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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the title objection, the drawing objection, the 101 rejection, the 112 rejections and the 102 rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
As to the fees, the controlling section of the MPEP appears to be MPEP 607(III), titled “excess claim fees.” The relevant paragraphs are:
For purposes of determining the fee due the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a claim will be treated as dependent if it contains reference to one or more other claims in the application. A claim determined to be dependent by this test will be entered if the fee paid reflects this determination.
Any claim which is in dependent form but which is so worded that it, in fact, is not a proper dependent claim, as for example it does not include every limitation of the claim on which it depends, will be required to be canceled as not being a proper dependent claim; and cancellation of any further claim depending on such a dependent claim will be similarly required. The applicant may thereupon amend the claims to place them in proper dependent form, or may redraft them as independent claims, upon payment of any necessary additional fee.
Therefore, Applicant does not owe fees for additional independent claims, but claims 11-13 and 17-19 are not proper dependent claims and thus are required to be canceled. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined.
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 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.
Claims 11-25 (all claims) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 20 recite “selected” for different claim elements. However, because the claim does not define the selection, it is subjective (i.e., different people can have different opinions as to what was selected). MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim 14 recites a “field of view of a camera,” but it is not clear what the relationship is between the computer device performing the method and the camera. In other words, is the camera part of the claimed system?
Claim 20 is directed to a “method for a camera,” but then recites steps that are outside of the camera, such as an image displayed in the field of view of the camera. It is not clear whether to give weight to the preamble’s recitation “for a camera,” or the method should be interpreted to require the steps outside of the camera.
Claims 14 and 20 recite “a distorted image of at least one second test chart,” but it is not clear how to determine if the second test chart is distorted because the claim does not define the original (undistorted) version of the second test chart (as opposed to, for example, specifying that the second test chart originally conforms to a particular standard).
Claim 21 recites “each of the plurality of second test charts,” but the claim has not defined the plurality such that “each” can be judged. Defining the plurality as test charts that are displayed is expected to overcome this issue.
Dependent claims, and claims incorporating these elements by reference, are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 11-25 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160048953A1 (“Zhao”) in view of CN201173856Y (“Jing”). Citations to Jing are to the attached machine translation.
Claims 11-13 are rejected as per their respective parent claims. See also Zhao, Fig. 2, teaching the claimed computer device.
14. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a display device; and (Zhao, abstract, “the target including multiple of markers having calibration features that include identification features”)
a computer device configured to perform a method that includes: (Zhao, abstract, “a processor configured to …”)
in a selected portion of a selected field of view of a camera, displaying a first test chart; (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system.” While Zhao’s chart teaches the claimed displaying, the secondary reference Jing teaches placing the test chart on a LCD screen.)
capturing image-data by capturing at least a portion of a displayed image of the first test chart in the selected portion of the selected field of view with the camera, the camera and the first test chart at a fixed relative position; (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system”)
generating a distortion map representing a correspondence between the first test chart and the captured-image-data of the first test chart;(Zhao, [0081] “The features (circles and dots) of partially visible markers are usually in the periphery of an image so that they may contribute more to the estimation of the distortion model than features in the middle of the image.” Zhao’s distortion model teaches the claimed distortion map.)
capturing image-data by capturing at least a portion of the displayed distorted image of the at least one second test chart in the selected portion of the selected field of view with the camera, the camera and the displayed distorted image at the fixed relative position; and (Zhao, abstract, “a target coupled with the interface so as to be within the field of view of the imaging system”)
performing resolution measurement using a contrast method based on the captured image-data of the displayed distorted image of the at least one second test chart. (Zhao, [0108] “For example, the respective relative MTF values for the two images at a particular spatial frequency can be used to calculate a percentage contrast difference at that spatial frequency.”)
Zhao is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Jing teaches based on the distortion map, generating and displaying a distorted image of at least one second test chart; (Jing, p. 8, “6. Generate test images [line break] According to the camera's measurement scheme, test patterns are generated inside the computer for different parameters;” and “10. Analyze images [line break] According to the measurement scheme, for different test images with different parameters, analyze the digital images acquired by the camera to obtain the performance parameters of the camera;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Jing to the teachings of Zhao such that Zhao’s test chart is displayed on Jing’s test image display module for the purpose of to automate testing, such as avoiding needing to manually change the test cards during the process. Jing, p. 5, third step.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
15. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14, wherein the computer device is configured to display the distorted image of the at least one second test chart on the display device. (Jing, p. 5, third step, “the real-time image of the test is displayed on the display screen of the real-time image display station 8.”)
16. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 14,wherein the at least one second test chart is a plurality of second test charts. (Jing, p. 8, “6. Generate test images [line break] According to the camera's measurement scheme, test patterns are generated inside the computer for different parameters;”)
Claims 17-19 are rejected as per their respective parent claims. See also Zhao, Fig. 2, teaching the claimed computer readable media.
Claims 20-22 and 24 are rejected as per claim 14.
Claim 23 is rejected as per claim 15.
25. (New) The computer-implemented resolution measurement method of claim 20, wherein the first test chart is a grid pattern. (Zhao, [0068] “Possible target designs include an existing “checkerboard” pattern”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10067029B2 – “Systems and methods for estimating modulation transfer function in an optical system”
US10334241B2 – Claim 7
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663