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 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on newly discover art of Russell applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi et al. US 2024/0119614 further in view of Russell US 2013/0215235.
In regarding to Claim 1 Ebrahimi teaches:
1. An image capturing apparatus, comprising: a light emitter emitting an invisible light to a target;
Ebrahimi, 0255-0256, 0262
an image sensor having a field of view (FOV) covering an area of the target from near to far, sensing the invisible light reflected from the area of the target and generating an image of the area of the target;
Ebrahimi, 0255-0256, 0262
However, Ebrahimi fails to explicitly teach, but Russell teaches:
and a filter filtering the invisible light to transform the invisible light into a non-uniform invisible light with intensity variation.
Russell, 0038.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Russell with the system of Ebrahimi in order and a filter filtering the invisible light to transform the invisible light into a non-uniform invisible light with intensity variation, as such, the response of objects (e.g., the reflection of the invisible light pattern by the objects) within the field of view to the uniform brightness pattern can be observed with the invisible light camera..--0038
In regarding to Claim 2 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
2. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter filters the invisible light according to a change of a distance of an area of the image sensor and the target from near to far or according a change of a brightness of an area of an image from near to far, so that the brightness of the area of the image generated by the image sensor becomes uniform.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264
In regarding to Claim 3 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
3. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter adjusts a gradient transmission rate of the light emitter, so that the invisible light emitted by the light emitter is transformed into a non-uniform invisible light whose intensity changes in a gradient.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264
In regarding to Claim 4 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
4. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter is a neutral density filter (ND filter) having a gradient transmission rate, which is configured on an optical path from the invisible light emitted by the light emitter to the target, so that the invisible light is transformed into a non-uniform invisible light whose intensity changes in a gradient.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264, 0336
In regarding to Claim 5 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
5. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter is an ND filter having a gradient transmission rate, which is configured on an optical path from the invisible light reflected by the target to the image sensor, so that the invisible light is transformed into a non-uniform invisible light whose intensity changes in a gradient.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264, 0336
In regarding to Claim 6 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
6. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter adjusts a gradient transmission rate of the image sensor, so that the invisible light sensed by the image sensor is transformed into a non-uniform invisible light whose intensity changes in a gradient.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264
In regarding to Claim 7 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
7. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 6, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter controls an exposure time of respective pixel rows of a plurality of pixel rows of the image sensor through timing control, so that the plurality of pixel rows have different sensitivities.
Ebrahimi, 0305
In regarding to Claim 10 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
10. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, furthermore, Ebrahimi teaches: wherein the filter is an ND filter having a gradient transmission rate, which is configured in a lens in front of the image sensor, so that the invisible light sensed by the image sensor is transformed into a non-uniform invisible light whose intensity changes in a gradient.
Ebrahimi, 0253, 0264, 0336
Claims 11-17 and 20 list all similar elements of claims 1-7 and 10, but in mobile cleaning robot form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 and 10 applies equally as well to claims 11-17 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. US 2024/0119614 and Russell US 2013/0215235 as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Motta et al. US 6,726,103.
In regarding to Claim 8 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
8. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 6,
however, Ebrahimi and Russell fails to explicitly teach but Motta teaches:
wherein the image sensor further comprises an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert a light intensity sensed by a plurality of pixels in the plurality of pixel rows of the image sensor into pixel values, wherein the filter comprises controlling the number of bits output by the ADC according to a reference voltage, so that the pixel values output by the ADC reflect the sensitivities of the respective pixel rows.
Motta, col. 4 lines 8-29 and Fig. 4.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Motta with the system of Ebrahimi and Russell in order wherein the image sensor further comprises an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert a light intensity sensed by a plurality of pixels in the plurality of pixel rows of the image sensor into pixel values, wherein the filter comprises controlling the number of bits output by the ADC according to a reference voltage, so that the pixel values output by the ADC reflect the sensitivities of the respective pixel rows, as such, simplifies testing of imaging systems and/or image sensors and also increases manufacturing yield and, therefore, results in lower per-unit manufacturing cost…--Abstract.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 8 above, applies equally as well to claims 9, 18 and 19 as presented blow.
In regarding to Claim 9 Ebrahimi and Russell teaches:
9. The image capturing apparatus according to claim 6, furthermore, Motta teaches: wherein the filter comprises adjusting analog gains or digital gains of the respective pixel rows of the plurality of pixel rows of the image sensor, so that the plurality of pixel rows have different sensitivities.
Motta, col. 4 lines 8-29 and Fig. 4.
Claims 18-19 list all similar elements of claims 8-9, but in mobile cleaning robot form rather than apparatus form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 8-9 applies equally as well to claims 18-19.
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 DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481