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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “determining a distance from an image sensor of the device below which particles are to be excluded from images” whereby it is unclear what device is ‘below’. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
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.
Claims 5, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARISH et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0289569) in view of OBATA et al. (2019-0017915).
As per Claim 5 BARISH discloses A camera system comprising (Figs. 1A and 2A image sensor 241 within housing [0022] [0041]):
an image sensor having a field of view with a horizontal half angle (Figs. 1-2 image sensor 241 [0022, 0041]; at least horizontal angle [0034] [0039-0040]); and a light source to emit light to illuminate at least a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (Figs. 1A and 2A image sensor 241 within the bar code housing and light sources 251, 223 within the interior of housing of the bar code reader [0022] [0041] [0043-0046]), the light source positioned relative to the image sensor based on a threshold distance and at least one of the horizontal half angle (Figs. 1-2 at least a setup distance [0022] [0039-0041] [0043-0046]) or the vertical half angle (either or), such that the light is reflected away from the image sensor (Figs. 1A, 2A object lens 224 directed light away from image sensor [0041] [0043-0046])
BARISH does not disclose but OBATA discloses a vertical half angle (Figs. 1-8 at least [0191-0194]); reflected away by particles that are within a field of view of the image sensor (Figs. 1-8, 12-20 plurality of particles [0046-0047] [0115-0116] [0137-0140] [0199] [0290]); and less than the threshold distance from the image sensor (Figs. 1, 10A 12-20 at least a distance with plurality of particles [0194, 0199] [0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vertical half angle; reflected away by particles that are within a field of view of the image sensor; and less than the threshold distance from the image sensor as taught by OBATA into the system of BARISH because of the benefit taught by OBATA to include advanced analysis for images captured with particles to improve the quality of post imaging and analysis for the imaging system of BARISH.
As per Claim 9 BARISH discloses The camera system of claim 5, wherein
the threshold distance is X inches (See said analysis for Claim 5) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify BARISH to teach a specific distance in inches because Applicant has not disclosed that distance is 2 inches provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants distances/units of measurement because performance of said invention is not tied to specific distances/units of measurement); and wherein the light source is positioned in a range of Y inches to Z inches away from the image sensor (Figs. 1-8 [0022] [0025] [0041] [0043-0046] [0064-0068]) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOLZ to teach a specific distance ranges in inches because Applicant has not disclosed that distance ranges of 3 inches to 5 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants distances/units of measurement because performance of said invention is not tied to specific distances/units of measurement).
As per Claim 10 BARISH discloses The camera system of claim 9, wherein the light source is positioned in a range of XX inches to YY inches away from the image sensor (Figs. 1-8 [0022] [0025] [0041] [0043-0046] [0064-0068]) (Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HOLZ to teach a specific distance ranges in inches because Applicant has not disclosed that distance ranges of 3.5 inches to 4.5 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants distances/units of measurement because performance of said invention is not tied to specific distances/units of measurement).
As per Claim 11 BARISH discloses The camera system of claim 5, further comprising: a housing upon which the image sensor and the light source are attached (Figs. 1A and 2A image sensor 241 within housing [0022] [0041]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARISH et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0289569) in view of OBATA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019-0017915), as applied in Claims 5, 9-11, and further in view of LIN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021-0027590)
As per Claim 12 BARISH discloses The camera system of claim 5, further comprising
BARISH and OBATA do not disclose but LIN discloses a motion detector (Figs. 1-5 infrared sensor 12 for motion detection [Abstract] [0004] [0009] [0018-0019] [0022]); wherein the light source and the image sensor transition from an inactive state to an active state based on detection of motion by the motion detector (Figs. 1-5 infrared sensor 12 for motion detection – motion detection state change triggering [0004] [0008-0009] [0018-0019] [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a motion detector; wherein the light source and the image sensor transition from an inactive state to an active state based on detection of motion by the motion detector as taught by LIN into the system of BARISH and OBATA because of the benefit taught by LIN to disclose a specific type of motion detector with advanced processing as well as motion object state detection therein whereby said systems benefit from advancements for object motion as both systems rely on object placement, distance and state processing and would be furthered by advancements in motion detection of object images.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARISH et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0289569) in view of OBATA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019-0017915) in view of LIN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021-0027590), as applied in Claim 12, and further in view of WANG et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023-0052553).
As per Claim 13 BARISH discloses The camera system of claim 12, further comprising a battery configured to supply operating power for the light source, and the image sensor (Figs. 1A, 2A battery to control device 100 contains imager and light sources [0033])
BARISH OBATA LIN do not disclose but WANG discloses a battery configured to supply operating power for the motion detector (Figs. 1-3 battery 152 sensor 164 [0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a battery configured to supply operating power for the motion detector as taught by WANG into the system of BARISH OBATA LIN because of the benefit taught by WANG to disclose battery powered capabilities for motion detection as well as other battery operated features to ensure mobility and flexibility of system components to allow for application of mobile operations and housings.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARISH et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0289569) in view of OKUYAMA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024-0142628) in view of ADEJUMO et al(Pub. No.: US 2019-0323702).
As per Claim 14 BARISH discloses A method of configuring a device for active imaging, the method comprising (Figs. 1A and 2A image sensor 241 within housing [0022] [0041]):
determining a distance from an image sensor of the device below with the image sensor (Figs. 1-2 at least a setup distance [0022] [0039-0041] [0043-0046]); determining, based on the distance and on a field of view of the image sensor (Figs. 1-2 at least a setup distance [0022] [0039-0041] [0043-0046]), and providing an instruction for positioning the light source relative to the image sensor (Figs. 1A and 2A image sensor 241 and light sources 251, 223 [0022] [0039-0041] [0043-0046]),
BARISH does not disclose but OKUYAMA discloses particles are to be excluded from images acquired (Figs. 1-7 remove from FOV [0034] [0061-0062])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include particles are to be excluded from images acquired as taught by OKUYAMA into the system of BARISH because of the benefit taught by OKUYAMA to include prevention of artifacts from images to be acquired which improves the imaging system of BARISH.
BARISH and OKUYAMA do not disclose but ADEJUMO discloses the instruction specifying the minimum separation between the image sensor and the light source (Figs. 1-6 positioned to be maintained [0029-0031]); a minimum separation between the image sensor and a light source of the device (Figs. 1-6 positioned to be maintained [0029-0031])
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 instruction specifying the minimum separation between the image sensor and the light source; a minimum separation between the image sensor and a light source of the device as taught by ADEJUMO into the system of BARISH and OKUYAMA because of the benefit taught by ADEJUMO to include improvements for lighting conditions and optimization which benefits both systems in imaging procedures and analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (BARISH, Pub. No: US 2024-0289569; HOLZ, Pub. No: US 2014-0240466; OKUYAMA, Pub No.: US 2024-0142628; LIN, Pub. No. US 2021-0027590; WANG, US 2023-0052553; OBATA, Pub. No. US 2019-0017915; ADEJUMO, Pub. No.: US 2019-0323702) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“A method comprising: illuminating a scene with light emitted by a light source that is positioned relative to an image sensor such that, for particles positioned within a field of view of the image sensor and less than a threshold distance from the image sensor, an angle of incidence of the light at the particles is greater than or equal to a threshold angle of incidence, the threshold angle of incidence being an angle of incidence at which reflections of the light from the particles are orthogonal to the field of view of the image sensor; acquiring, with the image sensor, at least one image of the scene; and processing the at least one image to detect an object within the field of view of the image sensor, the object being further from the image sensor than the threshold distance”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record BARISH does not teach or suggest in detail particles or a plurality of objects with relative distances as presented and amended by the Applicant. BARISH only discloses a device comprising an image sensor, a light source positioned relative to the image sensor so that light from the light source is reflected away from the image sensor by an object and to acquire the scene with the image sensor. Prior art OKUYAMA which discloses tracking/capturing light reflected from both an object and unwanted particle dust such that dust at different positions are captured but is silent as to a threshold angle of incidence being an angle of incidence at which reflections of the light from the particles are orthogonal to the field of view of the image sensor as claimed by the Applicant. The closest NPL DEDEOGLU (DEDEOGLU, “Moving object detection, tracking and classification for smart video surveillance”, 2004) discusses generally tracking motion/reflected light from objects and obstructions with repetitive motion but is silent as to at least particles positioned within a field of view of an image sensor and less than a threshold distance from the image sensor so an angle of incidence of the light at the particles is greater than or equal to a threshold angle of incidence as claimed by the Applicant.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites illuminating a scene with light emitted by a light source that is positioned relative to an image sensor such that, for particles positioned within a field of view of the image sensor and less than a threshold distance from the image sensor, an angle of incidence of the light at the particles is greater than or equal to a threshold angle of incidence. The invention further claims the threshold angle of incidence being an angle of incidence at which reflections of the light from the particles are orthogonal to the field of view of the image sensor. Further, the claims recite acquiring, with the image sensor, at least one image of the scene and processing the at least one image to detect an object within the field of view of the image sensor, the object being further from the image sensor than the threshold distance.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
Claims 6-8, 15-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 6-8, 15-20 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The camera system of claim 5, further comprising: at least one processor; and a data storage device storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the image sensor to acquire at least one image responsive to reflections of the light, the at least one image depicting an object but not the particles, the object being located at a distance from the image sensor beyond the threshold distance” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The camera system of claim 5, wherein the light source is positioned at least a minimum horizontal distance from the image sensor, and the minimum horizontal distance is determined based on the threshold distance and the horizontal half angle” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The camera system of claim 5, wherein the light source is positioned at least a minimum vertical distance from the image sensor, and the minimum vertical distance is determined based on the threshold distance and the vertical half angle” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, further comprising: determining a maximum separation between the image sensor and the light source, the instruction further specifies the maximum separation” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 16 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, wherein determining the minimum separation comprises determining, based on the distance and on a horizontal half angle of the field of view of the image sensor, a minimum horizontal distance between the image sensor and the light source” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, wherein determining the minimum separation includes determining, based on the distance and on a vertical half angle of the field of view of the image sensor, a minimum vertical distance between the image sensor and the light source” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, wherein determining the distance is based at least in part on an estimated size of the particles” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 19 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 16, wherein the particles include one or more of rain particles, dust particles, or snow particles; and wherein the distance is 2 inches” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 20 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 19, wherein the minimum separation is 3 inches” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record BARISH et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0289569) for Claims 6-8, 15-20 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. BARISH only discloses a device comprising an image sensor, a light source positioned relative to the image sensor so that light from the light source is reflected away from the image sensor by first object and to acquire, with the image sensor, at least one image of a scene based on reflections of the light from the light source, the at least one image depicting a second object but not the first objects.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M 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
Prosecution Insights