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 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 4 is 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.
The terms “high” and “low” in claim 4 constitute relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification does not provide a limiting definition of these terms. Rather, an example is provided, where 60 degrees may differentiate between high and low. However, providing an example does not clearly differentiate the metes and bounds of relative terms in this case. It is recommended to clarify the claim language such that the metes and bounds are definite.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. 20080247039 to Mizusawa (Mizu)
With respect to claim 1, Mizu discloses a surround-view imaging system for imaging a surrounding of the system, comprising:
(i.e., FIG. 1; ¶¶ 15 observation optical system; 18 observation optical system and an illumination optical system; 22; 26 observations of favorable images or favorable pictures can be obtained; 34 the observation optical system which is capable of obtaining the observations of images)
an imager and an illuminator
(Imager: 10, FIG. 1, ¶¶ 19, 22 imaging plane, at which the image pickup surface of an image sensor is placed; illuminator: illuminator: ¶ 31 illumination light source 4 is constructed so that LED blocks 4a for forward illumination and LED blocks 4b for backward illumination, four for each illumination, FIG. 3A-3B)
wherein the illuminator is adapted to illuminate in a field of view of the illuminator the surrounding of the system such that illumination light that is reflected by the surrounding can be imaged by the imager in a field of view of the imager as imaging light; and
(FIG. 1 depicting field of view illumination; ¶¶ 27; 29-33)
wherein the illuminator comprises
a set of first illumination light sources adapted to illuminate a first illumination region of the field of view of the illuminator with first illumination light; and
(4A, FIG. 3 and corresponding description)
a second set of illumination light sources adapted to illuminate a second illumination region of the field of view of the illuminator with second illumination light,
(4B, FIG. 3 and corresponding description)
wherein first illumination light and second illumination light that is reflected by the surrounding can be imaged by the imager as first imaging light in a first imaging region and as second imaging light in a second imaging region of the field of view of the imager, respectively.
(10a, 10b, FIG. 1, ¶¶ 22-23)
With respect to claim 2, Mizu discloses the surround-view imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the first illumination region and the second illumination region are distinct from one another.
(FIG. 3A and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 4, Mizu discloses the first imaging region is related to high zenithal angle regions and the second imaging region is related to low zenithal angle regions.
(FIG. 1, 3A-3B and corresponding description)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizu in view of U.S. 20180373019 to Thursby et al. (Thursby)
With respect to claim 3, Mizu fails to explicitly disclose the fisheye lens related to the first and second imaging regions.
Thursby, from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the imager comprises a fisheye-type lens having a continuous field of view including the first imaging region and the second imaging region
(abstract, FIG. 2-3 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶ 51, 4-6)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to incorporate a fisheye lens as taught by Thursby in the system of Mizu, in order to provide continuous field of view with improved illumination for the entire field of view thereby improving imaged environment clarity (Thursby, ¶¶ 4-6)
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. 20180373019 to Thursby et al. (Thursby)
With respect to claim 1, Thursby discloses a surround-view imaging system for imaging a surrounding of the system, comprising:
an imager and an illuminator wherein the illuminator is adapted to illuminate in a field of view of the illuminator the surrounding of the system such that illumination light that is reflected by the surrounding can be imaged by the imager in a field of view of the imager as imaging light; and
(illuminator/ light sources 58, ¶¶ 1 the illumination of a field of view of a wide angle camera”; 17 plurality of light sources is arranged around the main body and positioned radially outward of the lens . . . even illumination may be provided around the complete periphery of the field of view”; ¶ 52 inspection assembly 10 further comprises a camera including an image sensor arranged to capture an image of the field of view through the lens 42”)
wherein the illuminator comprises a set of first illumination light sources adapted to illuminate a first illumination region of the field of view of the illuminator with first illumination light and a second set of illumination light sources adapted to illuminate a second illumination region of the field of view of the illuminator with second illumination light,
(¶¶ 56, 67-76, i.e., 75 first set of light sources, second set of light sources; Fig. 8-9 with light source points surrounding camera region and corresponding description)
wherein first illumination light and second illumination light that is reflected by the surrounding can be imaged by the imager as first imaging light in a first imaging region and as second imaging light in a second imaging region of the field of view of the imager, respectively.
(¶¶ 67-77; 52, 70 light in a central region of the field of view is decreased while the overall intensity of the light in a peripheral region of the field of view is increased. In this way the field of view is more evenly illuminated decreasing the likelihood that regions of an image captured by the camera will be underexposed or overexposed; 75 i.e., first set . . . 0 to 45 degrees, second set 45 to 90 degrees . . . the second set of light sources will illuminate a peripheral region of the field of view which is only weakly illuminated or not illuminated by the first set of light sources)
With respect to claim 2, Thursby discloses the first illumination region and the second illumination region are distinct from one another.
(¶¶ 67-77; i.e., 75-76 “An inspection assembly may, for example, include a first, substantially forward-facing light source or set of light sources and a second, substantially outwardly facing light source or set of light sources. In these assemblies, the first set of light sources may be oriented such that the center line of each of the beams of light, from the first set of light sources, is at an angle of between 0° and 45° to the longitudinal axis of the assembly. The second set of light sources may be oriented such that the center line of each of the beams of light, from the second set of light sources, is at an angle of between 30° and 90° to the longitudinal axis of the assembly and is at a greater angle than the center lines of the first set of light sources. In this way, the second set of light sources will illuminate a peripheral region of the field of view which is only weakly illuminated or not illuminated by the first set of light source . . . two sets of light sources may be provided spaced apart longitudinally along the main body of the inspection assembly. In these embodiments the angle between the center line of each of the beams of light, from all of the light sources, and the longitudinal axis of the main body of the inspection assembly may be the same. The light source or set of lights sources further from the distal end of the main body will, however, illuminate a peripheral region of the field of view which is more weakly illuminated by the light source or set of light sources nearer the distal end)
With respect to claim 3, Thursby discloses the imager comprises a fisheye-type lens having a continuous field of view including the first imaging region and the second imaging region.
(¶¶51 lens 42 is preferably an ultra wide angle lens such as a fish-eye lens . . . angle of view beta; FIG. 2; claim 8 fisheye lens)
With respect to claim 4, Thursby discloses the first imaging region is related to high zenithal angle regions and the second imaging region is related to low zenithal angle regions.
(¶¶ 75-76 “An inspection assembly may, for example, include a first, substantially forward-facing light source or set of light sources and a second, substantially outwardly facing light source or set of light sources. In these assemblies, the first set of light sources may be oriented such that the center line of each of the beams of light, from the first set of light sources, is at an angle of between 0° and 45° to the longitudinal axis of the assembly. The second set of light sources may be oriented such that the center line of each of the beams of light, from the second set of light sources, is at an angle of between 30° and 90° to the longitudinal axis of the assembly and is at a greater angle than the center lines of the first set of light sources. In this way, the second set of light sources will illuminate a peripheral region of the field of view which is only weakly illuminated or not illuminated by the first set of light source)
With respect to claim 5, Thursby discloses the illumination of the first illumination region and the second illumination region is performed simultaneously, wherein the first illumination light and the second illumination light are intrinsically separable
(¶¶ 67-77; in addition, two light sources at different spatial locations and emitting at different angles are inherently “intrinsically separable” since separable is a potential capability of claimed emitted light dependent upon sensor capabilities not recited in the claim language)
With respect to claim 8, Thursby discloses the first set of illumination light sources and the second set of second illumination light sources are circumferentially arranged, and at least some of the illumination sources electrically and mechanically connected to a related illumination board by a pivoting bracket, moving bracket or holder.
(FIG. 8-9 and corresponding description indicate light sources are circumferentially arranged; ¶¶ 57, 71, 75; 58 shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4)
With respect to claim 10, Thursby discloses the first set of illumination light sources and the second set of second illumination light sources are arranged one over another.
(¶ 76 “two light sources or two sets of light sources may be provided spaced apart longitudinally along the main body of the inspection assembly”)
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thursby in view of US 20100272318 to Cabiri et al. (Cabiri)
With respect to claim 6, Thursby discloses fails to explicitly disclose the illumination of the first illumination region and the second illumination region is performed sequentially so that the first imaging light and the second imaging light are temporally separable.
Cabiri, from the same field of endeavor, discloses illuminating regions sequentially such that imaging lights are temporally separable
(¶¶ 351 “control unit is configured to sweep one or more lights across the target at a known rate . . . the sweeping is accomplished by illuminating successive light sources (e.g., LEDs)”; 75 “size of a target viewed through the fixed focal length optical system is calculated by sweeping one or more lights across the target at a known rate . . . the sweeping is accomplished by illuminating successive LED's”; 317-319)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement sequential lighting control such that imaging lights are temporally separable as taught by Calibri, in the system of Thursby in order to provide a capability of detecting additional information about an imaged target such as size and location (Cabiri, ¶ 75).
With respect to claim 7, Thursby in view of Cabiri disclose the first illumination light and the second illumination light are intrinsically separable.
(Thursby, ¶¶ 67-77; in addition, two light sources at different spatial locations and emitting at different angles are inherently “intrinsically separable” since separable is a potential capability of claimed emitted light dependent upon sensor capabilities not recited in the claim language)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thursby in view of US 20140228635 to Tuliakov et al. (Tuli)
With respect to claim 9, Thursby fails to explicitly disclose an angle between the individual illumination light sources of a set of illumination light sources and a corresponding illumination board is actively controlled by actuators.
However, Thursby at least suggests variant illumination angles (¶¶ 75-76). In addition, Tuli, from the same field of endeavor, discloses active angular control between individual illumination light sources (¶¶ 41-45 “light adjuster 150 may variably adjust at least one of the emission direction and the emission extent of at least one of the plurality of light beams which are output by the plurality of light source components based on the estimated geometry of the internal surface of the body, which has been estimated by the estimator 120 based on the control of the controller 130. For example, in a case where the internal surface of the body is relatively high, the light adjuster 150 may adjust the emission angle between at least one of the plurality of light beams output by the plurality of light source components and a normal component with respect to the estimated geometry of the internal surface of the body is small”; 50-51 “as illustrated in FIG. 3C, it is possible to adjust the emission extent of each of the plurality of light beams based on the geometry of the internal surface of the body. For example, it is possible to adjust the emission extent of each respective one of the plurality of light beams by adjusting the emission angle of each of the light beams with respect to a normal to be relatively small in the area 315 where the average surface height is high, and by adjusting the emission angle of each of the light beams with respect to the normal to be relatively large in the area 316 where the average surface height is low.”)
(i.e., FIG. 2B, light adjuster 150, light source 110, controller 130, camera 140; light sources and similarly be arranged circumferentially FIG. 3A)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the system of Thursby to include an actively controlled actuators to change an angle between the individual illumination light sources of a set of illumination light sources and a corresponding illumination board, as taught by Tuli, in order to eliminate non-uniform light imaging (i.e., relative dark areas in imaged environment) to improve environment imaging and consistency (Tuli, ¶¶ 9-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667