DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Prior art alone or as combined, fails to teach or render obvious the following limitation: in autonomous operating mode, the optronic equipment is controlled to be pointed in a different direction from that of the optical sight and the device comprises a third electronic unit arranged to process the images supplied by the optronic equipment, detect points and/or zones of interest therein and present, to the operator, information relating to the detected points and/or zones of interest.
All other claims contain allowable subject matter due to claim dependency.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 12/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (foreign patent application FR2106898 filed on 06/28/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/28/2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The spec filed 12/28/2023 is accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 ), first & 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the optronic sight” lacks antecedent basis. The limitation “the optronic sensor” lacks antecedent basis. Previously, there were “at least one optronic sensor,” and it is unclear which is “the optronic sensor” when there are multiple optronic sensors.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “and/or” makes the limitation unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether any of the limitations linked by “and/or” is optional or required.
Regarding claim 10, “the division into surveillance sectors” lacks antecedent basis. The limitation was introduced in claim 9. But claim 10 does not depend on claim 9. Additionally, “the steps of defining densities of boundary lines” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the densities of danger zones” and “the densities of boundary lines” both lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the calculation of the densities of danger zones” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “the threat level” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16, “the zones to be observed” lacks antecedent basis.
All other claims are further rejected due to claim dependency.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerot, US 20190126826 A1 (“Jerot”).
Regarding claim 1, Jerot teaches a device for observing the surroundings of a platform on which the device is mounted(Figs. 3 and 4), the device comprising optronic equipment (310) and an optical sight (430), the optronic sight comprising a rotating support that carries at least one optronic sensor and that is equipped with a motorisation system making it possible to orientate the optronic sensor ([0051], turret, or the potential rotatable base for camera 310 showed in the figures), the optronic sensor and motorisation system being connected to a first electronic unit (320) arranged for controlling acquisition according to image-capture parameters, the optical sight being orientable and connected to a second electronic unit arranged to communicate to the first electronic control unit the image-capture parameters of the optical sight ([0052], “servo-control system 435—certain components of which may be shared with the data processor 320—servo-controls the orientation of the camera 310 to that of the device 430”), the first electronic unit having a slave mode of operation whereby the optronic equipment is controlled to make acquisitions in accordance with the image-capture parameters of the optical sight when the optical sight is used by an operator (“the operator 350 is given the impression that he is looking through the armor of the vehicle 3000 with a pair of zoom binoculars”).
However, Jerot fails to explicitly teach wherein the first electronic unit is arranged to have at least one autonomous operating mode wherein the optronic equipment is controlled to make acquisitions independently of the image-capture parameters of the optical sight while the optical sight is used by an operator.
On the other hand, while Jerot teaches controlling orientation of the camera 310 using the servo system 435, Jerot is silent on controlling other image-capture parameters of the camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the camera’s control system to automatically adjust exposure time, aperture, and focus to capture best quality image. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jerot’s device to perform these additional automatic camera adjustments.
Regarding claim 17, Jerot, as modified, teaches a vehicle (Fig. 4) having a body surmounted by a device according claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Jerot, as modified, teaches the vehicle according to claim 17, wherein the device is mounted on a turret, mounted to pivot on the body (Fig. 4, [0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights