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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 1 – 12 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The limitation “a distance information acquisition unit” recited in L2 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for acquisition). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is a TOF (time of flight) sensor, LiDAR (light detection and ranging), or an SC (structural camera) as described in para. [0009]. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as requiring a TOF (time of flight) sensor, LiDAR (light detection and ranging), or an SC (structural camera) or its equivalent.
The limitation “a grayscale information acquisition unit” recited in L5 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for acquisition). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is an infrared camera or an RGB camera as described in para. [0009]. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as requiring an infrared camera or an RGB camera.
The limitation “a lighting device” recited in L4 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (device) + function (for lighting). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, X- rays and gamma rays with shorter wavelengths than light, and microwaves, broadcast radio waves (short wave, medium wave, long wave), ultrasonic waves, elastic waves, quantum waves, etc., that have longer wavelengths than light as described in para. [0008]. ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, X- rays and gamma rays with shorter wavelengths than light, and microwaves, broadcast radio waves (short wave, medium wave, long wave), ultrasonic waves, elastic waves, quantum waves, etc., that have longer wavelengths than light. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as requiring ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, X- rays and gamma rays with shorter wavelengths than light, and microwaves, broadcast radio waves (short wave, medium wave, long wave), ultrasonic waves, elastic waves, quantum waves, etc., that have longer wavelengths than light.
The limitation “a correction unit” recited in L8 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for correction). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present in the specification. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
The limitation “an image generation unit” recited in L11 of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) means (unit) + function (for image generation). A review of the specification reveals that the corresponding structure is not present in the specification. Therefore, the claim cannot be interpreted and is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 – 10 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.
Claim 1 recites “a correction unit”. The corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 1 recites “an image generation unit”. The corresponding structure is missing in the specification.
Claim 2 -10 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 for dependency reasons.
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.
Claim limitation “a correction unit” 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. A corresponding structure to “a correction unit” is not present in the specification. 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 limitation “an image generation unit” 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. A corresponding structure to “an image generation unit” is not present in the specification. 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 2 -10 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 for dependency reasons.
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 (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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2008/0204579 A1; pub. Aug. 28, 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Masuda discloses in a first embodiment: A grayscale image generation device, comprising: a distance information acquisition unit (para. [0010], [0024]) configured to acquire information about a distance to an object according to an amount of reflection of electromagnetic waves with which the object is irradiated from a lighting device (para. [0062]-[0063]); a grayscale information acquisition unit configured to acquire grayscale information according to the amount of reflection of the electromagnetic waves emitted from the lighting device and irradiating the object (para. [0062]-[0063]);
a correction unit configured to correct the grayscale information obtained by the grayscale information acquisition unit on the basis of the distance obtained by the distance information acquisition unit (para. [0069]).
In the first embodiment Masuda is silent about: an image generation unit configured to generate a grayscale image including information about the distance to the object on the basis of the grayscale information corrected by the correction unit.
In a further embodiment Masuda discloses: an image generation unit configured to generate a grayscale image including information about the distance to the object on the basis of the grayscale information corrected by the correction unit (para. [0069]) motivated by the benefits for reducing depth errors and improving measurement quality.
In light of the benefits for reducing depth errors and improving measurement quality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two embodiments of Masuda.
Regarding claim 3, Masuda discloses: the distance information acquisition unit acquires the distance information for each pixel included in the grayscale image generated by the image generation unit (para. [0063], [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Masuda discloses: the correction unit uses the distance information acquired by the distance information acquisition unit to correct the grayscale information acquired by the grayscale information acquisition unit for each pixel included in the grayscale image generated by the image generation unit (para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Masuda discloses: when a center position between the distance information acquisition unit and the lighting device and the center position between the grayscale information acquisition unit and the lighting device are located apart from each other, the correction unit corrects the distance information by subjecting the distance as seen from the grayscale information acquisition unit to coordinate transformation according to a positional relation between the distance information acquisition unit and the grayscale information acquisition unit (the claim does not contain any additional device that further limits claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 7, Masuda discloses: the distance information acquisition unit and the grayscale information acquisition unit are provided integrally (para. [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Masuda discloses: a lighting control unit configured to control the lighting device so as to irradiate the object with the electromagnetic waves (para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Masuda discloses: the distance information acquisition unit acquires the distance information measured by a TOF (time of flight) sensor, LiDAR (light detection and ranging), or SC (structural camera) (para. [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Masuda discloses: the grayscale information acquisition unit acquires the grayscale information measured by an infrared camera or an RGB camera (para. [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Masuda discloses: A grayscale image correction method, comprising: a distance information acquisition step of acquiring information about a distance to an object according to an amount of reflection of electromagnetic waves with which the object is irradiated from a lighting device; a grayscale information acquisition step of acquiring grayscale information according to the amount of reflection of the electromagnetic waves emitted from a lighting device and irradiating the object; a correction step of correcting the grayscale information acquired in the grayscale information acquisition step based on the distance obtained in the distance information acquisition step; and an image generation step of generating a grayscale image on the basis of the grayscale information corrected in the correction step (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 12, Masuda discloses: A grayscale image correction program for causing a computer to execute a grayscale image correction method comprising: a distance information acquisition step of acquiring information about a distance to an object according to an amount of reflection of electromagnetic waves with which the object is irradiated from a lighting device; a grayscale information acquisition step of acquiring grayscale information according to the amount of reflection of the electromagnetic waves emitted from a lighting device and irradiating the object; a correction step of correcting the grayscale information acquired in the grayscale information acquisition step on the basis of the distance obtained in the distance information acquisition step; and an image generation step of generating a grayscale image on the basis of the grayscale information corrected in the correction step (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2008/0204579 A1; pub. Aug. 28, 2008) in view of Ishihara (US 2010/0049058 A1; pub. Feb. 15, 2010).
Regarding claim 2, Masuda is silent about: the correction unit corrects the grayscale information by multiplying the grayscale information obtained by the grayscale information acquisition unit by a square of the distance obtained by the distance information acquisition unit.
In a similar field of endeavor Ishihara discloses: the grayscale information by multiplying the grayscale information obtained by a square of the distance (para. [0173], [0286]) motivated by the benefits for improved measurement accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved measurement accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Masuda with the teachings of Ishihara to have the correction unit corrects the grayscale information by multiplying the grayscale information obtained by the grayscale information acquisition unit by a square of the distance obtained by the distance information acquisition unit
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (US 2008/0204579 A1; pub. Aug. 28, 2008) in view of Kim et al. (US 11,720,117 B1; pub. Aug. 8, 2023).
Regarding claim 4, Masuda is silent about: the grayscale information acquisition unit acquires the grayscale information for each pixel included in the grayscale image generated by the image generation unit.
In a similar field of endeavor Kim et al. disclose: the grayscale information acquisition unit acquires the grayscale information for each pixel included in the grayscale image generated by the image generation unit (col.30 L1-4) motivated by the benefits for improve accuracy, range, and robustness.
In light of the benefits for improve accuracy, range, and robustness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Masuda with the teachings of Kim et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights