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 .
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 ), 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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 and 9 recites the limitation “configured to generate a short-range illuminating beam at a selected wavelength”. Not clear from the claims or the specification whether “short-range” refers a distance for the beam to cover or a spectral range of the emitted light.
Similarly claim 3 recites “to vary a range of the short-range illuminating beam.” Not clear from the claims or the specification whether the “range” refers a distance for the beam to cover or the spectral range of the emitted light.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the basis", “the measure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “selecting the wavelength on the basis of the generated measure.” What is the measure? Is this the measure of turbidity? The measure of distance?
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.
Claim 1-6, 8-12, 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markey et al (US 20120314221) in view of Embry et al (US 20210382171).
In regards to claim 1, Harkey discloses an underwater imaging apparatus; comprising:
a source of electromagnetic radiation configured to generate a short-range illuminating beam at a selected wavelength (abstract discloses “the laser source”, ref. 220); and
While Markey discloses a beam which is inherently at a wavelength, and that has been selected at a time for the device, Markey does not expressly disclose: selecting a wavelength.
Embry teaches selecting wavelength for an underwater sensor and emitter device ([0052] “the light source 404 can produce light having a selected wavelength or range of wavelengths”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Embry by providing the means for generating a short-range illuminating beam at a selected wavelength in order to provide a specific wavelength during underwater conditions or to use in indicating the presence of or for safety in regards to the illuminating beam.
Markey as combined further discloses:
an image sensor for generating image data representing a scene or object to be illuminated by the short-range illuminating beam (Markey ref. 350), the image sensor sensitive to the selected wavelength (Markey ref. 350 sensitive to reflected light as chosen to receive that light).
In regards to claim 2, Markey discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the source of electromagnetic radiation is configured to generate
In regards to claim 3, Markey discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a controller configured to modify an output power of the source of electromagnetic radiation (Markey combined, Markey ref. 400, Embry controller [0047] power control system), whereby to vary a range of the short-range illuminating beam (Markey combined, Markey ref. 400, Embry controller [0047] power control system, [0052]).
In regards to claim 4, Markey discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in
In regards to claim 5, Marley discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 4, further comprising a controller (Marley ref. 420) configured to modify an output power of the source of electromagnetic radiation on the basis of the measure of turbidity generated by the sensor (Markey [0039] “laser source 230 is adjusted based on at least a turbidity of water”).
In regards to claim 6, Harkey as combined discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in (Embry teaches a collimating beam for an underwater light emitter, [0052] “The light produced by the light source 404 can be collimated or variably focused by optics 408”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Embry by providing a collimating structure to collimate
In regards to claim 8, Markey as combined discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the source of electromagnetic radiation is tuneable (Embry [0052] “the light source 404 can produce light having a selected wavelength or range of wavelengths”), However, Markey does not expressly disclose: whereby to vary the wavelength of the short-range illuminating beam within a range between around 900-3000nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the means to vary the wavelength of the short-range illuminating beam within a range between around 900-3000nm in order to provide for personal safety or to provide for the most effective emitted beam for the environmental conditions, 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.
In regards to claim 9, Markey discloses a method of optical underwater imaging, the method comprising:
generating a short-range illuminating beam at a selected wavelength (Markey abstract “The laser source is configured to project a laser”); and
generating, using an image sensor, image data representing a scene or object to be illuminated by the short-range illuminating beam, the image sensor sensitive to the selected wavelength (Markey [0032]).
While Markey discloses a beam at a wavelength, one that has been selected at a time, Markey does not expressly disclose: selecting a wavelength.
Embry teaches selecting wavelength for an underwater sensor and emitter device ([0052] “the light source 404 can produce light having a selected wavelength or range of wavelengths”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Embry by providing the means for generating a short-range illuminating beam at a selected wavelength in order to provide a specific wavelength during underwater conditions or to use in indicating the presence of or for safety in regards to the illuminating beam.
In regards to claim 10, Markey as combined discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the selected wavelength comprises a wavelength in the near infra-red or short wavelength infra-red regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Markey [0027] “laser source 230 projects a laser having a frequency of between approximately 308 nanometers (nm) and 1350 nm. More particularly, the laser may have a frequency of between approximately 512 nanometers (nm) and 1024 nm”).
In regards to claim 11, Markey discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: pulsing the short-range illuminating beam, whereby to generate a series of beams; and generating time of flight measurements on the basis of a time of receipt of respective pulses at the image sensor.
Embry teaches a pulsed laser illuminating a underwater target ([0052] “The components of the lidar device 308 provided as part of a metrology system 202 include a light source 404…In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present disclosure, the light source 404 is a pulsed beam laser”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Embry by providing the means for pulsing the short-range illuminating beam to generate a series of beams in order to allow greater number of measurement pulses.
In regards to claim 12, Markey as combines discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: scanning the short-range illuminating beam (Markey abstract, Embry [0008]).
In regards to claim 14, Markey as combined discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: generating a measure of turbidity of a participating medium (Markey [0031]); and selecting the wavelength on the basis of the generated measure (Markey as combined, Embry [0052]).
In regards to claim 15, Markey does not expressly disclose a platform comprising an underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Embry discloses the use of underwater scanning device on a water submersible vehicle ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Embry by providing the means for using the imaging apparatus on an underwater platform in order to allow for greater applications and use of the device.
In regards to claim 16, Markey as combined discloses the platform of claim 15, wherein the platform is an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) (Embry [0039]).
Claim 7, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markey, Embry as applied to claim 1, 9 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al (US 20190208183).
In regards to claim 7, Markey discloses the underwater imaging apparatus as claimed in
Schmidt traches a timing system for sensor exposure in a lidar system (abstract “A means of selectively exposing a sensor during a sequence of exposure periods is also included, so that each modulated light pulse portion is received by the sensor during one of the exposure periods”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Schmidt by providing the means to provide a timing system configured to control an exposure parameter for the image sensor in order for the sensor to more effectively a sense light from the emitted beam.
Markey as combined further discloses:
the exposure parameter comprising one or more of a time at which the image sensor is active, a time period over which the image sensor is active (Markey as combined, Schmidt abstract), a time at which the source of electromagnetic radiation is active, and a time period over which the source of electromagnetic radiation is active.
In regards to claim 13, Markey as combined discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: gating exposure of the image sensor, whereby to generate image data at selected distances from the image sensor.
Schmidt teaches gating a sensor for a lidar system (abstract exposure periods, [0046] “the shutter means 174 may be any suitable component(s) or method of controlling the exposure periods of the sensor subsystem 120, i.e., the periods of time when the image sensor 170 receives incoming light”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Markey with Schmidt by providing the means to providing gating an exposure of the image sensor to generate image data at selected distances from the image sensor in order to reduce or eliminate possible aberrations known in the art of optical system design that may degrade image quality for one or more of the bands received.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display scanning devices for both underwater and marine applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights