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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 12/3/2025.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 11-12 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-12 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The title objection and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 7).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case that these terms are means-plus-function limitations because (1) the Office Action places undue emphasis on the word "unit" separate and apart from the claimed expressions, and (2) the Office Action fails to give proper weight to the text of the specification in concluding that these claim terms should be construed as means-plus function limitations. Nevertheless, even if these terms are construed as means-plus-function limitations, the specification and drawings adequately disclose the corresponding structure.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) section provided in the 9/5/2025 Office Action clearly establishes a prima facie case that these terms are means-plus-function limitations because the claim limitations in claim 1 clearly meet the three-prong test (A)-(C) as presented. The Applicant fails to provide reasons why these terms should not be construed as means-plus-function limitations. The two reasons as presented by the Applicant are not sufficient to provide reasons why the three-prong test does not meet. Thus, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) is maintained. The Examiner notes that the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) is not a rejection, but is for construing claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11-12 regarding the new feature “wherein, in a case where the reception unit receives a change in the parameters from the user via the user interface, the polarization extraction process by the polarization extraction unit and the generation of the polarization information image by the image generation unit are re-executed using the changed parameters to thereby obtain and display a re-generated polarization information image on the user interface” 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 § 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 11-12 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the original image" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the original image" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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) 1-9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalra et al (US 20210264607 A1) in views of Xue et al (US 20120069181 A1), Schiller et al (US 20130315478 A1) and Mitani et al (US 20190170586 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kalra teaches An imaging system for imaging a transparent object, the imaging system (Figs. 1-8) comprising:
an illumination apparatus configured to illuminate a transparent object (Fig. 5; para. 0081);
a polarization camera (10) including an imaging element in which polarizers with different transmission axis directions are regularly arranged (Fig. 5; para. 0081); and
a processing apparatus (100), wherein the processing apparatus includes
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire an original image captured by the polarization camera in a state where the illumination apparatus illuminates the transparent object (Fig. 5; para. 0081),
a polarization extraction unit (feature extraction system 800) configured to execute a polarization extraction process that extracts, for each of a plurality of pixels of the original image, polarization information that is information regarding polarization derived from specular reflection on the transparent object (Figs. 3, 6, 8A; paras. 0097-0099, 0107),
an image generation unit (feature extraction system 800) configured to generate a polarization information image representing the polarization information, based on an extraction result of the polarization extraction process (Figs. 3, 6, 8A; paras. 0097-0099, 0107),
but fails to teach
a reception unit configured to provide a user interface for receiving, from a user, a change in one or more parameters to be used in the polarization extraction process,
wherein the user interface has an area for displaying the polarization information image, and
wherein, in a case where the reception unit receives a change in the parameters from the user via the user interface, the polarization extraction process by the polarization extraction unit and the generation of the polarization information image by the image generation unit are re-executed using the changed parameters to thereby obtain and display a re-generated polarization information image on the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xue teaches
a reception unit (para. 0025: “a noise removal unit to remove a noise component included in each of the two polarized images captured by the image capturing device, using a noise removing parameter”) .epsilon. value” is changed by parameter selector 25; “The window size of .epsilon. filter may be, for example, 7.times.7 pixels, but not limited thereto” [which can be read as changeable]; “a noise removing method using a .epsilon. filter having 5.times.5 pixels is explained as one example with reference to FIG. 8”) to be used in the polarization extraction process (13-17) (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0025, 0113-0126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Xue in Kalra to have a reception unit receiving a change in one or more parameters to be used in the polarization extraction process for conducting noise removal on image data so that better image data can be obtained for polarization extraction for subsequent object detection yielding a predicted result.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor Schiller teaches
a reception unit configured to provide a user interface for receiving, from a user, a change in one or more parameters (paras. 0034-0037; “these parameters may include window size, noise level, and/or pixel coherence. These values may be entered by a user through a GUI of the image editing application, may be selected by the user from a set of available values, may be default values provided by the system, or may be obtained from a configuration file or another source, in different embodiments”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Schiller in the combination for providing a user interface with different selectable filter parameters enabling the user to customize window size and/or noise level of the filter for noise reduction yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Mitani teaches
wherein the user interface has an area (151) for displaying the polarization information image, and wherein, in a case where the reception unit receives a change in the parameters from the user via the user interface, the polarization extraction process by the polarization extraction unit and the generation of the polarization information image by the image generation unit are re-executed using the changed parameters to thereby obtain and display a re-generated polarization information image on the user interface (Mitani: Figs. 12-17; paras. 0077-0084; “user interface display area 154 has a slider 154a for setting the rotational position of the polarizing element 111 and a slider 154b for setting the ISO speed. Additionally, the rotational position or the ISO speed of the polarizing element 111 may also be set by using a dial or the like instead of the sliders”; the user can use the reception unit 154 of the GUI on the display 15 to adjust parameters and see the changes applied to the polarization images after adjusting the parameters; Schiller already teaches “these parameters may include window size, noise level, and/or pixel coherence. These values may be entered by a user through a GUI”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Mitani in the combination to have wherein the user interface has an area for displaying the polarization information image, and wherein, in a case where the reception unit receives a change in the parameters from the user via the user interface, the polarization extraction process by the polarization extraction unit and the generation of the polarization information image by the image generation unit are re-executed using the changed parameters to thereby obtain and display a re-generated polarization information image on the user interface for allowing user to observe live preview images with modified image parameters so that optimal acquired images can be obtained yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kalra, Xue, Schiller and Mitani teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Xue teaches wherein the polarization extraction process includes a polarization information calculation process that calculates polarization information of a target pixel with reference to pixel values of the target pixel and a neighboring pixel of the target pixel (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “a noise removing method using a .epsilon. filter having 5.times.5 pixels is explained as one example with reference to FIG. 8. The window such as 5.times.5 pixels includes a target pixel at the center of window, and surrounding pixels existing around the target pixel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Xue in the combination to have wherein the polarization extraction process includes a polarization information calculation process that calculates polarization information of a target pixel with reference to pixel values of the target pixel and a neighboring pixel of the target pixel for using relevant surrounding pixels for obtaining better noise reduction image data yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kalra, Xue, Schiller and Mitani teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Xue teaches wherein the parameters include a mask size that is an item defining a range of neighboring pixels to be referenced when the polarization information is calculated in the polarization information calculation process (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “a noise removing method using a .epsilon. filter having 5.times.5 pixels is explained as one example with reference to FIG. 8. The window such as 5.times.5 pixels includes a target pixel at the center of window, and surrounding pixels existing around the target pixel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Xue in the combination to have wherein the parameters include a mask size that is an item defining a range of neighboring pixels to be referenced when the polarization information is calculated in the polarization information calculation process for using relevant surrounding pixels for obtaining better noise reduction image data yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kalra, Xue, Schiller and Mitani teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Schiller teaches wherein the user interface allow the user to select a mask size that is used in the polarization information calculation process from a plurality of mask sizes different from each other (paras. 0034-0037; “these parameters may include window size, noise level, and/or pixel coherence. These values may be entered by a user through a GUI of the image editing application, may be selected by the user from a set of available values, may be default values provided by the system, or may be obtained from a configuration file or another source, in different embodiments”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Schiller in the combination to have wherein the user interface allow the user to select a mask size that is used in the polarization information calculation process from a plurality of mask sizes different from each other for providing a user interface with different selectable filter parameters enabling the user to customize window size and/or noise level of the filter for noise reduction yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 5-9, the combination of Kalra, Xue, Schiller and Mitani teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Xue teaches
Claim 5: The imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the polarization extraction process includes a noise removal process that, after calculation of the polarization information of each of the plurality of pixels of the original image by the polarization information calculation process, removes or reduces noise included in a result of the calculation (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126).
Claim 6: The imaging system according to claim 5, wherein the noise removal process includes a process of comparing polarization information between the target pixel and a peripheral pixel of the target pixel to determine similarity or dissimilarity of the polarization information between the target pixel and the peripheral pixel, and deleting (replacing with the filtered value) the polarization information of the target pixel when the dissimilarity is determined (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “When the absolute difference value is greater than the .epsilon. value (or threshold value), it is determined that the light intensity data of relevant surrounding pixels are noise component or information, and the light intensity data of such surrounding pixels such are not used for the averaging process. By conducting such noise removing method, surrounding pixels having light intensity value, which is too different from the light intensity value of the target pixel, can be determined and removed as the noise component”).
Claim 7: The imaging system according to claim 5, wherein the noise removal process includes a process of comparing polarization information between the target pixel and a peripheral pixel of the target pixel to determine similarity or dissimilarity of the polarization information between the target pixel and the peripheral pixel, and replacing the polarization information of the target pixel with polarization information of a pixel selected from the target pixel and the peripheral pixel when the similarity is determined (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “When the absolute difference value is greater than the .epsilon. value (or threshold value), it is determined that the light intensity data of relevant surrounding pixels are noise component or information, and the light intensity data of such surrounding pixels such are not used for the averaging process. By conducting such noise removing method, surrounding pixels having light intensity value, which is too different from the light intensity value of the target pixel, can be determined and removed as the noise component”).
Claim 8: The imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the parameters include an item that defines a range of the peripheral pixel to be compared with the target pixel (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “The window size of .epsilon. filter may be, for example, 7.times.7 pixels, but not limited thereto”; “When the noise removing is conducted for such 5.times.5 pixels, the absolute difference value of light intensity between the target pixel and the surrounding pixels are compared with a .epsilon. value (or threshold value) used as the noise removing parameter”).
Claim 9: The imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the parameters include an item defining a determination criterion of the similarity or dissimilarity for the polarization information (Figs. 1, 8-10; paras. 0113-0126; “the noise removing parameter may be referred to .epsilon. value” is changed by parameter selector 25;”; “When the noise removing is conducted for such 5.times.5 pixels, the absolute difference value of light intensity between the target pixel and the surrounding pixels are compared with a .epsilon. value (or threshold value) used as the noise removing parameter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Xue in the combination to have features of claims 5-9 for properly conducting noise removal on image data so that better image data can be obtained for polarization extraction for subsequent object detection yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons presented above.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons presented above. In addition, Kalra teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium (para. 0066) storing a program for causing a processor to execute a control method for an imaging system that includes an illumination apparatus, a polarization camera including an imaging element in which polarizers with different transmission axis directions are regularly arranged, and a processing apparatus, the control method comprising: (as presented above in claim 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalra et al (US 20210264607 A1) in views of Xue et al (US 20120069181 A1), Schiller et al (US 20130315478 A1) and Mitani et al (US 20190170586 A1) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Schloter et al (US 20130201307 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kalra, Xue, Schiller and Mitani teaches everything as claimed in claim 5. In addition, Xue teaches apply the noise removal process to a calculation result of the polarization information calculation process (as presented in claim 5),
but fails to teach
wherein the parameters include an item that designates whether to apply the noise removal process.
However, in the same field of endeavor Schloter teaches
wherein the parameters include an item that designates whether to apply the noise removal process (Fig. 1A; para. 0021; “The button 110 allows a user to activate and/or deactivate an image filter (as discussed below in conjunction with FIG. 1B) that may be used to process the images displayed in the preview 105”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Schloter in the combination to have wherein the parameters include an item that designates whether to apply the noise removal process for allowing the user to fully control the noise reduction process enabling the user to activate or deactivate to control processing load yielding a predicted result.
Alternative Rejections
Kushida (US 20230063237 A1) teaches a reception unit configured to receive provide a user interface (Fig. 14) for receiving, from a user, a change in one or more parameters to be used in the polarization extraction process, wherein the user interface has an area (31) for displaying the polarization information image, and wherein, in a case where the reception unit receives a change in the parameters from the user via the user interface, the polarization extraction process by the polarization extraction unit and the generation of the polarization information image by the image generation unit are re-executed using the changed parameters to thereby obtain and display a re-generated polarization information image on the user interface (Fig. 14; paras. 0128-0132; “A knob 72 is provided as the operator and is shiftable along the slide bar 71. The user can (manually) set the kernel size by operating the knob 72 and designating the position of the knob 72. Thereafter, this setting is reflected in the erosion process”). Kushida can also be used in place of Mitani and/or Schiller in the combination for addressing the features as claimed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637