DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments filed on 07/30/2026 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, independent claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Further, claim 11 has been cancelled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-10 and 12-20 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-12, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the work of Roulet et al. US 2019/0213710 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Roulet. For this reason, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant has incorporated the subject matter of now cancelled claim 11 into independent claim 1 to read “wherein the lens is configured with a barrel distortion profile that provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV.” (emphasis added). The same also applies to independent claims 8 and 15. Examiner agrees the art of record (notably Yu and Olsson) does not address the amended feature. Although Yu teaches the IFOV becoming smaller (with higher pixel density) as the field point moves away from the edge to the center of the FOV as previously claimed, Yu does not appear to discuss having a constant IFOV. As for Colucci, the examiner understands Applicant’s arguments regarding the projection system which differs from the disclosed “thermal imaging camera system” (pgs. 8-10 of remarks). However, the examiner believes Colucci’s teachings, when considering the combined art of record, remain relevant in the sense that having an equal angular pixel distribution, whether it relates to projected pixels on a projection surface (as in Colucci) or pixels of a thermal image sensor (as claimed), still appear to reasonably describe a constant “pixel angular resolution”. Although the pixels are not pixels of a sensor, they are pixels on a surface having what is believed the desired pixel angular resolution. Nonetheless, to help better address the foregoing, the examiner brings in the work of Roulet which describes an optoelectronic apparatus that captures images using a wide-angle lens having a specific distortion profile (e.g. ¶0002, ¶0007-¶0008). Although Roulet does not explicitly refer to a “barrel distortion profile” as in Yu (e.g. ¶0028), Roulet does appear to describe a distortion profile that exhibits similar characteristics, where the magnification increases from the edge FOV to the center FOV (figs. 2-3). The higher magnification at the center thus appears to bulge out similar to what is found in a fish-eye image (¶0060 of the filed specification). With the specific distortion profile of Roulet’s wide-angle lens, a continuous magnification with constant resolution can be achieved across the FOV (e.g. ¶0008). Thus, it is the examiner’s understanding that if both the center pixels and the edge pixels of the FOV have a 1:1 pixel ratio with the image sensor pixels at that position, the resolution in pixels/degree (i.e. the “pixel angular resolution”) will be equal/constant across the FOV. If the number of pixels between the input image and the full FOV is close to 1:1 (¶0024), this seems to suggest having an equal “pixel angular resolution” which corresponds to the unique shape of the lens distortion profile. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits the works of Yu, Olsson, and Roulet, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the foregoing amended features given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see office action below for further details.
3. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
4. Accordingly, Claims 1-10 and 12-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1-3 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu et al. US 2021/0088774 A1, in view of Olsson US 2018/0063454 A1, and in further view of Roulet et al. US 2019/0213710 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yu, Olsson, and Roulet, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Yu teaches and/or suggest “A thermal imaging camera system arranged for capturing thermal images within a field of view (FOV) [See ¶0030-¶0031 regarding a vision system that may focus infrared light received from a degraded visual environment onto a sensor (e.g. camera and/or Focal Plane Array)], comprising: a thermal imaging sensor comprising a microbolometer array providing a focal plane array of pixels for a thermal image [Although a “microbolometer array” is not explicitly indicated, Yu does disclose a “Focal Plane Array” (FPA) of pixels for thermal imaging. See for e.g. ¶0026-¶0028. Please refer to Olsson regarding said “microbolometer array”], the microbolometer array having sensitivity to infrared (IR) radiation [See ¶0026-¶0028, where a FPA for SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR may be employed], the microbolometer array converting the received IR radiation to an electrical signal representing the thermal image [See figs. 1 and 2A-2B, where the output from sensor 104 is directed to computing device 106 for processing]; and a lens arranged to focus IR radiation [See for e.g. ¶0025 with respect to a lens having distortion], emitted by a target within the FOV of the thermal imaging camera system [¶0025-¶0026, for e.g., describe approach light as the source (fig. 3), where infrared wavelengths may be used to facilitate improving contrast for point source detection], onto the microbolometer array [See Yu’s FPA in fig. 2B], wherein the lens is configured with a barrel distortion profile [Please refer to fig. 4B (¶0042) with respect to a centered lens with distortion. A negative distortion (e.g. -44%) indicates a barrel type distortion. Fig. 5B also shows distributed points across the grid of the FPA in a barrel/fisheye distortion pattern] that provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV.” [¶0042 and ¶0044 (with reference to figs. 4B and 5B, respectively) shows a higher pixel density at the center compared to the edge (i.e. is greater), where the IFOV becomes smaller as the field point moves toward the center, away from the edge. Since Yu does not address being “equal” as now required, the work of Roulet (below) is relied on.] Although Yu’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, Yu’s FPA for infrared imaging is not explicitly shown to be a “microbolometer” FPA. As such, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “a microbolometer array providing a focal plane array of pixels for a thermal image” [Please refer to IR detector 1132 in the thermal imaging device 170 of fig. 1, with reference to ¶0042, which shows said detector can be a micro-bolometer FPA] Given Olsson’s teachings above, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to show that the micro-bolometer FPA in Olsson can be used in any thermal imaging system, such as the one in Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), for capturing IR images of an observed scene, and more specifically for correcting fixed pattern noise in thermal imaging (e.g. ¶0002). Although the teachings of Yu and Olsson are deemed relevant for the reasons discussed, they do not reasonably address “wherein the lens is configured with a barrel distortion profile that provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV.” As such, Roulet from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest the above features. [With the specific distortion profile of Roulet’s wide-angle lens, a continuous magnification with constant resolution can be achieved across the FOV (e.g. ¶0008). If the no. of pixels between the input image and the full FOV is ~1:1 (¶0024), it is believed the “pixel angular resolution” will be equal based on the unique shape of the lens distortion profile. Please reference examiner’s response #2 above] Unlike Yu above, Roulet’s distortion profile is not explicitly referred to as being a barrel distortion profile as claimed. However, since Roulet’s distortion profile shows a decreasing magnification from the center to the edge of the FOV (figs. 2-3), this appears to have the effect of enlarging objects at the center similar to what is found using a barrel type distortion lens (fig. 13B of filed specification). As such, the work of Roulet is deemed relevant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider other lens distortion profiles, such as the one in Roulet, in the thermal imaging system of Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B) along with Olsson’s micro-bolometer FPA, to help achieve an almost constant image resolution with a reduced need for pixel interpolation (e.g. ¶0002).
Regarding claim 2, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising an image processor for processing the electrical signal from the microbolometer array to generate the thermal image for rendering on a display system.” [See fig. 1]
Regarding claim 3, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “in which the image processor provides one or more of calibration, thermal image correction, gain control, dynamic range compression, thermal image detail enhancement, thermal image edge enhancement, noise reduction, color mapping, data filtering, data conversion, or image fusion.” [Various processing (computing device 106) may be performed for enhancement. See for e.g. ¶0036-¶0037 regarding changing a size or at least one of a color or brightness of the at least one-point source object]
Regarding claim 15, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Yu teaches and/or suggest “A method for improving center-field detection range of a thermal imaging camera having a two-dimensional microbolometer array and lens, comprising: providing a thermal imaging detector comprising the two-dimensional microbolometer array with a predetermined area that can be, the thermal imaging detector being sensitive to infrared (IR) radiation [Although Yu does not refer to a “microbolometer array”, Yu does describe a FPA (e.g. fig 2B) that can be used for infrared imaging (e.g. ¶0026). Please see Olsson below regarding a micro-bolometer FPA]; selecting a field of view (FOV) for the lens [A field of view for a lens is described for e.g. in ¶0028 of Yu]; fabricating the lens with a distortion profile mathematically described by a polynomial function having terms greater than second degree [Although Yu does not ‘explicitly’ indicate using higher order terms in the distortion profile, Yu’s high distortion lens exhibits negative distortion and/or barrel/fisheye distortion, which are known to be characterized by polynomial models (e.g. ¶0045 of Braley US 2021/00036872 A1 and ¶0035 of Hu et al. US 2020/0364832 A1) Thus, Yu suggests the foregoing] such that an angular resolution of the lens has a maximum value at a center of the FOV [See ¶0042 and ¶0044 with reference to figs. 4B and 5B, respectively. The IFOV becomes smaller (with higher pixel density) as the field point moves toward the center, away from the edge. Thus for the central region, the pixel density exceeds that at the edge so as to improve detection of point source objects] and to provide a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is substantially equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV [Yu does not describe this feature. Please see Roulet below for corresponding support]; and positioning the lens in the thermal imaging camera to focus IR radiation emitted from objects located within the FOV onto the thermal imaging detector over the predetermined area. [See Yu’s system in fig. 1 depicting the optical arrangement, which may include the infrared wavelengths (e.g. ¶0026)] Although Yu’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, it is not apparent Yu’s FPA for infrared imaging is a “microbolometer array” as required. As such, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “a thermal imaging detector comprising the two-dimensional microbolometer array with a predetermined area that can be, the thermal imaging detector being sensitive to infrared (IR) radiation” [Please refer to IR detector 1132 in the thermal imaging device 170 of fig. 1, with reference to ¶0042, which shows said detector can be a micro-bolometer FPA] The motivation for combining Yu and Olsson has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Although Yu and Olsson are deemed relevant with respect to the features above given their BRI, they do not address “and to provide a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is substantially equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV”. Roulet, on the other hand, from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to further illustrate the foregoing. [With the specific distortion profile of Roulet’s wide-angle lens, a continuous magnification with constant resolution can be achieved across the FOV (e.g. ¶0008). If the no. of pixels between the input image and the full FOV is ~1:1 (¶0024), it is believed the “pixel angular resolution” will be equal based on the unique shape of the lens distortion profile. Please reference examiner’s response #2 above] The motivation for combining Yu, Olsson, and Roulet has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 16, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Yu and Olsson do not address the features of claim 16, the work of Roulet from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “in which the angular resolution is constant over the FOV.” [With the specific distortion profile of Roulet’s wide-angle lens, a continuous magnification with constant resolution can be achieved across the FOV (e.g. ¶0008). If the no. of pixels between the input image and the full FOV is ~1:1 (¶0024), it is believed the “pixel angular resolution” will be equal based on the unique shape of the lens distortion profile. Please reference examiner’s response #2 above]
Regarding claim 17, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “in which the angular resolution decreases over the FOV from the maximum value at the center of the FOV to a minimum value at an edge of the FOV.” [See ¶0042 and ¶0044 with reference to figs. 4B and 5B, respectively, where the IFOV becomes smaller (with higher pixel density) as the field point moves toward the center, away from the edge. Thus for the central region, the pixel density exceeds that at the edge so as to improve detection of point source objects]
Regarding claim 18, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “in which the lens distortion profile comprises a barrel distortion profile.” [Please refer to fig. 4B (¶0042) with respect to a centered lens with distortion. A negative distortion (e.g. -44%) indicates a barrel type distortion. Fig. 5B also shows distributed points across the grid of the FPA in a barrel/fisheye distortion pattern]
Regarding claim 19, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “in which the polynomial function comprises one of thin prism model, PTlens model, Poly3 model, general polynomial model, extended polynomial model, Brown-Conrady model, or Kannala-Brandt model.” [Although Yu does not ‘explicitly’ indicate using higher order terms in the distortion profile, Yu’s high distortion lens exhibits negative distortion and/or barrel/fisheye distortion, that are known to be characterized by polynomial models (e.g. ¶0045 of Braley US 2021/00036872 A1 and ¶0035 of Hu et al. US 2020/0364832 A1). Thus, Yu suggests the foregoing given the “comprises one of” limitation]
Regarding claim 20, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu further teaches and/or suggests “in which the lens is fabricated from a material that transmits IR radiation.” [See for e.g. ¶0031 of Yu regarding lens 102 with respect to infrared light]
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu, in view of Olsson, in further view of Roulet, and in further view of Benesh US 2017/0343809 A1, hereinafter referred to as Benesh.
Regarding claim 4, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Yu however does not address the features of claim 4. However, Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor, does teach and/or suggest “further comprising a user interface board configured to provide connectivity between the thermal imaging camera system and external systems or electronic devices for one or more of data transfer, power management, or configuration and control of the thermal imaging camera system.” given the BRI and recognizing the “or” limitation above. [Olsson shows a user input device 117 (fig. 1), where said user may provide inputs via a touch screen, for example, to the processor that connects to the IR imager. Also shown is communication interface 116 connecting the processor with external/internal units for sending/receiving data and/or parameters. The foregoing suggests configuration and control of the thermal imaging camera system] The motivation for combining Yu and Olsson has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Although Olsson reasonably addresses the aforementioned limitation (where Roulet does not), the work of Benesh from the same or similar field of endeavor is further introduced for teaching and/or suggesting these features. [See user interface 118 (fig. 1) for controlling a camera which may receive EM radiation at any range of wavelengths including the non-visible. For e.g. a FLIR. See ¶0030 and ¶0034] Given Benesh’s teachings above, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify point source detection system of Yu along with the micro-bolometer FPA in Olsson and Roulet’s lens distortion profile, to add the HMD of Benesh as above to facilitate enhancing the visual perception of augmented reality presentations for a user (e.g. abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Yu, Olsson, Roulet, and Benesh teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Yu does not address the user interface, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on for teaching and/or suggesting “in which the user interface board provides a software interface to the thermal imaging camera system.” [See fig. 1 and corresponding text of Olsson. Also please refer to fig. 1 of Benesh for similar support] The motivation for combining Yu and Olsson has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Yu, Olsson, Roulet, and Benesh teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Yu does not address the user interface, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on for teaching and/or suggesting “in which the user interface board facilitates integration of the thermal imaging camera system as an internal component of an electronic device or as an external accessory component of the electronic device.” [See fig. 1 and corresponding text of Olsson. Also please refer to fig. 1 of Benesh for similar support] The motivation for combining Yu and Olsson has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Yu, Olsson, Roulet, and Benesh teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Yu does not address the user interface, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on for teaching and/or suggesting “in which the user interface board includes a connector supporting a standardized wired or wireless communication protocol.” [Although not explicitly referenced as wired/wireless, Olsson’s teachings of fig. 1 suggest this feature.] The motivation for combining Yu and Olsson has been discussed in connection with claim 1 above. Although Olsson’s work is deemed relevant (where Roulet is not), Benesh from the same or similar field of endeavor is further relied on for teaching and/or suggesting the aforementioned limitation. [For explicit support, see for e.g. ¶0036 regarding a wireless connection] The motivation for combining Yu, Olsson, Roulet, and Benesh has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Claims 8, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bohn US 2013/0077049 A1, hereinafter referred to as Bohn, in view of Yu, in further view of Olsson, and in further view of Roulet.
Regarding claim 8, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Bohn teaches and/or suggests “A head-mounted display (HMD) device wearable by a user and supporting a mixed-reality user experience comprising a display of virtual images for objects in a virtual world and views of objects in a real world [See fig. 1. Bohn’s system 8 includes a see-through display device as a near-eye, head mounted display (HMD) device 2], comprising: a display engine generating virtual images for the mixed-reality user experience [See ¶0036 regarding image generation unit 120 for projecting images of virtual objects]; a see-through waveguide combiner configured to receive the virtual images from the display engine and display the virtual images, the see-through waveguide combiner being located on the HMD device in front of an eye of the user, and through which the user views the real world when the HMD device is donned [See for e.g. ¶0040 regarding a see through planar waveguide 112 (figs. 2A-2C) that transmits light from micro display 120 to the eye 140 of a user. It also transmits light from the front of the HMD which allows said user to see the actual direct view of the forward space in addition to receiving a virtual image from said micro display]; and a thermal imaging camera generating thermal images of target objects located in the real world within a field of view (FOV) [Given the BRI of the limitation, see IR camera as sensor 134B (e.g. ¶0054). Also note IR camera 564 (e.g. ¶0081). See Yu below for further support regarding thermal imaging] Since Bohn does not address the remaining features of claim 8, the work of Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on for teaching and/or suggesting “the thermal imaging camera including a thermal imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels arranged in a focal plane [See figs. 1 and 2A-2B of Yu regarding using a FPA for thermal imaging (e.g. ¶0026)] implemented using microbolometers sensitive to infrared (IR) radiation [Since Yu does not describe using “microbolometers”, please see Olsson below for support] and further including a non-rectilinear lens [See for e.g. ¶0028 of Yu with respect to using a high distortion lens (e.g. negative distortion and/or barrel/fisheye distortion], wherein the non-rectilinear lens focuses IR radiation emitted from the target objects onto the thermal imaging sensor, wherein the non-rectilinear lens imparts distortion to the focused IR radiation that varies non-linearly with a field height in the focal plane [See figs. 4B and 5B of Yu and corresponding text for support], and wherein the non-rectilinear lens provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is substantially equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV.” [Since Yu and Olsson do not address having an equal pixel angular resolution from the center to the edge of the FOV, the work of Roulet (see below) is relied on], Given Yu’s teachings above, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixed reality display system of Bohn (e.g. fig. 1), to add the work of Yu as above to exploit distortion in a lens of an imaging system in a degraded visual environment so that detection of point source objects can be improved by increasing a pixel density in a region of interest (e.g. ¶0025). Although Yu’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, Yu’s FPA for infrared imaging is not explicitly shown to be a “microbolometer” FPA. As such, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “implemented using microbolometers sensitive to infrared (IR) radiation” [Please refer to IR detector 1132 in the thermal imaging device 170 of fig. 1, with reference to ¶0042, which shows said detector can be a micro-bolometer FPA] Given Olsson’s teachings above, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to show that the micro-bolometer FPA in Olsson can be used in any thermal imaging system, such as those presented in Bohn (e.g. fig. 9) and/or Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), for capturing IR images of an observed scene, and more specifically for correcting fixed pattern noise in thermal imaging (e.g. ¶0002). Since Yu (and Olsson) does not address “and wherein the non-rectilinear lens provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is substantially equal to a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV”, Roulet from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest these features. [With the specific distortion profile of Roulet’s wide-angle lens (e.g. fig. 3), a continuous magnification with constant resolution can be achieved across the FOV (e.g. ¶0008). If the no. of pixels between the input image and the full FOV is ~1:1 (¶0024), it is believed the “pixel angular resolution” will be equal based on the unique shape of the lens distortion profile. Please reference examiner’s response #2 above] Unlike Yu above, Roulet’s distortion profile is not explicitly referred to as being a barrel distortion profile as claimed. However, since Roulet’s distortion profile shows a decreasing magnification from the center to the edge of the FOV (figs. 2-3), this appears to have the effect of enlarging objects at the center similar to what is found using a barrel type distortion lens (fig. 13B of filed specification). As such, the work of Roulet is deemed relevant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider other lens distortion profiles, such as the one in Roulet, in the thermal imaging system of Bohn (e.g. fig. 9) and/or Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), along with Olsson’s micro-bolometer FPA, to help achieve an almost constant image resolution with a reduced need for pixel interpolation (e.g. ¶0002).
