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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is/are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,294,785. This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been issued to patent. Although the conflicting claims do not recite identical language, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,985,429. This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been issued to patent. Although the conflicting claims do not recite identical language, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,722,776 (hereinafter ‘776) in view of EICHLER et al. (Pub. US Pub. No.: 2016-0287133) in view of IOFFE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0131974). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have been issued to patent. Although the conflicting claims do not recite identical language, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention, except for the following:
As per Claim 1 ‘776 does not claim but EICHLER discloses illumination of the image sensor by the imaging beam is reduced by at least one of partial occlusion by a constrained space in which the imaging system is installed (Figs. 1-2 partial occlusion of beam via installation and assembly 44 [0027-0029]) and the scan angle of the scanning mirror structure being outside a predetermined range of scan angles (either or)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include illumination of the image sensor by the imaging beam is reduced by at least one of partial occlusion by a constrained space in which the imaging system is installed and the scan angle of the scanning mirror structure being outside a predetermined range of scan angle as taught by EICHLER into the system of ‘776 because of the benefit taught by EICHLER to disclose detection of occluded light potential in an imaging system with angled captured considerations whereby said system is directed towards imaging light detection and reflection processes and would directly benefit from teaching that detect occluded light used for image capture to improve upon system functionality.
‘776 does not claim and EICHLER does not disclose but IOFFE discloses the values of the scan angle along the scan path are selected based on a model representing imaging (Figs. 1-5 [0023-0024] [0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the values of the scan angle along the scan path are selected based on a model representing imaging as taught by IOFFE into the system of ‘776 and EICHLER because of the benefit taught by IOFFE to disclose further extensive processing of imaging at various angles of scan and detection whereby said systems both may benefit from teaching that are related to improvements in equivalent goals and outcomes for image captures at respective angles.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAPSTUN et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0150142) in view of EICHLER et al. (Pub. US Pub. No.: 2016-0287133) in view of IOFFE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0131974).
As per Claim 1 LAPSTUN discloses An imaging system housed in a vehicle comprising (Figs. 1-16 ariel vehicle [Abstract]):
a camera configured to capture a set of images along a scan path on an object area (Figs. 1-16 beam steering mechanism [Abstract] [0010-0013] lens [0018-0019]);
a scanning mirror structure including at least one mirror surface (Figs. 1-17 and Figs. 63-64 mirror 604 collect scan and drive controller 710 to control and drive all [0068-0070] [0075] [0479-0480]);
and a drive coupled to the scanning mirror structure and configured to rotate the scanning mirror structure about a scan axis based on a scan angle (Figs. 1-17, 45-48, 63 [0012-0013] angle about the capture plane scan axis [0068-0070] [0075] [0368] rotation angle for the device [0404-0407] drive motor 630 [0424-0428] [0479-0480]);
wherein the camera includes a lens to focus an imaging beam reflected from the scanning mirror structure to an image sensor of the camera (Figs. 1-17, 45-48, 63 [0012-0013] mirror 604 collect scan and drive controller 710 to control and drive all [0068-0070] [0075] [0479-0480]),
at least one of an elevation and azimuth of the imaging beam captured by the camera varies according to the scan angle (Figs. 1-17, 45-48, 63 [0012-0013] [0051-0052] – and see Figs. 73B-75A for elevation [0122-0125] [0511-0513]),
the image sensor of the camera captures the set of images along the scan path by sampling the imaging beam at values of the scan angle (Figs. 1-17, 45-48, 63 capture plane scan axis and with each angle change equates to a sampling [0051-0052] [0068-0070] [0075] [0368] and see Figs. 11, 73A-75B [0294-0295] [0511-0513]), the illumination of the image sensor by the imaging beam (Figs. 1-16 beam steering mechanism [Abstract] [0010-0013] lens [0018-0019])
LAPSTUN does not disclose but EICHLER discloses illumination of the image sensor by the imaging beam is reduced by at least one of partial occlusion by a constrained space in which the imaging system is installed (Figs. 1-2 partial occlusion of beam via installation and assembly 44 [0027-0029]) and the scan angle of the scanning mirror structure being outside a predetermined range of scan angles (either or),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include illumination of the image sensor by the imaging beam is reduced by at least one of partial occlusion by a constrained space in which the imaging system is installed and the scan angle of the scanning mirror structure being outside a predetermined range of scan angle as taught by EICHLER into the system of LAPSTUN because of the benefit taught by EICHLER to disclose detection of occluded light potential in an imaging system with angled captured considerations whereby LAPSTUN is directed towards imaging light detection and reflection processes and would directly benefit from teaching that detect occluded light used for image capture to improve upon system functionality.
LAPSTUN and EICHLER do not disclose but IOFFE discloses the values of the scan angle along the scan path are selected based on a model representing imaging (Figs. 1-5 [0023-0024] [0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the values of the scan angle along the scan path are selected based on a model representing imaging as taught by IOFFE into the system of LAPSTUN and EICHLER because of the benefit taught by IOFFE to disclose further extensive processing of imaging at various angles of scan and detection whereby LAPSTUN and EICHLER both may benefit from teaching that are related to improvements in equivalent goals and outcomes for image captures at respective angles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. 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 571-270-4688.
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 any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481