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 .
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3 - 4 of claim 1 recite, in part, “based on first disparities measured at a plurality of focal lengths of an object” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --based on first disparities, measured at a plurality of focal lengths, of an object-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 5 - 6 of claim 7 recite, in part, “calculate first disparities respectively corresponding to the focal lengths of an object” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --calculate first disparities, respectively corresponding to the focal lengths, of an object-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 8 recites, in part, “the image sensor includes micro-lens between the lens” which appears to contain a typographical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --the image sensor includes micro-lenses between the lens-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 11 recites, in part, “is configured to allow focal lengths for which the rate” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --is configured to allow a subset of focal lengths for which the rate-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4 - 5 of claim 15 recite, in part, “based on first disparities measured at a plurality of focal lengths of an object” which appears to contain a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --based on first disparities, measured at a plurality of focal lengths, of an object-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a preprocessor configured to determine” and “a disparity calculator configured to calculate” in claims 1 - 7 and 10 - 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 - 21 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 1 recites the limitation "the target object" in lines 8 - 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first difference" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second difference" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the target object" in lines 11 - 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is 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 because it is unclear as to which target object “the target object” recited on line 8 is referencing. Is it referring to “the target object” recited on lines 11 - 12 of claim 7 or the “target object” recited on lines 13 - 14 of claim 7? Additionally, it is unclear as to whether “the target object” recited on lines 11 - 12 of claim 7 and the “target object” recited on lines 13 - 14 of claim 7 are the same target object or are different target objects. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat the claims as requiring and referencing a single same target object.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the target object" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the preset reference value" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the pixels" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the fourth intermediate value" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 - 5, 8 - 13, 16 and 18 - 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not anticipate nor does it suggest the combination as presently claimed. In particular, a technique for calculating a disparity of an object comprising determining an effective range of a focal length of an image sensor based on first disparities of a first object measured at a plurality of focal lengths, determining a representative value of equivalent aperture values for the image sensor corresponding to the effective range, and calculating a disparity of a target object within the effective range based on the focal length of the image sensor, an actual distance from the image sensor to the target object, and the representative value of the equivalent aperture values. These elements, in combination with the remaining component(s) of the claim(s), are not taught nor are they suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayashi et al. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0192167 A1; which is directed towards a stereoscopic imaging device, wherein the stereoscopic imaging device determines whether or not stereoscopic imaging with a minimum amount of parallax can be carried out based on a combination of a focal length and F-stop set by a user.
Kang et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0260029 A1; which is directed towards an image processing system and method for generating a depth map, wherein calibration data describing a relationship between focal length and disparity is generated based on a plurality of target images captured at a plurality of focal lengths and, based on the calibration data, a depth map is generated.
Kyung et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0150019 A1; which is directed towards a multi-aperture camera system, wherein a disparity between first and second images obtained via first and second apertures of the multi-aperture camera system is calculated and a distance between a target object and an image sensor is obtained based on the calculated disparity, a focal length, a distance between the first and second apertures and an object distance focused on the image sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677