Regarding claim 12, Bohn, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However Bohn does not address the features of claim 12. Yu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “in which the non-rectilinear lens provides a pixel angular resolution for a central area of the FOV that is greater than a pixel angular resolution for edge areas of the FOV.” [See for e.g. ¶0042 and ¶0044 of Yu] The motivation for combining Bohn and Yu has been discussed in connection with claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 13, Bohn, Yu, Olsson and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Here Bohn and Yu appear to teach and/or suggest “further comprising a near-IR camera system.” [Although a “near-IR” camera system is not explicit, Bohn does describe an IR camera or an IR position sensitive detector (¶0042). Given Bohn’s teachings, selecting a camera system based on its sensitivity to a particular wavelength/range of wavelengths would be considered within the level of skill in the art. Yu also does not explicitly teach the “near-IR”, however, the use of short-wave IR (SWIR) is referenced (e.g. ¶0026), which although is technically not the NIR, it is spectrally close and thus would be within the level of skill in the art]
Regarding claim 14, Bohn, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Bohn does not appear however to address the features of claim 14. Further, although Yu’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, Yu’s FPA for infrared imaging is not explicitly shown to be a “microbolometer” FPA. As such, the work of Olsson from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “in which the thermal imaging sensor comprises an uncooled microbolometer array.” [Please refer to IR detector 1132 in the thermal imaging device 170 of fig. 1 (with reference to ¶0042) which can be a micro-bolometer FPA. This is understood to not require cooling (please see pg. 2 of WO 2016027764 A1 – see attached)]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bohn, in view of Yu, in further view of Olsson, in further view of Roulet, and in further view of Oskotsky et al. US 2020/0081225 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oskotsky.
Regarding claim 9, Bohn, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although ¶0028 of Yu teaches a high distortion lens (e.g. negative distortion and/or barrel/fisheye distortion), Yu and the other prior art do not describe a lens having an f-theta distortion profile as recited in claim 9. On the other hand, Oskotsky from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “in which the non-rectilinear lens has an f-theta distortion profile.” [See e.g. ¶0003-¶0004 with respect to F-theta lenses] Given Oskotsky’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute other non-rectilinear lens that have other lens distortion profiles, including the wide field-of-view F-theta lens in Oskotsky, with the lens profiles in the thermal imaging systems of Bohn (e.g. fig. 9) and Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), together with Olsson’s micro-bolometer FPA and Roulet’s wide-angle lens, to help allow for simplifying target and feature location algorithms, thereby eliminating the need for complicated electronic corrections by providing focused images on a flat plane without spatial distortion (e.g. ¶0004).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bohn, in view of Yu, in further view of Olsson, in further view of Roulet, and in further view of Moggridge et al. US 2020/0333187 A1, hereinafter referred to as Moggridge.
Regarding claim 10, Bohn, Yu, Olsson, and Roulet teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although ¶0028 of Yu teaches a high distortion lens (e.g. negative distortion and/or barrel/fisheye distortion), Yu and the other prior art do not describe a lens having an f-theta distortion profile as recited in claim 10. On the other hand, Moggridge from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “in which the non-rectilinear lens has a quartic distortion profile.” [See for e.g. ¶0058 with respect to a radially symmetric distortion can be described by a quartic equation]. Given Moggridge’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute other non-rectilinear lens that have other lens distortion profiles, including that of Moggridge above, with the lens profiles in the thermal imaging systems of Bohn (e.g. fig. 9) and Yu (figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), together with Olsson’s micro-bolometer FPA and Roulet’s wide-angle lens, for enabling the use of apochromatic or non-apochromatic lenses to image a wide wavelength range with higher image resolution and higher quality (e.g. ¶0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
