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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, directed to claims 1-13, in the reply filed on December 23, 2025, is acknowledged. The remaining claims have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. In particular the limitation “the geometric objects” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2017/0016771 (“Koresko”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,386,241 (“Staple”).
Claim 1
Koresko discloses a sensor system calibration tool comprising. a plurality of geometric objects disposed adjacent to each other, the geometric objects are configured to be perceived in one of two different ways for a first type of sensor and one of two different ways for a second type of sensor (paragraph [0010], infrared and thermal wavelengths; patterns 108, 110); and a thermal control device (temperature controller 104).
Koresko discloses a heating element (heater 120) but does not appear to explicitly disclose comprising a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects.
Staple discloses a calibration system with a heating element as a single or plurality of elements (col. 7, lns 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects, as disclosed by Staple, into the device of Koresko, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the heating elements for the purpose of providing redundant heating.
Claim 2
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 1.
Koresko in view of Staple does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of geometric objects are further configured to be perceived in one of two different ways for a third type of sensor.
Koresko discloses additional wavelengths (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a third type of sensor, as disclosed by Staple, into the device of Koresko, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to provide additional sensor wherein the plurality of geometric objects are further configured to be perceived in one of two different ways for a third type of sensor, for the purpose of providing a wide range of wavelength detection for detecting different physical phenomena (Koresko, paragraph [0021]).
Claim 3
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 2, wherein the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the first type of sensor comprise visible light of different intensities (Koresko, paragraph [0010], visible light).
Claim 4
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 3, wherein the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the first type of sensor are different by greater than a threshold amount of light (Koresko, paragraph [0045]).
Claim 5
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 3, wherein the two different ways perceived by the second type of sensor comprise thermal images of different thermal values (Koresko, paragraph [0010], infrared light).
Claim 6
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 5, wherein the two different ways perceived by the second type of sensor are different by greater than a threshold amount (Koresko, paragraph [0045]).
Claim 9
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of heating elements is thermally attached to a corresponding one of the geometric objects of the first set of the plurality of geometric objects (Koresko, Fig. 3).
Claim 10
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of heating elements is thermally attached to a corresponding one of the geometric objects of the first set of the plurality of geometric objects (Koresko, Fig. 3).
Claim 11
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 10, wherein the thermal control device further comprises: one or more temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of at least one location proximate the plurality of geometric objects; and a controller coupled to the plurality of heating elements and the one or more temperature sensors, wherein the controller is configured to control at least a portion of the plurality of heating elements based on the temperature of the at least one location detected by the one or more temperature sensors (Koresko, paragraph [0031], temperature sensor 124).
Claim 12
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 11, wherein: the first set of the plurality of geometric objects are made of a thermally conductive material; and the sensor system calibration tool further comprises a second set of the geometric objects comprising geometric objects not included in the first set of the plurality of geometric objects that are made of a thermally non-conductive material (Koresko, paragraph [0050-0051]).
Claim 13
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 12, wherein: a first facing surface of each of the geometric objects of the first set of the geometric objects are co-planar; a second facing surface of each of the geometric objects of the second set of the geometric objects are co-planar; and the second facing surfaces of the second set of the geometric objects are recessed a predefined distance relative to the first facing surfaces of the first set of the geometric objects (Koresko, Figs. 2 and 3).
Claims 7-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2017/0016771 (“Koresko”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,386,241 (“Staple”), further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0165824 (“Ackley”).
Claim 7
Koresko in view of Staple discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 5.
Koresko in view of Staple does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the two different ways perceived by the third type of sensor comprise radar images of different distance values.
Ackley discloses a sensor calibration tool including distance sensing (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a distance sensor, as disclosed by Ackley, into the device of Koresko in view of Staple, such that the two different ways perceived by the third type of sensor comprise radar images of different distance values, for the purpose of accounting for dimensionality of geometric elements (Ackley, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 8
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the sensor system calibration tool of claim 7, wherein the two different ways perceived by the third type of sensor are different by greater than a threshold amount (Ackley, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 14
Koresko discloses a system comprising: a visual spectrum sensor (paragraph [0010], visible light); a thermal sensor (paragraph [0010], infrared light); and a sensor system calibration tool comprising: a plurality of geometric objects disposed adjacent to each other (patterns 108, 110) and configured to be perceived in one of two different ways by the visual spectrum sensor, one of two different ways by the thermal sensor, and one of two different ways by the range sensor (paragraph [0045]); and a thermal control device comprising a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects (temperature controller 104).
Koresko discloses a heating element (heater 120) but does not appear to explicitly disclose comprising a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects.
Staple discloses a calibration system with a heating element as a single or plurality of elements (col. 7, lns 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects, as disclosed by Staple, into the device of Koresko, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the heating elements for the purpose of providing redundant heating.
Koresko in view of Staple does not appear to explicitly disclose a range sensor.
Ackley discloses a sensor calibration tool including distance sensing (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a distance sensor, as disclosed by Ackley, into the device of Koresko in view of Staple, for the purpose of accounting for dimensionality of geometric elements (Ackley, paragraph [0062]).
Claim 15
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising a processor configured to perform calibration of the visual spectrum sensor, the thermal sensor, and the range sensor (Koresko, paragraph [0006]).
Claim 16
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the calibration of the visual spectrum sensor, the thermal sensor, and the range sensor is a simultaneous and consistent calibration (Koresko, paragraph [0006]).
Claim 17
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the system of claim 14, wherein: the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the visual spectrum sensor comprise visible light of different intensities, the two different ways perceived by the visual spectrum sensor are different by greater than a threshold amount of light; the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the thermal sensor comprise thermal images of different thermal values, the two different ways perceived by the thermal sensor are different by greater than a threshold temperature amount; and the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the range sensor comprise radar images of different distance values, the two different ways the two different ways perceived by the range sensor are different by greater than a threshold distance amount (Koresko, paragraph [0021, 0045]).
Claim 18
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising: one or more temperature sensors configured to detect a temperature of at least one location proximate the plurality of geometric objects; and a controller coupled to the plurality of heating elements and the one or more temperature sensors, the controller is configured to control at least a portion of the plurality of heating elements based on the temperature of the at least one location detected by the one or more temperature sensors (Koresko, paragraph [0031], temperature sensor 124).
Claim 19
Koresko in view of Staple, further in view of Ackley discloses the system of claim 18, wherein: the first set of the plurality of geometric objects are made of an electrically conductive material or a thermally conductive material; a second set of the geometric objects comprising geometric objects not included in the first set of the plurality of geometric objects that are made of a non-electrically conductive material or a thermally non-conductive material; a first facing surface of each of the geometric objects of the first set of the geometric objects are co-planar; a second facing surface of each of the geometric objects of the second set of the geometric objects are co-planar; and the second facing surfaces of the second set of geometric objects are recessed a predefined distance relative to the first facing surfaces of the first set of the geometric objects (Koresko, paragraph [0050-0051]).
Claim 20
Koresko discloses a method of calibrating comprising: placing a sensor system calibration tool at a position to be perceived by a visual spectrum sensor (paragraph [0010], visible light), a thermal sensor (paragraph [0010], infrared light), the sensor system calibration tool comprising a plurality of geometric objects (patterns 108, 110); detecting intensity of visible light for each of the geometric objects with the visual spectrum sensor to produce detected intensities; detecting a temperature value for each of the geometric objects with the thermal sensor to produce detected temperature values paragraph [0021, 0045]); calibrating the visual spectrum sensor using the detected intensity of visible light for each of the geometric objects, the thermal sensor using the detected temperature value for each of the geometric objects (paragraph [0006]), and the range sensor using the detected range value for each of the geometric objects; and controlling a plurality of heating elements thermally attached to the plurality of geometric objects based on a temperature of at least one location proximate the plurality of geometric objects.
Koresko discloses a heating element (heater 120) but does not appear to explicitly disclose comprising the range sensor using the detected range value for each of the geometric objects; and controlling a plurality of heating elements thermally attached to the plurality of geometric objects based on a temperature of at least one location proximate the plurality of geometric objects.
Staple discloses a calibration system with a heating element as a single or plurality of elements (col. 7, lns 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of heating elements coupled to only a first set of the plurality of geometric objects, as disclosed by Staple, into the device of Koresko, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the heating elements for the purpose of providing redundant heating.
Koresko in view of Staple does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the two different ways perceived by the third type of sensor comprise radar images of different distance values.
Ackley discloses a sensor calibration tool including distance sensing and detecting a range value for each of the geometric objects with the range sensor to produce detected range values (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a distance sensor, as disclosed by Ackley, into the device of Koresko in view of Staple, such that the two different ways perceived by the third type of sensor comprise radar images of different distance values, for the purpose of accounting for dimensionality of geometric elements (Ackley, paragraph [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA S Y LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7911. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4, TW M,W.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/ERICA S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853