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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amends the claims to require “or an image blur caused by image misalignment” and argues that the “blur” is not blur caused by in-focus/out-focus but “blur caused by image misalignment” which is supported by the feature of detecting a shifted amount of the image.
Paragraph 0251 of the specification states:
[0251] The determination unit 160 may determine whether or not there is an image blur as follows. The determination unit 160 calculates a shifted amount of a pixel on a per phase basis by a process of determining a general optical flow or by calculating using a mechanical learning method disclosed in the following reference paper, and comparing the value obtained by adding the shifted amount of the pixel on a per phase basis for all the phases with the threshold. However, the determination unit 160 may use other methods to determine whether or not there is an image blur.
While the specification discusses determining blur by detecting a shifted amount of the image, the specification does not define “blur” or “blur caused by image misalignment” in such a way that the “blur” must blur due to image shifts described in the specification. See MPEP 2111.01(IV): “The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.”
Since in-focus/out-focus of an image is caused by the convergence point of the image plane being misaligned with the image sensor plane, the in-focus/out-focus type blur described by Sato in view of Lee is believed to read on the claims as amended.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “detecting the shifted amount of the image…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejections are maintained below.
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, 6, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 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).[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 determine whether a presence or absence of at least one of a high reflection object, a low reflection object, a distant object, or an image blur caused by misalignment, based on both an output of the light receiver and an output of the imager; and
a display controller configured to cause a display to present a display according to the presence or absence of at least one of the high reflection object, the low reflection object, the distant object, or the image blur caused by misalignment.
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 an image blur caused by misalignment, based depth information (e.g. Figures 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0113-0118; note focus blur is caused by misalignment between the sensor plane and the convergence point of the image plane) and
a display controller (Paragraph 0049) configured to cause a display to present a display according to the presence or absence of at least one of the distant object or 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.[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 at least one of the high reflection object, the low reflection object, the distant object, 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 at least one of the high reflection object, the low reflection object, the distant object, and the image blur (e.g. Lee, Paragraphs 0113-0118; Figures 7).[claim 6]
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses wherein when a charged amount in a pixel by light received by the light receiver is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Figure 16, S41), and information on the image captured by the imager is matched with reference information representing the high reflection object (Figure 16, S43-S45; note that the claim as written does not place any specific requirements on the “reference information”, thus the correlation value requirements of Sato may be considered “reference information” as claimed), the determination circuitry determines that the high reflection object is present (Figure 16, S46).[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).[claims 18-20]
Regarding claims 18-20, Lee discloses determination circuitry which determines the presence of the image blur caused by the image misalignment (e.g. Figures 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0113-0118; determining/recognizing in-focus and out-focus/blurred areas of the image).
Claim(s) 12 and 17 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 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.[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 high reflection object to present a display according to the presence or absence of at least one of the high reflection object, the low reflection object, the distant object, and 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 high reflection object to present a display according to the presence or absence of at least one of the high reflection object, the low reflection object, the distant object, and the image blur as claimed.[claims 7-10]
Regarding claims 7-10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest determining the presence of a distant object, low reflection object, or image blur using the specific criteria claimed. While detecting distant object, low reflection objects and image blur is generally known in the prior art, the specific criteria for doing so recited in claims 7-10 are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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