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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) s 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Task et al. (US 4,299,451).
Regarding Claim 1 and 7-9, Task teaches a test arrangement to stimulate an camera-based surroundings detection system for test purposes and method (Abstract; Fig. 1), the test arrangement comprising:
a holding device in which a camera is fixable as a test object (12);
a light source (13 and 14); and
a controlled imaging device (6, 9, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26),
wherein the source, the imaging device, and the camera are arranged in such a way that an optical path leads from the light source, through the controlled imaging device, to the test object (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 33-48; col. 3, lines 5-10 and 53-65).
Task does not teach the detector and source are tuned to the infrared wavelength range. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to tune the source and detector to infrared since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
While Task teaches the imaging device to be controlled to rotate in different orientations; Task does not teach having a computer control the rotation. However, the Examiner is taking Official Notice that it a very well-known choice to have control be performed by a computer for the benefit of consistency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to include a computer to control the rotation in the imaging device for the benefit of increasing consistency of the orientations.
Regarding claim 2, Task, as modified above, teaches the computer-controlled imaging device is provided by a computer-controlled matrix having matrix elements, and wherein at least one matrix element is activatable in such a way that the optical path through the matrix element is selectively passable or blocked (col. 3, lines 5-10 and 53-65; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Task, as modified above, the matrix elements have at least one first state in which the optical path is passable, and a second state in which the optical path is blocked, and wherein the matrix elements have darkening elements for mechanical blocking, which are selectively situated in or outside the optical path (col. 3, lines 5-10 and 53-65; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Task, as modified above, (the matrix elements have at least one first state in which the optical path is passable, and a second state in which the optical path is blocked, and wherein the matrix elements have polarization filters which have a selective opening or blocking action as a result of rotation of the polarization direction (col. 3, lines 5-10 and 53-65; Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Orlando et al. (US 5,748,230) teaches a system for testing an image sensor that includes a light source (28 and 34), aperture (21), collimating lens (24), and signal processor (10).
Piety et al. (US 12,675,886) teaches a system and method reduce noise and improve measured values of cameras that includes calibration targets, LEDS, and/or a fixed pattern to calibrate infrared cameras (col. 8, lines 8-10).
Fucile (US 2022/0155462) teaches method and apparatus for calibrating a camera that includes a white reflective target ([0025]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a test arrangement comprising: namely the matrix elements have mirror elements which selectively make the optical path passable, or bring about blocking of the optical path and deflection into a light trap.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest, along with the other claimed limitations, a test arrangement comprising: namely, the infrared light source is provided by an infrared laser that outputs an essentially bundled laser beam, and the imaging device is provided by a laser deflector that selectively images the laser beam onto the infrared camera in a raster process, or blocks the laser beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carolyn Fin whose telephone number is (571)270-1286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/CAROLYN FIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights