DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 11/04/2025 in which claims 9 and 10 are cancelled, claims 1–3 and 12–15 are amended, and claims 20–25 are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to claim 13, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. Remarks, 8.
On pages 8–9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the rationale for the rejection of the previous version of independent claim 1 is deficient for failing to disclose, teach, or suggest the features added by way of amendment. Examiner finds the arguments moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Specifically, additional rationale and teachings from McCutchen are cited to disclose the newly recited elements of the claims. See rejections, infra.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends newly added claims 20–25 are patentable over the teachings of McCutchen. Examiner relies on the combination of McCutchen, Bohn, and Chan to teach or suggest the features of newly added claims 20–25. See rejections, infra.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 11–12.
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 1–8 and 11–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCutchen (US 2006/0072020 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McCutchen discloses a frameless image data capturing system, which comprises: a sensor mount including one or more line scan image sensors (McCutchen, ¶¶ 0011, 0016, and 0036: teaches multiple line scan sensors mounted to a rotating drum being preferable over a single line scan image sensor for better light sensitivity and better stereoscopic effect; Therefore, McCutchen teaches both single and multiple line scan image sensors mounted to a rotatable drum), the sensor mount couplable to a support (McCutchen, ¶ 0037: teaches sensors on a rotatable drum); and a control system operatively coupled to the sensor mount and the one or more line scan image sensors, the control system comprising one or more processors and at least one memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (McCutchen, ¶ 0038: teaches a rotating camera drum rotating around an axis of rotation using a motor and having a base with a handle wherein signaling between the camera and processing circuitry is accomplished through a connecting cable): selectively rotate the sensor mount relative to the support about a central longitudinal axis of the sensor mount (McCutchen, ¶ 0038 and elsewhere as demonstrated, supra: teaches a rotating camera drum rotating around an axis of rotation using a motor and having a base with a handle); capture, with the one or more line scan image sensors, image line data of an object at defined time instances (McCutchen, ¶ 0040: teaches a scan line of two thousand pixels scanned four thousand times per rotation and producing an image frame 60 times per second; Examiner notes the timing of each scan line as described by McCutchen is defined in terms of time instances); integrate the image line data to generate stereo image data of the object (McCutchen, ¶ 0040: teaches the image lines are assembled into imaged frames and combined between two stereoscopic channels to create a stereoscopic image); and transmit the stereo image data to a stereo image device (McCutchen, ¶ 0062: teaches transmitting the image data to a display device); and wherein each of the one or more line scan image sensors comprises a plurality of first individual line scan image sensors arranged in side by side relation and disposed at a first angular position with respect to the central longitudinal axis (McCutchen, ¶ 0005: teaches the definition of a line scan camera is a camera with a row of sensors in a single line wherein either the object or the camera traverses along a path perpendicular to the line; McCutchen, ¶ 0008: teaches several rotating line-scan cameras wherein the scan lines are disposed at an angle with respect to the central longitudinal axis; see also e.g. McCutchen, Fig. 5: illustrating sensors with respect to a central longitudinal axis), and wherein the control system integrates exposures from each of the first individual line scan image sensors as the sensor mount rotates (McCutchen, ¶ 0040: teaches the image lines are assembled into imaged frames and combined between two stereoscopic channels to create a stereoscopic image; Examiner notes line sensors, in general, do this).
Regarding claim 2, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the sensor mount includes a first camera unit disposed at the first angular position with respect to the central longitudinal axis and a second camera unit disposed at a second angular position with respect to the central longitudinal axis different from the first angular position, the first camera unit including the plurality of first individual line scan image sensors, the second camera unit including a plurality of second individual line scan image sensors (McCutchen, ¶ 0038 and Fig. 1: teaches two sensors 6 and 10 on opposite sides of the rotating drum although McCutchen explains more sensors are possible and even desirable for increased resolution and higher dynamic range and light sensitivity (e.g. ¶ 0041); McCutchen, Fig. 5: teaches cameras 6 and 10 at different angular positions with respect to the longitudinal axis; see also original claim 3 explaining the sensors are on opposite sides).
Regarding claim 3, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 2 wherein the first and second camera units are arranged in diametric opposed relation on the sensor mount (McCutchen, ¶ 0038 and Figs. 1 and 5: teaches two sensors 6 and 10 on opposite sides of the rotating drum).
Regarding claim 4, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the one or more line scan image sensors are arranged in general orthogonal relation to the object (McCutchen, ¶ 0039: teaches the line scan image sensors are arranged orthogonal to the optical axis; Examiner notes this is how line scan cameras work).
Regarding claim 5, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: control an exposure time of the one or more line scan image sensors for a predetermined sector of rotation of the sensor mount (McCutchen, ¶ 0041: teaches that an exposure period can coincide with a portion of the sphere during rotation and teaches timing the exposure time to coincide with a rotational position of the sensor and its scans).
Regarding claim 6, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein capturing image line data includes obtaining, with the one or more line scan image sensors, multiple individual image line data at the defined time instances within a predetermined sector of rotation of the sensor mount (McCutchen, ¶ 0041: teaches that an exposure period can coincide with a portion of the sphere during rotation and teaches timing the exposure time to coincide with a rotational position of the sensor and its scans such that each camera would be able to capture ten scans within a predetermined sector during an exposure period).
Regarding claim 7, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the one or more line scan image sensors comprise a CMOS sensor (McCutchen, ¶ 0005: teaches CMOS image sensors as line scan sensors).
Regarding claim 8, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1 including at least one additional line scan image sensor (McCutchen, ¶ 0038 and Fig. 1: teaches two sensors 6 and 10 on opposite sides of the rotating drum although McCutchen explains more sensors are possible and even desirable for increased resolution and higher dynamic range and light sensitivity (e.g. ¶ 0041)).
Regarding claim 9, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein each line scan image sensor comprises a plurality of adjacent vertical line arrays that are angularly offset relative to one another, and wherein the control system integrates partial exposures from each vertical line array as the sensor mount rotates, thereby creating a cumulative longer exposure for enhanced image quality (McCutchen, ¶ 0041: teaches that an exposure period can coincide with a portion of the sphere during rotation and teaches timing the exposure time to coincide with a rotational position of the sensor and its scans such that each camera would be able to capture ten scans within a predetermined sector during an exposure period, which enhances, for example, resolution and dynamic range).
Regarding claim 10, McCutchen discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein each line scan image sensor is configured for fast shutter operation with short integration times, such that the control system captures images of moving objects (McCutchen, ¶ 0042: teaches fast scanning operation, for example 30 frames per second, for recording motion video).
Regarding claim 11, McCutchen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more line scan image sensors each include an event-driven architecture configured to continuously detect changes in light intensity, and wherein the control system aggregates events from multiple angular positions to produce integrated stereo image data (This claim is interpreted in light of Applicant’s published paragraph [0055], which explains the event-driven architecture means adding or integrating sequential segments of illumination across different vertical slices to create a longer exposure time such that it creates a time/angle-multiplexed accumulation that sums exposures over time; McCutchen, ¶ 0041: teaches that an exposure period can coincide with a portion of the sphere during rotation and teaches timing the exposure time to coincide with a rotational position of the sensor and its scans such that each camera would be able to capture ten scans within a predetermined sector during an exposure period, which enhances, for example, resolution and dynamic range; see also McCutchen, Abstract: teaching increasing light sensitivity through multiplexed or additive recording of the image data; see also McCutchen, ¶ 0041: teaching multiple redundant scans added together to increase light sensitivity; see also McCutchen, ¶ 0043: teaching multiple scans from a sensor can be added together to increase light sensitivity).
Claim 12 lists essentially the same elements as claim 1, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists essentially the same elements as claim 2, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists essentially the same elements as claim 3, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists essentially the same elements as claim 4, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists essentially the same elements as claim 8, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists essentially the same elements as claim 5, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists essentially the same elements as claim 6, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists essentially the same elements as claim 7, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
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 20–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCutchen (US 2006/0072020 A1), Bohn (US 2017/0085790 A1), and Chan (US 2021/0185266 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of McCutchen, Bohn, and Chan teaches or suggests the system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: selectively control a rotational speed of the sensor mount to accommodate a detected moving object, the moving object moving relative to the sensor mount at a relative velocity (Bohn, ¶ 0019: teaches a computing system capable of varying the speed of the rotating shaft of a line scan camera based on region of interest; Examiner notes the skilled artisan understands the region of interest can be defined based on the relative velocity of a moving object and that varying the speed of image acquisition based on relative speed of an object of interest is obvious; see Chan, ¶ 0128: teaching adjusting frame rate based on the relative velocity of an object of interest in the image); wherein integrating the image line data includes processing the image line data based at least in part on the relative velocity of the moving object to generate the stereo image data of the object (Examiner notes the integration of the image line data is related to how fast the imaging system is spinning; see e.g. McCutchen, ¶¶ 0040 and 0041: explaining the building up of the image from the line scans is a function of rotational speed; Accordingly, if the speed of rotation is based on relative speed of an object/region of interest and the integration is based on the speed of rotation, then the integration is based on the relative speed of the object of interest).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by McCutchen, with those of Bohn, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice rotational line scanning would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining McCutchen’s rotational line scan camera with Bohn’s capability to control the rotational speed of the shaft based on a region of interest is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of McCutchen and Bohn used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by McCutchen and Bohn, with those of Chan, because both Bohn and Chan are drawn to image processing for defining regions of interest in an image, because Chan is simply describing what the skilled artisan already knows about relative velocity of an object of interest and the temporal relationship between frame rate and object motion, and because the skilled artisan would understand that changing McCutchen’s frame rate in the way Chan suggests would entail changing the rotational speed of the scanning camera system according to Bohn’s teachings. Therefore, as the prior art demonstrates, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of McCutchen, Bohn, and Chan used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of McCutchen, Bohn, and Chan teaches or suggests the system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: dynamically switch a rotational speed of the sensor mount between a high speed mode and a low speed mode, the sensor mount having a rotational speed when in the high speed mode greater than a rotational speed when in the low speed mode (Bohn, ¶ 0019: teaches a computing system capable of varying the speed of the rotating shaft of a line scan camera based on region of interest; Chan, ¶ 0128: teaches high and low speed frame rates, which the skilled artisan knows, from McCutchen’s ¶ 0040, can be controlled in a rotating line scan camera system by adjusting rotation speed).
Claim 22 lists essentially the same elements as claim 20, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 20 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists essentially the same elements as claim 21, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists essentially the same elements as claim 20, but explains the rotational speed corresponds to a relatively static object and a relatively dynamic object. In addition to the rationale for the rejections of claims 1 and 20, the instant claim is further rejected based on Chan’s teaching that relatively stationary objects get a lower frame rate while faster moving objects get a faster frame rate, which McCutchen explains is controlled by the rotational speed of the rotating line scan camera.
Claim 25 lists essentially the same elements as claims 1 and 2. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claims 1 and 2 apply to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bohn (US 2017/0085790 A1) teaches a line scan camera coupled to a rotating shaft (¶ 0018).
Resengaus (US 2013/0096873 A1) teaches an omnidirectional camera may be implemented using a line scan camera mounted on a rotating shaft (¶ 0044).
KR 2012-0125073 teaches omnidirectional cameras combining images from several cameras can have problems related to differences in brightness, teaches two line scan cameras on a support plate coupled to a rotation axis of a motor, wherein the line scan cameras are CMOS. Translation by Google Patents provided.
Sudar (US 2021/0133475 A1) teaches detecting an object or region of interest and determining its relative velocity for controlling frame rate (¶ 0035).
Moon (US 2009/0257646 A1) teaches line scan camera being made up of several tens of line sensors (¶ 0055).
Corson (US 2008/0062257 A1) teaches line scan cameras can have a single line of sensors several hundred pixels long (¶ 0043).
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481