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
1. Applicant’s election of Species II in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 3/22/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has/have been considered and a copy/copies is/are enclosed with this Office action.
Foreign Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a-d) based on LU102084 and LU102086, filed on 9/22/2020.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are therefore being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘means for carrying out the method’ in claim 27
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows:
Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." In this context, "functional descriptive material" consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. (The definition of "data structure" is "a physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions." The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 308 (5th ed. 1993).) "Nonfunctional descriptive material" includes but is not limited to music, literary works and a compilation or mere arrangement of data.
When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency held statutory) and Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360-61, 31 USPQ2d at 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory).
In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 25 is directed towards "a computer program product” embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., "When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since us of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). This is, the scope of the presently claimed program can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
6. Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter as follows: claims 26 and 31 define a data carrier signal with descriptive material. While “functional descriptive material” may be claimed as a statutory product (i.e. a “manufacture”) when embodied on a tangible computer readable medium, a data carrying signal embodying that same functional descriptive material is neither a process nor a product (i.e., a tangible “thing”) and therefore does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of 35 USC 101. Rather, “signal” is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because claim 27 purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
8. Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “means for carrying out the method” of claim 27 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description merely states that “the method is carried out by a computer in the preferred embodiment of the invention” and “the invention furthermore relates to a device for data processing, which comprises means for carrying out the method”, but fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention (See MPEP 2163.02 and 2181). Claims 28-30 are rejected for being dependent upon and failing to remedy the above identified deficiencies of rejected base claim 27.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 limitation “means for carrying out the method” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description merely states that “the method is carried out by a computer in the preferred embodiment of the invention” and “the invention furthermore relates to a device for data processing, which comprises means for carrying out the method”, but fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention (See MPEP 2163.02 and 2181). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
10. Claims 16-20, 22, 24, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahuja (US PGPub 2009/0102939) [hereafter Ahuja].
11. As to claim 16, Ahuja discloses a method for creating a plenoptic picture recording (image recordings on sensor 311 as shown in Figure 3), comprising the steps of: simultaneously generating multiple images (images 312-315 on sensor 311) of an object area adjacent to one another on a receiver surface (surface of sensor 311) by an optical device (mirror box 104 having mirrors 301-302); digitally storing the multiple images (within image buffer shown in Figure 4); and further processing the multiple images to form picture captures (processed imaged sections), the further processing including automatically carrying out an image correction (selection of properly exposed image sections and/or addition of colors at respective pixels between the generated images) in which at least one of the picture captures is changed in relation to a respective image (high dynamic range image and/or image containing all color components) (Paragraphs 0032, 0038-0041, a plenoptic camera includes a mirror box placed in front of/connected to a camera box that consists of a plurality of mirrors that enable the simultaneous real-time generation of four images of a scene that are adjacent to each other on the surface of a image sensor within the camera box, where the generated images are input into an image buffer where image processing operations are automatically applied to the generated images in order to finally produce a high dynamic range image generated by selecting properly exposed parts of the four generated images, transferring the selected parts to compose a new output image, and normalizing the selected parts, or the images are used to finally produce four constituent images of the scene by processing the four images to form four different images of the scene each capturing red, green, blue, and infrared colors by combining the four values at the same pixel in all four quarters of the sensor generating the respective four images to calculate red, green, blue, and infrared color components at that respective pixel of that respective image).
12. As to claim 17, Ahuja discloses carrying out for each of the images an image correction specific for the respective image, wherein the respective specific image corrections for the individual images differ from one another (Paragraphs 0038-0040, different parts of the four images are selected as properly exposed and used in generation of the high dynamic range and different color components from the different images are added to the respective four images in order to generate the four different constituent images of the scene).
13. As to claim 18, Ahuja discloses during the further processing of at least individual ones of the images, an image correction changing the picture capture in relation to the respective image takes place automatically so that the picture captures are equalized to one another (Paragraphs 0038-0040, the properly exposed portions of the respective images are normalized within the high dynamic range image and the four generated constituent images each contain the color image data found within the respective four generated images).
14. As to claim 19, Ahuja discloses wherein the image correction, in at least individual ones of the picture captures includes changing positions of at least individual pixels and/or intensities of a representation of at least individual ones of the pixels (Paragraphs 0038-0040, the properly exposed portions of the respective images are normalized within the high dynamic range image and the four generated constituent images each contain the color image data found within the respective four generated images).
15. As to claim 20, Ahuja discloses changing the pixel positions by application of pixel arrangement rules provided for each of the picture captures and/or changing the intensities and/or colors of the representation of the pixels with application of pixel intensity and/or pixel color change rules provided for each of the picture captures, wherein the pixel arrangement rules and/or the pixel intensity and/or pixel color change rules for the individual picture captures differ from one another (Paragraphs 0038-0040, different parts of the four images are selected as properly exposed and used in generation of the high dynamic range and different color components from the different images are added to the respective four images in order to generate the four different constituent images of the scene).
16. As to claim 22, Ahuja discloses the image correction is carried out so that the positions, the intensities, and/or the colors of the pixels are changed so that the pixels respectively imaging the same section of the object area are arranged in the various picture captures in the same position and/or in positions resulting depending on the viewing angle, in particular in consideration of a parallax error resulting from the respective different viewing angle, and/or have the same intensity and/or the same color as in the reference position (Paragraphs 0038-0040, the properly exposed portions of the respective images are normalized within the high dynamic range image and the four generated constituent images each contain the color image data found within the respective four generated images at the respective pixel positions).
17. As to claim 24, Ahuja discloses forming N×N images of the object area on the receiver surface in an N×N grid (Paragraphs 0032, 0038, in the illustrated example of Figure 3, 2x2 images of the imaged scene are formed on the receiver surface in a 2x2 grid configuration).
18. As to claim 27, Ahuja discloses a device for data processing (as shown in Figures 3 and 4), comprising means for carrying out the method according to claim 16 (Paragraphs 0038-0041).
19. As to claim 28, Ahuja discloses the device is part of an optical device (camera box 106 having mirror box 104 attached thereto ) that is configured for simultaneously generating multiple images of an object area adjacent to one another on a receiver surface (image sensor surface within camera box) (Paragraphs 0032, 0038-0046).
20. As to claim 29, Ahuja discloses the optical device comprises a kaleidoscope (mirror box 104) (Paragraphs 0032, 0038).
21. As to claim 30, Ahuja discloses wherein the device is part of a camera (Paragraphs 0032, 0038).
16Claim 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.
22. Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja (US PGPub 2009/0102939) [hereafter Ahuja] in view of Seifi (US PGPub 2017/0171479) [hereafter Seifi].
23. As to claim 25, it is noted that Ahuja fails to particularly disclose a computer program product, comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method.
On the other hand, Seifi discloses a method for creating a plenoptic picture recording (as shown in Figures 7-14 using light field camera) and a computer program product (algorithmic instructions), comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer (processor 51), prompt the computer to carry out the method (Paragraphs 0039, 0049-0052, 0057-0072, 0085-0093, a light field camera device includes a processor within a personal computer component that performs processing operations to generate plenoptic images through executing instructions stored within a ROM).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a computer program product, comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, prompt the computer to carry out the method as taught by Seifi with the method of Ahuja because the cited prior art references are directed towards imaging devices that generate and process plenoptic/light field images and because each of the claimed limitations are fully disclosed within the combination of the prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling the disclosed image buffer and processing components of Ahuja to implement the disclosed processing operations.
24. As to claim 26, Seifi discloses wherein the computer program product is a computer program stored on one of the group consisting of: a data carrier; a personal computer; a smart phone; a computer of a device for creating a picture recording; or is a signal sequence suitable for transmission via a computer network and representing data (Paragraphs 0049-0052, a light field camera device includes a processor within a personal computer component that performs processing operations to generate plenoptic images through executing instructions stored within a ROM).
25. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ahuja (US PGPub 2009/0102939) [hereafter Ahuja] in view of Seifi (US PGPub 2017/0171479) [hereafter Seifi] and Choubassi (US Patent 10477181) [hereafter Cho] .
26. As to claim 31, it is noted that the combination of Ahuja and Seifi fails to particularly disclose a data carrier signal, which transmits the computer program product.
On the other hand, Cho discloses a data carrier signal, which transmits the computer program product (Col. 2, Lines 31-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a data carrier signal, which transmits the computer program product as taught by Cho with the method of Ahuja and Seifi because the cited prior art references are directed towards imaging devices that generate and process plenoptic/light field images and because each of the claimed limitations are fully disclosed within the combination of the prior art references and would yield predictable results of transmitting instructions enabling the disclosed image buffer and processing components of Ahuja to implement the disclosed processing operations.
Claim Objections
27. Claims 21 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
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.
MO
/MICHAEL S OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights