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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on December 29, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 30, 2025, figure 2B, paragraph [0101], and claims 1, 8, 9 and 18 have been amended and claim 20 has been newly added. No claims were cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant has amended figure 2B to include the reference number “215” associated by amended specification paragraph [0101] that now includes “…at least one angular pixel 215 (Figure 2B).” The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8, 9 and 18, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8, 9 and 18 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 11, 18 and 19, Applicant argues that “the cited reference fails to disclose or render obvious at least the above-emphasized features of independent claim 1.” (Remarks, p. 12, referencing the claimed subject matter of: … the device further comprising:
- an interface element adapted to forming an interface between the infrared camera and the mount;
wherein the interface element is positioned on either side of the infrared camera, is in one piece, and comprises a first end adapted to engaging with the mount.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on the claim language as currently presented, the Smith reference is still found to teach the recited subject matter. Specifically, Smith teaches:
an interface element (e.g., fig. 5, element 86; [0037], plastic insert) adapted to forming an interface between the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, element 46; [0030]) and the mount (e.g., fig. 5, element 80; [0037]),
wherein the interface element is positioned on either side of the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, element 86 is positioned on the top side of element 46, the Examiner notes that the positioning is recited in the alternative, i.e., either), is in one piece (e.g., fig. 5, element 86 is a singular element), and comprises a first end adapted to engaging with the mount (e.g., fig. 5, the first end of element 86 engaging with element 80).
In view of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the Smith reference applied to the claims as currently presented.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 4-10, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the teaching of the Badger reference as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejections based on its dependence on the independent claim. In view of the response to arguments relating to Smith (supra), the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to claims 4-10.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the Examiner’s use of Official Notice as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejection based on its dependence on the independent claim. In view of the response to arguments relating to Smith (supra), the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to claim 12.
Regarding Examiner's use of Official Notice, Applicant’s was not found to traverse the finding. “To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” See MPEP §2144.03. Because the Applicant has not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art in reply to the Office Action in which the common knowledge statement was made, the Examiner’s conclusion of common knowledge in the art is now taken to be admitted prior art. Please see MPEP § 2144.03.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the teaching of the Hoelter reference as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejection based on its dependence on the independent claim. In view of the response to arguments relating to Smith (supra), the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to claim 14.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 15 and 16, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the teaching of the Kamimura reference as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejections based on its dependence on the independent claim. In view of the response to arguments relating to Smith (supra), the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to claims 15 and 16.
* * * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0216768 to Smith et al. (hereinafter "Smith").
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an infrared imaging device comprising an infrared camera having an optical axis (A) and intended to detect an infrared radiation in a spectral range (e.g., fig. 5, element 46; [0030]) through a transparent element transparent to said infrared radiation (e.g., fig. 5, element 82; [0037], IR transmissible window), said transparent element comprising two surfaces, an entrance surface and an exit surface, substantially planar and parallel to each other (e.g. fig. 5), and being surrounded (e.g., figs. 4A and 4B) by a mount (e.g., fig. 5, element 80; [0037]), the transparent element with the mount being adapted to being inserted in an opening of a wall (e.g., figs. 4A, 4B and 5, element 20), the transparent element and at least a portion of the wall having the transparent element inserted therein being inclined by an angle of inclination (a) greater than 0° and smaller than 90° or smaller than 0° and greater than -90° with respect to the optical axis (A) of the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5), the device further comprising an interface element (e.g., fig. 5, element 86; [0037], plastic insert) adapted to forming an interface between the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, element 46; [0030]) and the mount (e.g., fig. 5, element 80; [0037]), wherein the interface element is positioned on either side of the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, element 86 is positioned on the top side of element 46, the Examiner notes that the positioning is recited in the inclusive alternative, i.e., either), is in one piece (e.g., fig. 5, element 86 is a singular element), and comprises a first end adapted to engaging with the mount (e.g., fig. 5, the first end of element 86 engaging with element 80).
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching at least one inner surface of the interface element being shaped so as to decrease the emission of infrared radiation by said interface element towards the camera (e.g., figs. 1A through 2, element 20, curved; element 24 would not be necessary if element 20 was IR transmissive), and/or being made of a material adapted to decreasing the emission of infrared radiation by said interface element towards the camera (e.g., figs. 1A through 2, element 20; element 24 would not be necessary if element 20 was IR transmissive) and/or being covered with a coating adapted to decreasing the emission of infrared radiation by said interface element towards the camera.
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the interface element (e.g., fig. 5, element 86) comprising a first end adapted to engaging with the mount of the transparent element (e.g., fig. 5, end of element 86 associated with element 80) by shape complementarity with said mount (e.g., fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the interface element (e.g., fig. 5, element 86) comprising a second end adapted to engaging with the infrared camera by shape complementarity with at least a portion of said infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, end of element 86 not engaged with element 80, and has a shape which is complementary to the profiles of camera 46).
Regarding claim 11, Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the interface element (e.g., fig. 5, element 86) being adapted to providing a fluid-tight assembly between the wall and the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, element 42, when the assembly is considered with at least element 20; [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches an infrared imaging system comprising an infrared imaging device according to claim 1 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra), and the wall (e.g., fig. 5, opening 20) comprising the opening having a transparent element transparent to the infrared radiation of a spectral range radiation (e.g., fig. 5, element 82; [0037], IR transmissible window), surrounded by the mount (e.g., figs. 4A and 4B), inserted therein (e.g., fig. 3, fig. 5, element 80),
the infrared camera of the device being adapted to detecting an infrared radiation of the spectral range through the transparent element (e.g., fig. 5; [0030]), the transparent element and at least a portion of the wall having the transparent element inserted therein being inclined by an angle of inclination (α) greater than 0° and smaller than 90° or smaller than 0° and greater than −90° with respect to the optical axis (A) of the camera (e.g., fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the transparent element is included in the volume corresponding to the opening of the wall (e.g., figs. 5), and/or does not protrude laterally on either side of the opening of the wall (e.g., fig. 5).
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0057660 to Badger et al. (hereinafter “Badger”).
Regarding claim 5, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 4, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the infrared camera comprising at least one lens and a lens mount, said at least one lens being held by said lens mount, or disclose the second end of the interface element being adapted to engaging with the lens mount by shape complementarity with said lens mount.
Nevertheless, Badger teaches a device including a camera (e.g., figs. 4A element 406; fig. 4B, element 436) comprising at least one lens (e.g., fig. 4A, element 316; fig. 4B, element 318) and a lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A, element 414; fig. 4B, element 444), said at least one lens being held by said lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A; fig. 4B), and having a second end (e.g., fig. 4A, indicator 414; ; fig. 4B, element 444) of an interface element (e.g., fig. 4A, element 412; fig. 4B, element 442) being adapted to engaging with the lens mount by shape complementarity with said lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A; fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporated the interface element and attachment as taught by Badger with the device as taught by Smith in order to support the camera in a smaller form factor having less structural space requirements as well as providing less available space between the exit surface and the lens for the creation of undesirable light scattering and internal reflection that can diminish the imaging.
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 4, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the infrared camera comprising at least one lens and a lens mount, said at least one lens being held by said lens mount, the interface element and the lens mount forming one piece.
Nevertheless, Badger teaches a device including a camera (e.g., figs. 4A element 406; fig. 4B, element 436) comprising at least one lens (e.g., fig. 4A, element 316; fig. 4B, element 318) and a lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A, element 414; fig. 4B, element 444), said at least one lens being held by said lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A; fig. 4B), and having an interface element (e.g., fig. 4A, element 412; fig. 4B, element 442) and the lens mount forming one piece (e.g., fig. 4A; fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 7, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the infrared camera comprising a lens mount (e.g., fig. 5, element 86), the camera being held by said lens mount (e.g., fig. 5), the lens mount comprising a truncated surface adapted to being positioned in front of the wall (e.g., fig. 5, element 86; the Examiner notes that there is no comparative element to establish or expressly determine what constitutes truncation, leaving it for open interpretation). Smith, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose at least one lens, with said at least one lens being held by said lens mount.
Nevertheless, Badger teaches a similar device that includes at least one lens (e.g., fig. 4A, element 316; fig. 4B, element 318) with said at least one lens being held by a lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A, element 414; fig. 4B, element 444). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have included a lens and mounting to the lens as taught by Badger with the device as taught by Smith in order to provide means to focus the light for the camera, as well as to support the infrared camera in a small form factor by connecting the mount to the lens and decreasing the area in front of the lens; allowing for greater visibility and the ability to reduce overall structural requirements.
Regarding claim 8, Smith and Badger teach the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching the truncation angle (β) of a truncated surface (e.g., 768 – fig. 5, element 86) with respect to the optical axis (A) of the infrared camera being substantially equal to the angle of inclination (α) of the wall and of the transparent element (e.g., ‘768 – figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Smith and Badger teach the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching the interface element comprising at least a portion adapted to covering the truncated face forming a thermal protection of the truncated face and/or a protection of said truncated face from infrared radiation (e.g., ‘768 – fig. 5, element 30 covers element 86 from above, which would form thermal protection from above, as well as block light radiation from above).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the infrared camera comprising a lens mount (e.g., fig. 5 element 86), the camera being held by said lens mount (e.g., fig. 5), and an image sensor sensitive to the infrared radiation of the spectral range (e.g., fig. 5, element 46; [0001-0003], [0030]), the sensor and the at least one lens defining the optical axis (A) of the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5), the sensor being arranged substantially in the image focal plane of said at least one lens (e.g., fig. 5). Smith, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose at least one lens, with said at least one lens being held by said lens mount.
Nevertheless, Badger teaches a similar device that includes at least one lens (e.g., fig. 4A, element 316; fig. 4B, element 318) with said at least one lens being held by a lens mount (e.g., fig. 4A, element 414; fig. 4B, element 444). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have included a lens and mounting to the lens as taught by Badger with the device as taught by Smith in order to provide means to focus the light for the camera, as well as to support the infrared camera in a small form factor by connecting the mount to the lens and decreasing the area in front of the lens; allowing for greater visibility and the ability to reduce overall structural requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the interface element being made of a material having al thermal conduction lower than 10 W.m-1 K -1.
Nevertheless, AAPA provides for the use of the material polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (a material that has a thermal conductivity of approximately .224) as layering in automobile windshields; a practice that is well-known and accepted in the automotive industry. It would have been obvious to have included at least a PVB layer in the interface element (e.g., figs. 3 and 5, which includes windshield 20) as taught by Smith for the purposes of enhanced safety, versus the previous use of regular glass.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of WIPO Publication No. 2014/028540 to Hoelter et al. (hereinafter “Hoelter”).
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the device comprising a removable shutter element adapted to shutting off the infrared camera, said shutter element being covered with an emissive coating on a surface of said shutter element facing the infrared camera.
Nevertheless, Hoelter teaches an infrared camera with a removable shutter element adapted to shutting off the infrared camera, said shutter element being covered with an emissive coating on a surface of said shutter element facing the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 1, shutter 105; p. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hoelter with the device of Smith in order to reduce reflection and potential flaring.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2007-057951 to Kamimura (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the interface element comprising an inner emitting surface facing the infrared camera and adapted to being positioned against the mount of the transparent element, said inner emitting surface being covered with an emissive coating. Smith does teach the interface element is positioned against the mount of the transparent element (e.g., fig. 5).
Nevertheless, the concept of coating surfaces to absorb light energy is well-known and accepted in the camera arts. For example, Kamimura teaches the concept of coating internal elements of a camera (e.g., fig. 1, see machine translation description of figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Kamimura with the device as taught by Smith, including the interface element, in order to minimize internal light reflection.
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the interface element comprising a portion (e.g., fig. 5, portion of element 86 adjacent between elements 80 and 46) adapted to being positioned in front of a region of the transparent element so as to form a screen between said region of the transparent element and the infrared camera (e.g., fig. 5, small portion located between elements 24 and 46; the term front region has not been provided with any structural anchor to require how term front region is determined or interpreted). Smith, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose said portion comprising an emitting surface facing the infrared camera covered with an emissive coating.
Nevertheless, the concept of coating surfaces to absorb light energy is well-known and accepted in the camera arts. For example, Kamimura teaches the concept of coating internal elements of a camera (e.g., fig. 1, see machine translation description of figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Kamimura with the device as taught by Smith, including the interface element, in order to minimize internal light reflection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art has not been found by the Examiner to teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination of an Infrared imaging device comprising an infrared camera having an optical axis (A) and intended to detect an infrared radiation in a spectral range through a transparent element transparent to said infrared radiation, said transparent element comprising two surfaces, an entrance surface and an exit surface, substantially planar and parallel to each other, and being surrounded by a mount, the transparent element with the mount being adapted to being inserted in an opening of a wall, the transparent element and at least a portion of the wall having the transparent element inserted therein being inclined by an angle of inclination (a) greater than 0° and smaller than 90° or smaller than 0° and greater than -90° with respect to the optical axis (A) of the infrared camera, the device further comprising an interface element adapted to forming an interface between the infrared camera and the mount, wherein the interface element is provided with at least one temperature probe, at least one temperature probe being for example coupled to a module for processing a stray light flux, for example a stray light flux emitted by the device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 12,370,778 to Black et al. teaches a similar infrared transparent element and aperture.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638