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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Regarding Applicant’s 11/26/25 remarks on Pages 11-12, Applicant’s amendments and remarks have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, the outstanding double patenting rejections remain as no terminal disclaimer has been received (See rejection contained herein). Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, 15, 22 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10, 12, 14 of U.S. Patent 11,722,776 (hereinafter ‘776). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1, 22 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claim 1 of ‘776. Claims 3-9, 13, 15 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claims 2-8, 12, 14, respectfully, of ‘776. Claim 10 of the instant application is rejected in view of Claims 9-10 of ‘776. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
Claims 100, 102-103, 105-109 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-9, 12 of U.S. Patent 11,997,390 (hereinafter ‘390). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 100, 105 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claim 1+8 of ‘390. Claims 102, 103, 106-108 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claims 3, 4, 5-7, respectfully, of ‘390. Claim 109 of the instant application is rejected in view of Claims 9 and 12 of ‘390. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, but for the outstanding double patenting rejections contained herein: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (LAPSTUN, US Pub. No.: 2021-0051311; BYRNE, US Pub. No.: 2022-0234753; COPE, US Pub. No.: 2017-0244880; NUNNINK, US Pub. No.: 2020-0160012; ITO, Pub. No: US 2011-0058804; MUZILLA, US Pub. No.: 2020-0073107) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“An imaging system, comprising: a first camera configured to capture a first set of oblique images along a first scan path on an object area; a second camera configured to capture a second set of oblique images along a second scan path on the object area; a scanning mirror structure including at least one mirror surface; and a drive coupled to the scanning mirror structure and configured to rotate the scanning mirror structure about a scan axis based on a scan angle, wherein the first camera has an optical axis set at an oblique angle to the scan axis and includes a lens to focus a first imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the first camera, the second camera has an optical axis set at an oblique angle to the scan axis and includes a lens to focus a second imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the second camera; at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the first imaging beam and at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the second imaging beam vary according to the scan angle, the image sensor of the first camera captures the first set of oblique images along the first scan path by sampling the first imaging beam at first values of the scan angle, and the image sensor of the second camera captures the second set of oblique images along the second scan path by sampling the second imaging beam at second values of the scan angle, wherein the at least one mirror surface includes a first mirror surface and a second mirror surface that is substantially opposite the first mirror surface, and the first imaging beam is reflected from the first min-or surface and the second imaging beam is reflected from the second mirror surface”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record LAPSTUN does not teach or suggest in detail at least an image sensor capturing oblique images along scan paths by sampling the imaging beam of the scan angles such that a mirror surface includes a first mirror surface and a second mirror surface that is substantially opposite the first mirror surface, and the first imaging beam is reflected from the first min-or surface and the second imaging beam is reflected from the second mirror surface.
LAPSTUN only discloses an imaging method comprising capturing, with a first camera a first set of oblique images along a first scan path on an object area and capturing, with a second camera, a second set of oblique images along a second scan path on the object area. The prior art also discloses rotating a scanning mirror structure about a scan axis based on a scan angle with a drive being coupled to the scanning mirror structure including at least one mirror surface wherein the first camera has an optical axis set at an oblique angle to the scan axis and includes a lens to focus a first imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the first camera, the second camera has an optical-axis set at an oblique angle to be scan axis and includes a lens to focus a second imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the second camera, at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the first imaging beam and at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the second imaging beam vary according to the scan angle. Finally, the prior art teaches the image sensor of the first camera captures the first set of oblique images along the first scan path by sampling the first imaging beam at first values of the scan angle, and the image sensor of the second camera captures the second set of oblique images along the second scan path by sampling the second imaging beam at second values of the scan angle.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites an imaging system that includes a first camera configured to capture a first set of oblique images along a first scan path on an object area, a second camera configured to capture a second set of oblique images along a second scan path on the object area, a scanning mirror structure including at least one mirror surface, and a drive coupled to the scanning mirror structure and configured to rotate the scanning mirror structure about a scan axis based on a scan angle, wherein the first camera has an optical axis set at an oblique angle to the scan axis and includes a lens to focus a first imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the first camera, the second camera has an optical axis set at an oblique angle to the scan axis and includes a lens to focus a second imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the second camera. The invention further claims at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the first imaging beam and at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the second imaging beam vary according to the scan angle, the image sensor of the first camera captures the first set of oblique images along the first scan path by sampling the first imaging beam at first values of the scan angle, and the image sensor of the second camera captures the second set of oblique images along the second scan path by sampling the second imaging beam at second values of the scan angle, wherein the at least one mirror surface includes a first mirror surface and a second mirror surface that is substantially opposite the first mirror surface, and the first imaging beam is reflected from the first min-or surface and the second imaging beam is reflected from the second mirror surface.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13, 15, 22, 100, 102-103, 105-109 are allowed, but for the outstanding double patenting rejections contained herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is (571) 270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 7:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481