data related to the target as that is what information is on the barcode. In the arguments applicant noted the street sign example. Without reading the infrared barcode the vehicle cannot identify that target as a street sign.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Schrabler does not process the data to remotely sense a target, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Schrabler, ¶82, discussed obtaining data of a target, processing the data and identifying it as a child.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 82-84 and 88-101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrabler, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0019098, published January 15, 2015.
As per claim 82, Schrabler discloses a method of tagging at least one target, the method comprising: applying to at least one target an artificial physical tag composed of a material having one or more specific properties in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein an optical signature of interest of the artificial tag comprises scattered infrared radiation (Schrabler, ¶74 and 36).
As per claim 83, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the artificial physical tag is selected from the group consisting of a coating, a paint, and combinations thereof (Schrabler, ¶26).
As per claim 84, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the artificial physical tag forms at least one portion of the at least one target (Schrabler, Fig. 1B).
As per claim 88, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the applying to at least one target an artificial physical tag further comprises physically attaching the artificial physical tag to the at least one target (Schrabler, ¶26).
As per claim 89, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the applying to at least one target an artificial physical tag further comprises modifying the one or more specific properties of the material (Schrabler, Fig. 5C where 25 is a modification of material 26).
As per claim 90, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the optical signature of interest uniquely identifies the target (Schrabler, ¶74).
As per claim 91, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the optical signature of interest is based on a property of the artificial physical tag selected from the group consisting of: temperature, one or more spectral properties, emissivity, surface roughness, dielectricity, polarization, phase data, specific reemitted energy, and combinations thereof (Schrabler, Fig. 1B and ¶74).
As per claim 92, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 82, wherein the optical signature of interest uses a property of the artificial physical tag selected from the group consisting of: temperature, one or more spectral properties, emissivity, surface roughness, dielectricity, polarization, phase data, specific reemitted energy, and combinations thereof (Schrabler, ¶13).
As per claim 93 and 99, Schrabler further discloses t method of obtaining data from at least one target, the method comprising:
optically detecting, from at least one artificial physical tag applied to at least one target, a signature of interest in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum; acquiring data related to the at least one target; and generating, by at least one processor, a virtual tag that is associated with the at least one artificial physical tag, wherein the acquired data is obtained directly from the at least one target (Schrabler, ¶41-42 and claim 14).
As per claim 94, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 93, wherein the optically detecting further comprises detecting, by a sensing device, scattered infrared radiation (Schrabler, ¶36).
As per claim 95, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 93, wherein the artificial physical tag is a coating, a paint, or a sticker (Schrabler, ¶26).
As per claim 96, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 93, further comprising: organizing, by the at least one processor, the acquired data; integrating, by the at least one processor, the acquired data with further data to obtain an organized group of information; and filtering, by the at least one processor, the organized group of information using the virtual tag (Schrabler, ¶34 where data is interpreted and ¶74 where the barcode return is read and understood).
As per claim 97, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 93, further comprising: relating, by the at least one processor, metadata to the virtual tag, wherein the metadata comprises geopositioning data and/or data acquisition time for the at least one target (Schrabler, ¶74).
As per claim 98, Schrabler further discloses the method of claim 93, further comprising: relating, by the at least one processor, the virtual tag to the signature of interest (Schrabler, ¶74).
As per claim 100, Schrabler further discloses the system of claim 99, wherein the directly acquiring, from the at least one target, data associated with the at least one target further comprises: utilizing at least one of: one or more cameras, and one or more databases (Schrabler, ¶49).
As per claim 101, Schrabler further discloses the system of claim 99, wherein the system is selected from the group consisting of: one or more aerospace devices, one or more satellites, one or more drones, one or more airplanes, one or more ground cameras, one or more LIDAR sensors, one or more infrared (IR) sensors, one or more databases, and combinations thereof (Schrabler, ¶49).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrabler.
As per claim 85, Schrabler discloses the method of claim 82 but uses nanoparticles instead of microparticles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the particle size limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 86 and 87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrabler in view of Breed, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0282817, published November 20, 2008.
As per claims 86 and 87, Schrabler discloses the method of claim 82 but fails to expressly disclose the optical signature varying.
Breed teaches variance of response in an rfid (¶196).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow for variation in order to gain the benefit of providing any new or changing information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646