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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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(s) 1-4, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0150742 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0278837 A1) in view of Manzari (US 2020/0082599 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses imaging device, comprising:
an imager to capture an image of an object (Figure 4, 103);
a projector to project light onto the object (Figure 4, 101); and
a light receiver to receive light reflected from the object (Figure 4, 102).
Sato further discloses circuitry to determine depth information using both an output of the light receiver and an output of the imager (Figure 4, 110/112; Figure 8) as well as determination circuitry configured to determine a presence or absence of at least one high reflection object (Figure 16). However, Sato does not explicitly disclose:
determination circuitry configured to perform a determination of a presence of a distant object an determination of an occurrence of an image blur; and
a display controller configured to cause a display to present a display according to the presence of the distant object, or according to the occurrence of the image blur.
Lee discloses an imaging device (Figure 2) comprising:
determination circuitry configured to determine whether a presence or absence of at least one of a distant object or occurrence an image blur (e.g. Figures 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0113-0118) and
a display controller (Paragraph 0049) configured to cause a display to present a display according to the occurrence of the image blur caused by misalignment (Paragraphs 0115, 0117).
The system of Lee allows in-focus and out-focus (i.e. blurred) areas to be easily identified (e.g. Paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a display/display controller in order to display image data with colorization according to depth as taught by Lee in the imaging device of Sato so that a user may easily identify in-focus and out-focus areas.
However, Sato in view of Lee does not disclose that the display controller presents a display according to the presence of the distant object as claimed.
Manzari discloses an imaging device which includes a portrait mode capable of adding simulated depth effects to an image (e.g. Abstract, Paragraphs 0206-0210). Manzari further discloses in the portrait mode detecting the presence of a distance object (e.g. an object more than a predefined distance away from the device) and displaying a notification in response to the determination (e.g. Paragraph 0273).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a portrait mode so that simulated depth effects may be added to images captured by the imaging device of Sato in view of Lee, and to further detect the presence of a distance object and provide a notification display so that the portrait mode may be fully enabled.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Sato in view of Lee discloses wherein the display controller displays a display image on the display, the display image including information on an image captured by the imager, and identification information for identifying the distant object or and the image blur (e.g. Lee, Paragraphs 0113-0118; Figures 7).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Lee discloses an imaging device further comprising the display (see rejection of claim 1 above).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Lee discloses wherein the display controller causes the display at a position of the display according to a position of the distant object or the image blur (e.g. Lee, Paragraphs 0113-0118; Figures 7).[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, Sato discloses wherein distance information to the object is acquired based on the light received by the light receiver (Figure 6, S15).[claims 13 and 14]
Claims 13 and 14 are methods claim corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 2.[claims 15 and 16]
Regarding claims 15 and 16, see the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above and note that Sato in view of Lee discloses an image processing device comprising a display controller configured to perform the claimed functions (note that the “display controller” may be considered to encompass the processing circuitry of Sato in view of Lee which determines a presence/absence as recited in the claim).
Claim(s) 12, 17, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0150742 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0278837 A1) in view of Manzari (US 2020/0082599 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, Sato in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose output circuitry configured to output three-dimensional information determined based on the distance information acquired from the light receiver.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to output and display three-dimensional information based on captured distance information to provide a three-dimensional display of a scene. Therefore, it would have been obvious to output and display three-dimensional information based on the captured distance/depth information of Sato in view of Lee so that a three-dimensional display of a scene may be provided.[claim 17]
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 12 above. Further note that it would have been obvious to provide identification information identifying positions of the at least one image blur in the three-dimensional image for the same reasons discussed by Sato, i.e. to allow the user to easily identify in-focus and out-focus areas of the image.[claim 21]
Regarding claim 21, see the rejection of claims 12 and 17 above.[claim 23]
Regarding claim 23, see the rejections of claims 15, 12 and 17 above.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0150742 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0278837 A1) in view of Manzari (US 2020/0082599 A1) in view of Official Notice in view of Bendall et al. (US 2015/0187067 A1).[claim 22]
Regarding claim 22, Sato in view of Lee in view of Manzari in view of Official Notice does not teach wherein: the three-dimensional information is a three-dimensional point cloud with color information added.
Bendall discloses a system for displaying a three dimensional image view wherein a point cloud is displayed and a color map is added to indicate distance between each of the surface points so that a user may view and compare distances to various points in the scene (e.g. Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to display the three-dimensional images as a point cloud with added color so that a user may easily view and compare distances between points in the displayed scene.[claim 24]
Regarding claim 24, see the rejection of claims 15 and 22 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is 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.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein:
the display includes a plurality of displays, and
the display controller causes one of the displays that is located closer to the distant object to present a display according to the presence the distant object or the image blur.
While it is known in the prior art to provide multiple displays on an imaging device, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest causing one of the displays that is located closer to the distant object to present a display according to the presence of the distant object or the image blur as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights