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 § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Rivers US 20220326018.
Regarding claim 1, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A system for facilitating the coordination of entities in a volume with respect to a first designated reference point in a naval vessel (i.e. system coordinates vessels in the water with reference to the vessel. Reference point would be the origin point (vessel location)) [66-67; fig. 2,5], said system comprising a data coordinator, said data coordinator configured to receive a plurality of data flows describing a part of said volume, said plurality of data flows comprising at least one or more positioning signals designating a location of one or more said entities, and one or more video signals, and an orientation signal comprising data representing an orientation in a horizontal plane with respect to said first designated reference point (i.e. system 220 has a controller with various data received including imaging data, navigational data includes orientation and position data) [66-67,69,81,86; fig. 2], said coordinator being further configured to determine a first image representing a virtual space (i.e. imagery of the area) [86; fig. 5-7], said first image incorporating:
a view of said volume corresponding to a view from said first designated reference point aligned with said orientation and having a defined viewing angle in at least a yaw axis, compiled from said one or more video signals, said view of said volume comprising a radial projection of said volume in said virtual space (i.e. camera view region 520 is aligned with the perspective of the virtual mode view and has viewing angle 534 in the yaw axis shown) [59,119,122,129; fig. 5,6,7], and
a representation of each said entity falling within a sector radiating from said first designated reference point in alignment with said orientation and subtending said defined viewing angle, said representation taking the form of a respective indicator for each said entity falling within said sector situated in a top-down projection of said volume in said virtual space, with the position of each said respective indicator corresponding to the position of said respective entity in said projection of said volume as specified by one or more said positioning signals (i.e. each vessel/hazard (entity) represented with indicators on both images and use the top-down perspective)) [59,119,122,129; fig. 5,6,7].
Regarding claim 2, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said radial projection corresponds to a projection on a section of a wall of a cylinder or sphere (i.e. image corresponds to a cylindrical projection) [59,119,122,129; fig. 5,6,7].
Regarding claim 3, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1 wherein said radial projection is situated above said top-down projection in said virtual space (i.e. radial projection above the top-down image) [59,119,122,129; fig. 5,6,7].
Regarding claim 4, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said system comprises one or more display elements in fixed relation to a user's head and/or gaze (i.e. OPS used to determine orientation of device to determine FOVs of displays) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 5, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said system further comprises a user attention detection system, and wherein said orientation signal is output by said user attention detection system as a function of the direction of a user's head and/or gaze (i.e. user’s head movement changes the display in real time) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 6, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 5, wherein said user attention detection system and said one or more display elements are incorporated in a handheld unit formed to be manually positioned with respect to a user's eyes (i.e. user’s head movement changes the display in real time) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 7, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 5. wherein said user attention detection system and said one or more display elements are incorporated in a display headset, helmet or goggles unit (i.e. goggles 440) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 8, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said data coordinator is coupled to a communications interface for transmitting said image and receiving said orientation signal (i.e. controller coordinates imaging and orientation) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 9, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein image is continually updated in real time based on the content of said data flows said orientation signal (i.e. user’s head movement changes the display in real time) [102-105; fig. 4].
Regarding claim 10, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein there is determined a second said image, said second image corresponding to said first image, calculated with respect to a second designated reference point, so as to provide a stereoscopic image viewable by a user as presenting a view of said volume in three dimensions (i.e. stereoscopic image data can be used for display to the user) [104].
Regarding claim 11, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said one or more positioning signals comprise or reflect one or more radar signals and/or one or more link signals (i.e. radar 229 can be used for positioning data) [86; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 12, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said data coordinator is further configured to access a data source to retrieve further data concerning said volume, and to incorporate said further data into said image (i.e. data can be combined within a navigational database 222a and is used for the image) [69; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 13, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 12, wherein further data comprises map data, bearing data, entity identity data, speed data, range data, altitude data or software interface icons (i.e. 534 shows bearing data and various elements indicate vessels/hazards, distance indicator 591) [116,130; fig. 5-7].
Regarding claim 14, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 12, wherein further data comprises a representation of a particular class of entity, and wherein said view may be modified to incorporate said representation in a position of an entity of said class of entity in said volume (i.e. object class indicates type of object in the area) [116; fig. 5-7].
Regarding claim 15, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 12, wherein further data comprises a representation of a landscape corresponding to the landscape of said volume, and wherein said view may be modified to incorporate said representation of said representation in a corresponding orientation and scale in said volume (i.e. visual representation of the environment formed) [73].
Regarding claim 16, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said video signals are received from one or more video cameras (i.e. image data combined from 223 and 224) [49,73,78].
Regarding claim 17, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of said video cameras is in moveable relation with respect to said volume, and wherein said orientation defining said view further comprises a pitch and roll component, and wherein said orientation is adjusted in real time so as to mirror an instantaneous orientation of said video camera in moveable relation with respect to said volume (i.e. camera view and model view can be rotated, panned, or zoomed in unison) [133].
Regarding claim 18, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein one or more said video cameras are capable of rendering low light, passive infrared or active infrared input, and wherein said data coordinator is further configured to selectively incorporate said video signals in said first image as a function of the respective quality of each signal and/or on the basis of user input (i.e. Due to rain 210a, visible spectrum imaging module 223 may not be able to detect vehicle 213 behind rain 210a. However, radar 229 and/or infrared imaging module 224 may be able to detect vehicle 213 through rain 210a.) [74; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 19, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said orientation signal is further transmitted to one or more sensor systems generating respective said data flows so as to cause a re-alignment of said sensor systems with regard to said orientation signal (i.e. controller 130 may be configured to control steering sensor/actuator 150 and/or propulsion system 170 to adjust a position and/or orientation of mobile structure 101 to help ensure proper registration of a series of acoustic returns, sonar data, and/or sonar imagery.) [35].
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivers in view of Yun US 10579137.
Regarding claim 20, Rivers meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein said image is further distorted so as to apply a progressive degree of magnification to the distance in the image from a specified point therein (i.e. zoom can be modified to match the FOV of the display and imaging modules based on distance) [88].
Rivers do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
inversely proportional magnification
However, in the same field of endeavor Yun discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
inversely proportional magnification (i.e. movement amount for changing the display portion of the magnified image is inversely proportional to the degree of magnification of the magnified image) [claim 1]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Rivers with Yun to have inversely proportional magnification.
It would be advantageous because "The electronic device according to an example of the disclosure may display the image by appropriately adjusting the display portion variance based on the display state of the image and the movement variance. Therefore, the user can see the image reducing a feeling of, or without feeling dizziness. In addition, the electronic device may display the image by adjusting the display portion variance and thus provide an image having continuity to the user.” [2:15-23].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Rivers with Yun to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights