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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/09/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20, 26, 44, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nunnink (20140218590).
Regarding claim 1, Nunnink discloses (see at least Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 6, [0001], [0033]) a method of lens position determination in an imaging system comprising an imaging lens (L2), an image sensor comprising an array of pixels (Fig 4, [0033], pixels), and an optical encoder (Fig 4, micro lenses 450) having an angular response ([0033], micro lenses are monitored by the focus process 160) and interposed between the imaging lens and the image sensor (Fig 4), the method comprising: capturing image data from a scene (Fig 4, 410), the capturing comprising detecting, with the array of pixels of the image sensor ([0033], pixels in sensor array), light incident from the scene having passed through the imaging lens and the optical encoder ([0033], micro lenses 450 that can be located so as to focus the rays 440), the optical encoder (450) being configured to encode angle-dependent information about the incident light having passed therethrough in the captured image data in accordance with the angular response ([0033], point of the focused beam falls, the shift of that point can be used to determine the focal distance of the lens assembly); generating a uniform-field image from the captured image data, the uniform-field image having an intensity profile ([0033], a point source illuminator 420 (for example a diode-based illuminator) is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 as shown, and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) that varies with image position in accordance with the angle-dependent information encoded in the captured image data ([0033], determine the focal distance of the lens assembly using known computations and stored calibration data (170)); and determining current lens position information about the imaging lens from the intensity profile ([0033], a point source illuminator 420 is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) of the generated uniform-field image ([0033], adjusted to achieve the focal distance that places the point(s) generated by the micro lens(es) in the appropriate spot on a given portion 460 of the sensor 116).
Regarding claim 20, Nunnink discloses wherein the optical encoder comprises an array of microlenses ([0033], micro lenses 450 define a basic Shack-Hartmann (wave front) sensor), each microlens covering at least two pixels of the image sensor ([0033], micro lenses define a Shack-Hartmann formation).
Regarding claim 26, Nunnink discloses (see at least Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 6, [0001], [0033]) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium ([0022], processor 140) having stored thereon computer readable instructions ([0023]) that, when executed by a processor (140), cause the processor (140) to perform a method of lens position determination in an imaging system ([0008], method for determining focal distance of a lens assembly) comprising an imaging lens (L2), an image sensor comprising an array of pixels (Fig 4, [0033], pixels), and an optical encoder (Fig 4, micro lenses 450) having an angular response ([0033], micro lenses are monitored by the focus process 160) and interposed between the imaging lens and the image sensor (Fig 4),the image sensor being configured to detect , with the array of pixels ([0033], pixel(s) in the sensor array), light incident from the scene having passed through the imaging lens and the optical encoder ([0033], micro lenses 450 that can be located so as to focus the rays 440), the optical encoder (450) being configured to encode angle-dependent information about the incident light having passed therethrough in the captured image data in accordance with the angular response ([0033], point of the focused beam falls, the shift of that point can be used to determine the focal distance of the lens assembly); generating a uniform-field image from the captured image data, the uniform-field image having an intensity profile ([0033], a point source illuminator 420 is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) that varies with image position in accordance with the angle- dependent information encoded in the captured image data ([0033], determine the focal distance of the lens assembly using known computations and stored calibration data (170)); and determining current lens position information about the imaging lens from the intensity profile ([0033], a point source illuminator 420 is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) of the generated uniform-field image ([0033], adjusted to achieve the focal distance that places the point(s) generated by the micro lens(es) in the appropriate spot on a given portion 460 of the sensor 116)
Regarding claim 44, Nunnink discloses (see at least Fig 1, Fig 4, Fig 6, [0001], [0033]) an imaging system having lens position determination capabilities ([0008], method for determining focal distance of a lens assembly), the imaging system comprising: an imaging lens (L2); an image sensor comprising an array of pixels (Fig 4, [0033], pixels); an optical encoder (Fig 4, micro lenses 450) having an angular response ([0033], micro lenses are monitored by the focus process 160) and interposed between the imaging lens and the image sensor (Fig 4); and a computer device (140) operatively coupled to the image sensor ([0022], processor 140 can be entirely self-contained within the camera body 112) and comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0140], 140 can be entirely self-contained within the camera body 112, partially contained within the body, or external to the body--such as a standalone computer (e.g. a PC) or other remote computing device), wherein the image sensor is configured to capture image data from a scene by detecting ([0022], sensor transmits captured image data to a vision processor 140), with the array of pixels ([0033], pixels in sensor array), light incident from the scene having passed through the imaging lens and the optical encoder ([0033], micro lenses 450 that can be located so as to focus the rays 440), wherein the optical encoder (450) is configured to encode angle-dependent information about the incident light having passed therethrough in the captured image data in accordance with the angular response ([0033], point of the focused beam falls, the shift of that point can be used to determine the focal distance of the lens assembly), and wherein the operations performed by the processor (140) comprise: receiving the captured image data from the scene captured by the image sensor ([0022], performs vision system processes on the image data); generating a uniform-field image from the captured image data ([0033], L2 can be adjusted to achieve the focal distance that places the point(s) generated by the micro lens(es) in appropriate spot on given portion 460 of sensor 116), the uniform-field image having an intensity profile ([0033], a point source illuminator 420 is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) that varies with image position in accordance with the angle-dependent information encoded in the captured image data ([0033], determine the focal distance of the lens assembly using known computations and stored calibration data (170)); and determining current lens position information about the imaging lens from the intensity profile (Fig 4, [0033], a point source illuminator 420 is selectively operated to project a spherical wave front to the beam splitter 314. The point source 420 is located at a known distance D6 and can be built into an appropriate structure on the lens assembly) of the generated uniform-field image ([0033], adjusted to achieve the focal distance that places the point(s) generated by the micro lens(es) in the appropriate spot on a given portion 460 of the sensor 116).
Regarding claim 55, Nunnink discloses wherein the optical encoder comprises an array of microlenses ([0033], micro lenses 450 define a basic Shack-Hartmann (wave front) sensor), each microlens covering at least two pixels of the image sensor ([0033], micro lenses define a Shack-Hartmann formation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24, 25, 27, 45, 50 and 53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 2, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein: capturing the image data comprises capturing the image data as a first set of pixel responses corresponding to a first set of pixels of the array of pixels of the image sensor and a second set of pixel responses corresponding to a second set of pixels of the array of pixels of the image sensor, the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses varying differently from each other as a function of angle of incidence in accordance with the angular response of the optical encoder; and generating the uniform-field image comprises generating the uniform-field image as a plurality of image points, the generating comprising: computing a plurality of summed pixel responses based on a sum operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; computing a plurality of differential pixel responses based on a difference operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; and determining an intensity value of each image point of the uniform-field image as a ratio of a respective one of the plurality of differential pixel responses to a respective one of the plurality of summed pixel responses, the plurality of intensity values of the plurality of image points defining the intensity profile of the uniform-field image”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein the angle-dependent information encoded in the image data by the optical encoder comprises a chief ray angle (CRA) function of the imaging lens over the array of pixels; a CRA shifting function of the optical encoder with respect to the array of pixels; and a range of angles of incidence within which the light incident from the scene reaches each pixel”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein determining the current lens position information about the imaging lens comprises: providing reference data relating an intensity profile of a reference uniform-field image to reference lens position information about the imaging lens; and determining the current lens position information from the intensity profile of the generated uniform-field image based on the reference data”. Claims 6 and 7 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 5.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 9, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “determining a first lateral position of the imaging lens along a first lateral direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the imaging lens; determining a second lateral position of the imaging lens along a second lateral direction perpendicular to both the optical axis of the imaging lens and the first lateral direction; determining a first tilt angle of the imaging lens relative to the first lateral direction; and determining a second tilt angle of the imaging lens relative to the second lateral direction”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 12, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein: the scene is representative of a uniform field; the captured image data comprises at least one image of the scene; and the uniform-field image is generated from the at least one image of the scene without performing a prior step of removing depth cues from the at least one image of the scene”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 14, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein: the scene is not representative of a uniform field; captured image data comprises one or more images of the scene; and the method comprises removing depth cues from the one or more images of the scene, combining the one or more images of the scene with removed depth cues into a fused image of the scene, and generating the uniform-field image from the fused image of the scene”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 16, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein the optical encoder comprises a transmissive diffraction mask (TDM), the TDM being configured to diffract the light incident from the scene having passed through the imaging lens to generate diffracted light, the diffracted light having the angle-dependent information encoded therein for detection by the image sensor as the captured image data”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 24, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “determining a target lens-to-sensor distance between the imaging lens and the image sensor corresponding to the target focus distance; and performing a lens position adjustment operation comprising one or more iterative cycles, each iterative cycle comprising: moving the imaging lens with respect to the image sensor based on the target lens-to-sensor distance; current lens position information about the imaging lens, the current lens position information comprising a current lens-to-sensor distance between the imaging lens and the image sensor; determining whether there is a match between the current lens-to-sensor distance and the target lens-to-sensor distance; if there is a match between the current lens-to-sensor distance and the target lens-to- sensor distance, terminating the lens position adjustment operation and determining that the imaging system has been set at the target focus distance; and if there is not a match between the current lens-to-sensor distance and the target lens-to-sensor distance, performing another iterative cycle”. Claim 25 is allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 24.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 27, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “captured image data comprises a first set of pixel responses corresponding to a first set of pixels of the array of pixels of the image sensor and a second set of pixel responses corresponding to a second set of pixels of the array of pixels of the image sensor, the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses varying differently from each other as a function of angle of incidence in accordance with the angular response of the optical encoder; and generating the uniform-field image comprises generating the uniform-field image as a plurality of image points, the generating comprising: computing a plurality of summed pixel responses based on a sum operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; computing a plurality of differential pixel responses based on a difference operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; and determining an intensity value of each image point of the uniform-field image as a ratio of a respective one of the plurality of differential pixel responses to a respective one of the plurality of summed pixel responses, the plurality of intensity values of the plurality of image points defining the intensity profile of the uniform-field image”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 45, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an imaging system including the specific arrangement: “the image sensor is configured to capture the image data as a first set of pixel responses corresponding to a first set of pixels of the array of pixels and a second set of pixel responses corresponding to a second set of pixels of the array of pixels of the image sensor, the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses varying differently from each other as a function of angle of incidence in accordance with the angular response of the optical encoder; and generating the uniform-field image comprises generating the uniform-field image as a plurality of image points, the generating comprising: computing a plurality of summed pixel responses based on a sum operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; computing a plurality of differential pixel responses based on a difference operation between the first set of pixel responses and the second set of pixel responses; and determining an intensity value of each image point of the uniform-field image as a ratio of a respective one of the plurality of differential pixel responses to a respective one of the plurality of summed pixel responses, the plurality of intensity values of the plurality of image points defining the intensity profile of the uniform-field image”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 50, the prior art of Nunnink taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an imaging system including the specific arrangement: “the TDM comprises a first set of diffraction gratings having a first grating axis orientation and a second set of diffraction gratings having a second grating axis orientation, the first grating axis orientation being perpendicular to the second grating axis orientation; generating the uniform-field image comprises: generating a first portion of the uniform-field image from a first portion of the captured image data having angle-dependent information encoded therein by the first set of diffraction gratings; and generating a second portion of the uniform-field image from a second portion of the captured image data having angle-dependent information encoded therein by the second set of diffraction gratings; and determining the current lens position information comprises: determining first lens position information from a first intensity profile of the first portion of the uniform-field image; determining second lens position information from a second intensity profile of the second portion of the uniform-field image; and determining the current lens position information from the first lens position information and the second lens position information”. Claim 53 is allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 50.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Nunnink does not disclose the generation of a uniform-field image. It is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.). Furthermore, no special definition of uniform-field image is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “uniform-field) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “uniform-field,” which states/seems to imply that a uniform field must be undeviating. However, the specification is silent as to how the image is unchanged within the imaging system from a source; the specification does not prohibit such an interpretation; therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art Nunnink does not disclose or suggest generating a uniform-field image. However, the prior art Nunnink discloses the images acquired are captured utilizing a vision system camera. It should be noted that "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Both the prior art and the current application disclose the use of an image sensor that captures pixels within an image. The Applicant disclose that the prior art Nunnink also measures light within a sensor and computes focal distance. The recitation "uniform-field image" of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP §2106.
Applicant discloses that the prior art does not teach or suggest the determination of current lens position information. No special definition of lens position information is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “lens position information”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “position information,” which states/seems to imply that position information must be only a specific location or place the lens is within the camera system. However, the specification is silent as to position information differs from the cited processor within the prior art stated; the specification does not prohibit such an interpretation; therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Applicant argues that the claimed method assumes that lens position is unknown and seeks to determine it to ensure accurate depth information. Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and {both cite and claim a processor which would be used to acquire depth information or data}. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Conclusion
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights