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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 26th, 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “310” [Figure 1].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the reference characters in Figure 4 as illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is over 200 words and is only a single sentence instead of a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
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.
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” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a broadband camera acquiring …” in claim 3;
“the light circulation filter is configured such that …” in claim 5.
The Examiner affords a “camera” and a “filter” cited above as having status of connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the claim appears to have Indefinite metes and bounds as the claim feature only has two areas thus the “alternately” feature appears Indefinite multiples of the two areas would be needed to achieve such a configuration.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 24 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the light circulation filter is configured such that” which has Indefinite metes and bound regarding the patentable weight of the intended result of the claimed filter arrangement and if the claim should be functionally interpreted.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is Indefinite as to the statutory category of the claim as the method recites “an apparatus”, but the elements listed may not necessarily connote sufficient structure and appear functionally claimed instead as an apparatus claim instead of a method / series of steps being claimed. Additionally the preamble elements regarding the “apparatus”
Regarding claims 23 – 24, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 22 and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 22, the claim has several condition “if” statements [line 3], but the condition gives the claim Indefinite metes and bounds as there is not set of conditions should the “if” not be met and the conditional in a method claim may not necessarily carry patentable weight thus supporting Indefinite metes and bounds.
Regarding claims 23 – 24, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 22 and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claim 23, the claim has a condition “if” [line 3], but the condition gives the claim Indefinite metes and bounds as there is not set of conditions should the “if” not be met and the conditional in a method claim may not necessarily carry patentable weight thus supporting Indefinite metes and bounds.
Regarding claim 24, the claim has a condition “if” [line 3], but the condition gives the claim Indefinite metes and bounds as there is not set of conditions should the “if” not be met and the conditional in a method claim may not necessarily carry patentable weight thus supporting Indefinite metes and bounds.
Claim limitations:
“a camera unit configured to acquire …” [Claim 1];
“a lighting unit configured to emit …” [Claim 1];
“optical filter unit being configured to …” [Claim 1];
“a light adjustment controller configured to control …” [Claim 1];
“an image synthesis unit configured to …” [Claim 2];
“a driver that drives the light circulation filter …” [Claim 9];
“a light level adjustment unit configured to determine …” [Claim 13];
“a camera controller configured to control …” [Claim 13];
“a camera controller configured to control …” [Claim 17];
“a light circulation filter controller synchronized with […] and configured to control …” [Claim 17]; and
“a light switching filter controller configured to control …” [Claim 17]
have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the Specification does not provide clear correspondence for the various “units” claimed. While many “units” may have structural terms in their description which would on their own connote sufficient structure (e.g. “camera” or “filter”) the inclusion of the “unit” renders the claim Indefinite as to the metes and bounds to afford the claim elements. Additionally, many of the units have “so that” (e.g. claims 1, 9, 13, and 17) or “such that’ language following which renders the analysis Indefinite as the unit merely having an intended result or a result of a function being functionally claimed. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 10, should the “motor” of claim 10 be included into Rejected claim 9 (the Examiner affords the “motor” in claim 10 as having status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art), then the rejection of the “driver” in claim 9woudl be overcome.
Regarding claims 2 – 21, the dependent claims do not cure all the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and thus are similarly 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.
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 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(s) 1 – 4 and 6 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotsu, et al. (WO2023/047825 A referred to as “Shimotsu” throughout), and further in view of Kim, et al. (KR10-2014-0127631 A referred to as “Kim” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s June 26th, 2023 IDS as FOR Reference #1].
Examiner Note for all claims: One of ordinary skill in the art would regarding the “near infrared” (NIR) teachings of Shimotsu as being in the infrared (IR) range claimed or rendered obvious by teaches of Kim (see at least Kim Paragraphs 52 – 55 for infrared imaging and Paragraphs 45 – 47 (infrared emitter for the camera)).
Regarding claim 1, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
a camera unit configured to acquire multi-band images including a visible light image and an infrared image [Shimotsu Figures 1 and 18 (see at least reference characters 1, 100, 132, and 130) as well as Paragraphs 20 (thermal camera for near IR and visible light images), 28 – 30 and 43 – 47 (image sensor can capture and synthesize color / visible and near IR images (or alternatively Kim Paragraph 52 IR image capture))];
a lighting unit configured to emit infrared light [Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference character 190) as well as Paragraphs 45 – 47 (infrared emitter in the camera with control for the emitter)];
an optical filter unit including an infrared blocking filter area [Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 37 (blocking visible or IR light)] and an infrared transmission filter area [See previous limitation and additionally Shimotsu Figures 2, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 68) as well as Paragraphs 30 – 37 (filters to control intensity of light imaged / attenuation for visible and NIR light)], the optical filter unit being configured to selectively transmit visible light by moving and arranging the infrared blocking filter area on an optical path or transmit the infrared light by moving and arranging the infrared transmission filter area on the optical path [Shimotsu Figures 2, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 68) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (rotating the wheel of filters also described in Paragraph 85) and 30 – 37 (filters to control intensity of light imaged / attenuation for visible and NIR light); Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20, 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (blocking visible or IR light with a filter and a driver / motor to select the filter)]; and
a light adjustment controller configured to control the camera unit, the lighting unit, and the optical filter unit [Shimotsu Figures 1 and 18 (see at least reference character 110) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 27 (controller in the camera), 36 – 39, and 104 (controller as a CPU / processor in hardware) to combine with Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference character 190, 149, 149a and 140 as a controller with the light emission unit) as well as Paragraphs 44 – 47 (light emission controller – combine with Shimotsu)],
wherein the light adjustment controller is configured to:
determine a light level based on an amount of infrared light of a photographing environment and control the lighting unit so that the infrared light corresponding to the determined light level is emitted [Kim Figures 1 – 3 as well as Paragraphs 41 – 51 (light level based on IR / visible light available in daytime / nighttime for imaging)]; and
control the optical filter unit to move and arrange the infrared blocking filter area or the infrared transmission filter area on the optical path based on an optical wavelength band image to be acquired by the camera unit [See Shimotsu “optical filter unit” limitation for citations and additionally Shimotsu Paragraphs 95 – 99 (control of the filtering unit / movement of the filtering unit) combinable with Kim’s teachings of the filters to choose in Figure 2 as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 and 41 – 46 (control of filter to used based on surrounding light including blocking IR light)].
The motivation to combine Kim with Shimotsu is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of daytime / nighttime photography [Kim Paragraphs 1 – 2] in order to improve photography in various ambient light conditions (such as daytime or nighttime) [Kim Paragraphs 2 – 12 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Shimotsu and Kim which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
an image synthesis unit configured to synthesize the multi-band images acquired by the camera unit [Shimotsu Figures 1, 10 – 11 (subfigures included), and 18 (see at least reference characters 110 and 132) as well as Paragraphs 47 – 49 (superimposing visible and NIR images together), 69 – 74 (examples of superimposed / synthesized images), and 95 – 99 (filter used to capture images to superimpose by the controller / control unit)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the camera unit includes a broadband camera acquiring a visible light image corresponding to a visible light wavelength band, an infrared image corresponding to an infrared wavelength band, and a broadband image corresponding to a broadband including the visible light wavelength band and the infrared wavelength band [Shimotsu Figures 1 and 18 (see at least reference characters 1, 100, 132, and 130) as well as Paragraphs 20 (thermal camera for near IR and visible light images), 28 – 30 and 43 – 49 (image sensor can capture and synthesize color / visible and near IR images from individual images taken in visible / NIR / IR ranges), 69 – 74 (examples of superimposed / synthesized images), 85 (individual capture of visible / IR / NIR images), and 95 – 99 (capture visible / IR / NIR images which may be superimposed by the controller / control unit); Kim Paragraph 52 (IR imaging / photography)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the optical filter unit includes a light circulation filter that includes at least one infrared blocking filter area and at least one infrared transmission filter area and rotationally moves [Shimotsu Figures 2 and 17 (see at least reference 50 or 60) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (rotating the filters)] or linearly moves [Kim Figure 2 (see at least reference characters 11, 12, 13, and 20 in which the movement is linear)] the infrared blocking filter area or the infrared transmission filter area onto the optical path [Shimotsu Figures 2, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 68 as the filter is within the optical path of the imager) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (rotating the wheel of filters also described in Paragraph 85) and 30 – 37 (filters to control intensity of light imaged / attenuation for visible and NIR light); Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20, 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (blocking visible or IR light with a filter and a driver / motor to select the filter)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the light circulation filter is a rotational circulation filter that rotationally moves the infrared blocking filter area or the infrared transmission filter area onto the optical path [Shimotsu Figures 2, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 68 as the filter is within the optical path of the imager) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (rotating the wheel of filters also described in Paragraph 85) and 30 – 37 (filters to control intensity of light imaged / attenuation for visible and NIR light); Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20, 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (blocking visible or IR light with a filter and a driver / motor to select the filter – the filters obvious to replace in the arrangement of Shimotsu)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the light circulation filter is a reciprocating circulation filter that reciprocates the infrared blocking filter area or the infrared transmission filter area up and down or left and right onto the optical path [Kim Figures 1 and 2 (see at least reference characters 20, 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (blocking visible or IR light with a filter and a driver / motor to select the filter) and 50 – 55 (motor to move filters left / right or up/down (alternatively Shimotsu Figure 18 (see reference characters 72 and 74) as well as Paragraphs 102 – 104 (insertion / extraction of filters moving filters))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 8, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the infrared transmission filter area of the light circulation filter [See claim 4 for citations of the claimed filter] includes glass through which light of all wavelength bands is transmitted [Shimotsu Figure 2 (see at least reference character 56) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (transparent glass for a filter rendering obvious the claimed transmission as Kim Paragraph 38 further renders obvious such properties from glass)], or includes a visible light blocking filter blocking the visible light wavelength band [Shimotsu Figure 2 (see at least reference characters 52, 54, and 58) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (a filter with low transmission which includes 0% for visible light rendering obvious blocking to one of ordinary skill in the art further rendered obvious in view of Kim Paragraphs 35 – 38 (visible light blocking filter))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
the optical filter unit further includes a driver that drives the light circulation filter so that the infrared blocking filter area or the infrared transmission filter area of the light circulation filter moves onto the optical path in response to a control signal of the light adjustment controller [See claim 1 “optical filter unit” limitation for citations and additionally Shimotsu Paragraphs 95 – 99 (control of the filtering unit / movement of the filtering unit) combinable with Kim’s teachings of the filters to choose in Figure 2 (see at least reference characters 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21a) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39, 41 – 47 and 52 – 57 (control of filter to used based on surrounding light and control unit which controls the light emitters to provide light to the scene)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations. The combination teaches
wherein the driver is a motor that rotates [Shimotsu Figures 2 and 17 (see at least reference characters 50 and 60) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (filters rotated)] the light circulation filter in response to the control signal of the light adjustment controller [Shimotsu Paragraphs 95 – 99 (control of the filtering unit / movement of the filtering unit) combinable with Kim’s teachings of the filters to choose in Figure 2 (see at least reference characters 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21a) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39, 41 – 47 and 52 – 57 (control of filter to used based on surrounding light and control unit which controls the light emitters to provide light to the scene)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotsu and Kim, and further in view of Chen, et al. (WO2021/159768 A1 referred to as “Chen” throughout).
Regarding claim 5, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Chen suggests or teaches alternating regions in a filter and other modifications to triggering / image processing of visible and IR imaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations and with the filter suggestions and inclusions (e.g. a polarization filter) as taught by Chen. The combination teaches
the light circulation filter is configured such that the infrared blocking filter area and the infrared transmission filter area are alternately arranged with each other [Shimotsu Figures 2, 16, and 19 (see at least reference characters 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, and 68 as the filter is within the optical path of the imager) as well as Paragraphs 22 – 26 (rotating the wheel of filters also described in Paragraph 85), 30 – 37 (filters to control intensity of light imaged / attenuation for visible and NIR light), and 90 – 99 (filters arranged on a wheel where the arrangement of the filters would be an obvious selection from a finite number of elements (e.g. KSR Rationale (E) in view of Chen Paragraphs 97, 122 – 124 and 199 (alternative regions of a filter for imaging resulting in visible / IR images captured)); Kim Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20, 11, 12, and 13) as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 (blocking visible or IR light with a filter and a driver / motor to select the filter)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
The motivation to combine Chen with Kim and Shimotsu is to combine features in the same / related of imaging in low light conditions / environments [Chen Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to improve imaging and to reduce the number of elements to accomplish imaging goal [Chen Paragraphs 4 – 7 and 13 – 15 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable.
This is the motivation to combine Shimotsu, Kim, and Chen which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Claim(s) 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotsu, Kim, and further in view of Kanamori (US PG PUB 2015/0256733 A1 referred to as “Kanamori” throughout).
Regarding claim 11, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Kanamori teaches the inclusion of polarization filters at the suggestions of Kim and Shimotsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations and with polarization filters as taught by Kanamori. The combination teaches
a light circulation filter including at least one infrared blocking filter area [See claim 1 for citations of the “infrared blocking filter area”] and at least one first polarization filter area, the light circulation filter rotationally moving or linearly moving the infrared blocking filter area or the first polarization filter area onto the optical path [Shimotsu Figure 18 (see at least reference characters 72 and 74) as well as Paragraphs 100 – 103 (filters to be moved into position in at least a linear fashion where Kanamori Figures 1, 2B, and 4 (see at least reference characters 105, 107, and 109) as well as Paragraphs 93 (polarization filters), 105 – 108, and 113 – 116 (polarization filters with horizontal and vertical orientations) teach incorporating polarization filters into Shimotsu’s filters)]; and
a light switching filter including at least one second polarization filter area and at least one light transmission area, the light switching filter linearly moving the second polarization filter area or the light transmission area onto the optical path [Shimotsu Figure 18 (see at least reference characters 24, 70, 72 and 74) as well as Paragraphs 100 – 103 (filters to be moved into position in at least a linear fashion with the drive mechanism (shown in a linear moving fashion) where Kanamori Figures 1, 2B, and 4 (see at least reference characters 105, 107, and 109) as well as Paragraphs 93 (polarization filters), 105 – 108, and 113 – 116 (polarization filters with horizontal and vertical orientations) teach incorporating polarization filters into Shimotsu’s filters)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu and Kim.
The motivation to combine Kanamori with Kim and Shimotsu is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of image processing techniques with polarization [Kanamori Paragraphs 2 and 4] in order to improve imaging using polarization and multiple images captured [Kanamori Paragraphs 234 – 235 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (B) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Shimotsu, Kim, and Kanamori which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 12, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Kanamori teaches the inclusion of polarization filters at the suggestions of Kim and Shimotsu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations and with polarization filters as taught by Kanamori. The combination teaches
the first polarization filter area of the light circulation filter is a vertical visible light polarization filter, and the second polarization filter area of the light switching filter is a horizontal visible light polarization filter [Shimotsu Figure 18 (see at least reference characters 24, 70, 72 and 74) as well as Paragraphs 100 – 103 (filters to be moved into position in at least a linear fashion with the drive mechanism (shown in a linear moving fashion) where Kanamori Figures 1, 2B, and 4 (see at least reference characters 105, 107, and 109) as well as Paragraphs 93 (polarization filters), 105 – 108, and 113 – 117 (polarization filters for horizontal and vertical orientations with switching control between the polarization filter directions) teach incorporating polarization filters into Shimotsu’s filters)], or
the first polarization filter area of the light circulation filter is a horizontal visible light polarization filter, and the second polarization filter area of the light switching filter is a vertical visible light polarization filter [Shimotsu Figure 18 (see at least reference characters 24, 70, 72 and 74) as well as Paragraphs 100 – 103 (filters to be moved into position in at least a linear fashion with the drive mechanism (shown in a linear moving fashion) where Kanamori Figures 1, 2B, and 4 (see at least reference characters 105, 107, and 109) as well as Paragraphs 93 (polarization filters), 105 – 108, and 113 – 117 (polarization filters for horizontal and vertical orientations with switching control between the polarization filter directions) teach incorporating polarization filters into Shimotsu’s filters)].
See claim 11 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu, Kim, and Kanamori.
Claim(s) 13 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotsu, Kim, and further in view of Miura, et al. (JP2006-102481 A referred to as “Miura” throughout) and Zhang, et al. (US PG PUB 2017/0147859 A1 referred to as “Zhang” throughout).
Regarding claim 13, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Miura teaches speed control considerations on the motor to change filters based on imaging conditions. Zhang teaches the use of synchronization signals (e.g. the vertical synchronization signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations with Miura’s motor speed control considerations for imaging the current environment and Zhang’s use of synchronization signals to align timing by Miura and operations of Kim and Shimotsu. The combination teaches
the light adjustment controller includes:
a light level adjustment unit configured to determine the light level based on the amount of infrared light of the photographing environment and control the lighting unit so that the infrared light corresponding to the determined light level is emitted [Shimotsu Paragraphs 65 – 70 (light limit for sensors to control), 95 – 99 (control of the filtering unit / movement of the filtering unit) combinable with Kim’s teachings of the filters to choose in Figure 2 as well as Paragraphs 35 – 39 and 41 – 46 (control of filter to used based on surrounding light in the environment)];
a camera controller configured to control a photographing timing of the camera unit [Shimotsu Figures 1 and 18 (see at least reference character 110) as well as Paragraphs 102 – 106 in which the controller is modified to include timing in Miura Figures 1, 6, and 8 (see at least reference characters 60, 63, and 160) as well as Paragraphs 26 – 28, 49, and 57 – 60 (timing signal generation for image capture)]; and
an optical filter controller synchronized with the photographing timing of the camera unit and configured to control a drive of the optical filter unit [Miura Figures 1, 6, and 8 (see at least reference characters 60, 63, 123, 125, and 160) as well as Paragraphs 26 – 28, 49 (filter controller / switch with timing considerations for the filter movement control (e.g. speed) to combine with Kim / Shimotsu at least), and 57 – 60 (timing signal generation for image capture related to the timing signals for moving the filters); Zhang Paragraph 29 (vertical synchronization used for triggering to combine with timing signal of Miura)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu with Kim.
The motivation to combine Miura with Shimotsu and Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of imaging in the fluorescent / infrared region [Miura Paragraphs 2 – 3 and 9] in order to improve observing objects in dark areas requiring fluorescence / infrared illumination [Miura Paragraphs 6 – 8 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Zhang with Miura, Shimotsu, and Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of imaging with IR light sources [Zhang Paragraphs 2 and 11] in order to improve imaging of particular types of objects (e.g. eyes) and improving resolution for imaging [Zhang Paragraphs 2 – 4 and 31 where the Examiner observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
T This is the motivation to combine Shimotsu, Kim, Miura, and Zhang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 14, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Miura teaches speed control considerations on the motor to change filters based on imaging conditions. Zhang teaches the use of synchronization signals (e.g. the vertical synchronization signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations with Miura’s motor speed control considerations for imaging the current environment and Zhang’s use of synchronization signals to align timing by Miura and operations of Kim and Shimotsu. The combination teaches
the light adjustment controller further includes an infrared illumination sensor configured to sense the amount of infrared light of the photographing environment [Kim Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 140, 149a, 190, 160, 161, and 148) as well as Paragraphs 42 – 47 (light detection of environment which includes IR light detection) and 54 – 57 (light detection including IR for filter selection and using sensors)].
See claim 13 for the motivation to combine Shimotsu, Kim, Miura, and Zhang.
Regarding claim 15, Shimotsu teaches a camera with various filters available and attenuation / intensity control for the visible and IR light used for imaging. Kim teaches alternative movements for the filters of Shimotsu and additional light intensity control considerations including emitting infrared light for imaging and filtering considerations. Miura teaches speed control considerations on the motor to change filters based on imaging conditions. Zhang teaches the use of synchronization signals (e.g. the vertical synchronization signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shimotsu with the drivers and arrangements of Kim including the additional light intensity such an including an infrared emitter and attenuation considerations with Mi