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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham (2022/0051475) in view of Horner (2016/0011310).
With respect to claim 1, Bingham teaches sonar array configured to acquire point cloud information comprising a plurality of points ([0021]; [0061], lines 6-7, 10); and a computing module communicatively connected to the underwater sonar array ([0060], lines 1-5; [0071], lines 1-6), wherein the computing module is configured to rearrange the points into a matrix comprising the points and a plurality of missing points ([0063], lines 3-6); wherein the computing module performs an interpolation calculation for each of the missing points based on depth values of neighboring points among the points to obtain a depth value of each of the missing points ([0067], lines 1-2, 14-16). However, it does not teach using an underwater sonar array for the point cloud information acquisition.
Horner teaches using an underwater sonar array for the point cloud information acquisition ([0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Bingham with the underwater sonar of Horner since such a modification would have allowed it to be used for underwater surveying.
With respect to claim 8, Bingham teaches acquiring point cloud information through a sonar array, wherein the point cloud information comprises a plurality of points ([0021]; [0061], lines 6-7, 10); and a computing module communicatively connected to the underwater sonar array ([0060], lines 1-5; [0071], lines 1-6), rearranging the points into a matrix comprising the points and a plurality of missing points ([0063], lines 3-6); performing an interpolation calculation for each of the missing points based on depth values of neighboring points among the points to obtain a depth value of each of the missing points ([0067], lines 1-2, 14-16). However, it does not teach using an underwater sonar array for the point cloud information acquisition.
Horner teaches using an underwater sonar array for the point cloud information acquisition ([0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Bingham with the underwater sonar of Horner since such a modification would have allowed it to be used for underwater surveying.
With respect to claims 2 and 9, Bingham teaches the computing module redetermines a X-coordinate and a Y-coordinate of one of the points based on an arrangement direction of sensors of the underwater sonar array ([0031], lines 3-8).
With respect to claims 3 and 10, Bingham teaches the computing module performs the interpolation calculation using one of various averaging methods ([0067], lines 20-22). However, it does not teach using the exact weighted averaging formula provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to use the weighted averaging equation 1 since weighted averaging is a well-known mathematical concept and Bingham teaches using any of multiple averaging types.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Bingham teaches calculate an interpolation depth corresponding to one of the missing points based on a spline interpolation algorithm ([0104], lines 4-10), and to calculate an average value of the interpolation depth and the depth value Z to compensate the corresponding missing point ([0067], lines 20-22; [0104], line 10). However, it does not specifically teach using a thin plate spline interpolation algorithm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to use the thin plate spline interpolation technique since it is a well-known mathematical concept and Bingham teaches using a general spline interpolation algorithm which one of ordinary skill would be able to select one of many spline interpolation techniques.
With respect to claim 13, Bingham teaches performing a down sampling process on the digital image to allow the pixels of the digital image to be corresponded by the points of the point cloud information in a one-to-one manner ([0064]).
With respect to claim 14, Bingham teaches the point cloud information corresponds to an area of steep slope ([0075]).
With respect to claim 15, Bingham the point cloud information corresponds to a side of an object ([0038], lines 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645