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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-24 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 13 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets (Pub No. US 20140233082 A1) in view of Millikan (Pub No. US 20130300850 A1) in further view of Couture (Pub No. US 20080011941 A1).
As per claim 1, Smeets teaches the claimed:
A system for providing multispectral vision, the system comprising (Smeets [0006] “The present invention is in the field of multi spectrum vision aid, use thereof, and a method of using the aid”):
a transmitting device configured to capture multispectral information across a plurality of spectral bands including visible light and at least one non-visible spectral band, (Smeets [0027] “Hyperspectral imaging collects and processes information from across the electromagnetic spectrum. Much as the human eye sees visible light in three bands (red, green, and blue), spectral imaging divides the spectrum into many more bands. This technique of dividing images into bands can be extended beyond the visible.”);
a sensor configured to receive the distributed multispectral information (Smeets [0028] “Hyperspectral sensors look at objects using a vast portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Certain objects leave unique `fingerprints` across the electromagnetic spectrum. These `fingerprints` are known as spectral signatures and enable identification of the materials that make up a scanned object. Hyperspectral sensors collect information as a set of `images`.”);
Smeets alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Smeets in combination with Millikan teaches the claimed:
and distribute the multispectral information over a specific area;
a receiving device comprising (Millikan [0011] “In general, in another aspect, the techniques can be implemented to include a camera sensor capable of capturing multispectral images, including a UV light image; a processor configured to process the multispectral images to identify an area of interest”.
In this passage, the camera is the claimed receiving device.
Please also see Millikan [0048] “FIG. 8 shows a block diagram of an exemplary multispectral image capture and processing device. FIG. 8 presents a computer system 800 that can be used to implement the techniques described herein for sharing digital media […]. Image sensor 860 can be coupled to bus 865, which can be used to transfer the image signal to one or more additional components […]. Alternatively, components connected to bus 865 can be connected to computer system 800 through wireless technologies such as Bluetooth, Wifi, or cellular technology.” ):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera to receive multispectral information and utilize wireless technologies as taught by Millikan with the system of Smeets in order to communicate between multiple components in the computer system. This allows for more flexibility and improved operational efficiency throughout the various components within the system.
Smeets and Millikan alone do not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Smeets and Millikan in combination with Couture teaches the claimed:
a processor configured to process the received multispectral information in accordance with at least one user-provided configuration setting by translating information in a non-visible spectral band into information in a visible spectral band (Couture [0024] “As used herein, the term "detector" refers to any one or more elements that receives an image in the visible, infrared or other part of optical spectrum and manipulates and/or transforms this image by amplifying its intensity or converting it to the visible spectrum. ” ); and
a display configured to present the translated visible spectral band information in combination with received visible light information by overlaying the translated information on the visible light information (Couture claim 21 “A method of displaying images, comprising acquiring a multi-spectral image through a common aperture; converting a short wave infrared (SWIR) portion of the acquired image into the visible waveband, thereby generating a converted image; displaying the converted image on a first display; fusing the converted image with at least one additional portion of the acquired image; and displaying the fused image on a second display”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to translate a spectral band as taught by Couture with the system of Smeets as modified by Millikan in order to convert and display a non-visible spectral band into information in a visible spectral band.
As per claim 3, Smeets continues to teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the receiving device, processor, and display are integrated into an augmented reality headset worn by a user (Smeets [0076] “In an example the present invention relates to a multi spectrum vision aid further comprising one or more suspension means, such as a frame. Preferably the frame is of low weight and fits on a human head, such as glasses do”
In this passage, Smeets teaches the multi-spectrum vision aid being able to fit on a human head, which corresponds to the claimed headset).
As per claims 8 and 10, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 1 and 3, respectively, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
______________________________________________________________________________
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets in view of Millikan and Couture in further view of Dam (Pub No. US 20150355447 A1).
As per claim 2, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture in combination with Dam teaches the claimed:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one non-visible spectral band comprises infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, or microwave radiation and the transmitting device is configured to modulate and encode the captured multispectral information prior to distribution (Dam [0028] “EMR is understood to include various types of electromagnetic variation, such as various types corresponding to different wavelength ranges, such as radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, EMR in the visible region (which humans perceive or see as ‘light’), ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use EMR as taught by Dam with the system of Smeets as modified by Millikan and Couture in order to convert non-visible spectral band to visible spectral band. Doing so allows the conversion to include infrared ultraviolet, X-ray, or microwave radiation as a non-visible spectral band.
As per claim 9, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 2, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets in view of Millikan and Couture in further view of Yao (Pub No. US 20180153408 A1).
As per claim 4, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture in combination with Yao teaches the claimed:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user-provided configuration settings comprise controls for adjusting color, brightness, saturation, contrast, or flickering rate of the translated visible spectral band information presented on the display (Yao [0011 – 0012] “The sequence can comprise: one or more of a user-configured sequence; and simultaneous emission of light from two or more of the at least one blue LED, the at least one green LED, the at least one red LED. Respective relative intensity of each of the at least one blue LED, the at least one green LED, the at least one red LED can be adjusted to change one or more of: color temperature of the visible white light; and color rendering of the respective images at the display device”
In this passage, adjusting the color temperature of the visible white light and color rendering are settings that the user can configure via the sequence. These adjustments to the respective images corresponds to the claimed “adjusting color, brightness, saturation, contrast, or flickering rate” of the image shown on the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of allowing the user to create a sequence as taught by Yao with the system of Smeets as modified by Millikan and Couture in order to allow the user to create a setting to adjust the visible spectral band information presented on the display. Doing so allows a streamlined filtering process for multiple images using the same setting.
As per claim 11, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 4, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeets in view of Millikan and Couture in further view of NPL Video Titled “How To Edit Images and Create & Share an Infrared Camera Report from the Fluke Connect™ App”, available for viewing at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hih-9qJ6pI; published 2018, herein referred to as “Fluke_Video” and Guha et al. (Pub No. US 20200396379 A1).
As per claim 5, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture in combination with Fluke_Video teaches the claimed:
receiving via a user interface of the receiving device a user-provided configuration setting specifying mapping of infrared wavelengths to hues in a red/green visible spectrum; and processing infrared data from the received multispectral information by shifting different infrared wavelengths into corresponding hues in the red/green visible spectrum according to the user-provided configuration setting (Please see in Fluke_Video from 0:16 to 0:38. In particular, the video shows that a user interface is used to select a color palette (e.g. grayscale 1 or 2, blue red, high contrast, hot metal, etc.) for displaying the infrared wavelengths in different spectrums; the video shows that the blue red color palette includes red/green hues as well as the shifting of colors when different palettes are selected).
However, Smeets, Millikan, and Couture in combination with Fluke_Video and Guha and teaches the claimed:
wherein the display is configured to present the infrared data translated into the red/green hues overlaid on imagery derived from the received visible light information.
(The Fluke_Video from 0:16 to 0:38 shows the infrared data being displayed with red/green hues, however, they are not 100% clear whether the hues themselves are overlaid. Guha teaches of overlaying the IR data per se in [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interface as taught by Fluke_Video with the system of Smeets as modified by Millikan and Couture in order to allow the user to better customize the display of the infrared data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the overlay taught by Guha with the system of Smeets as modified by Millikan and Couture and Fluke_Video because image overlay is a common and effective technique to combine image pixel data together for display.
As per claim 7, the reasons and rationale for the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. In particular, the Fluke_Video from 0:16 to 0:38 maps and shifts non-visible bands (bands of infrared light) into different colors in the visible spectrum for display using the interface (to different visible color palettes. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
As per claims 12 and 14, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 5 and 7, respectively, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH Y. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8374. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
SARAH Y. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights