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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on August 26, 2025, the IDS submitted on January 1, 2026, and the IDS submitted on April 14, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Amendment
The Response, filed on October 30, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated August 18, 2025, claims 8, 14, 24 and 25 have been amended and claims 26-31 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17 and 19-25, Applicant disagrees with the rejection of the claims as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make use the invention (Remarks, p. 11; Non-Final Action, pp. 5-7).
Applicant argues that “the Specification explicitly teaches how the claimed non-uniform angular distribution is achieved, identifying both: 1. the structure: a perspective-control lens capable of steering its optical center relative to the image sensor, and 2. the resulting optical effect: higher light concentration at the periphery and lower near the center. (See, e.g., Specification, ¶¶ [0026], [0027], [0051].)” (Remarks. P. 11).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, neither the Applicant, nor, more specifically the original disclosure as required, has been found to address the specific/physical structure of the apparatus that is employed and is necessary to understand and to achieve the recited functional results. The disclosure is only found to offer broad labels that are not well-defined and established terms in the arts, i.e., “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”. Further, the drawings are of no additional assistance, as they merely present black-box outlines, offering no aid as to what constitutes the “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”. Therefore, without any understanding provided by the disclosure as to what “the structure: a perspective-control lens” is, there can be no enablement. This is especially key, as Applicant also argues that all of the recitations from the independent claims are features of the recited “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”, with particular note to the inclusion and the enablement of the specific features, configuration and/or structure of the “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens” whose features, configuration and/or structure somehow inherently create an image, that when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor, as recited and as argues by Applicant (see Remarks, 14-18, in relation to Applicant’s arguments to the Grillo and Nanjo 102 rejections).
Second, although the Examiner agrees that claiming with functional language is allowed, the disclosure must still enable the recited apparatus described by the claimed functional language. Merely stating the desired results of functional language without teaching the means to achieve said functionality does not rise to the level of enablement. The functional language and the desired result written within the specification do not provide any reasonable disclosure as to what constitutes the “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”; an understanding of which is necessary to give life to the claimed functional language. Stating functions such as “capable of steering its optical center relative to the image sensor” and desired results such as “the resulting optical effect: higher light concentration at the periphery and lower near the center” do not enable the broadly labeled, black-box “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”. Employing broad terms like “camera lens system” and the “perspective-control lens” without enabling how they physically/structurally achieve the functional results, is akin to reciting an ”anti-gravity engine configured to counteract the effects of gravity to levitate a vehicle through reverse polarity of magnetism”. The functional language of being “configured to counteract the effects of gravity to levitate a vehicle through reverse polarity of magnetism” would be a recited functional result of the “anti-gravity engine”, but the language does not enable the “anti-gravity engine”; even though one of ordinary skill in the art may understand general concepts relating to gravity and magnetic polarity. To be enabled, one would need to provide a description of the invention, in full, clear, concise terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use, as required by the enablement clause. In the instant application, the means to achieve said functionality has not been found to be taught or disclosed, as required by the enablement clause.
Applicant also asserts that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the optical arts would recognize that focusing light toward the periphery with a perspective-control lens having an offset optical axis predictably produces the claimed gradient of illumination” (Remarks, p. 11). However, this is merely found to be an unsupported assertion regarding what “a person of ordinary skill in the optical arts would recognize,” as Applicant has not been found to provide any actual evidence or support for their position as it relates to disclosure of what constitutes the recited “perspective-control lens”. The Examiner notes that providing a clear and concise description from the original disclosure by Applicant in their Remarks would have overcome the rejection; material that has not been found by the Office to have been provided in the original disclosure.
Further to this, it is noted that Applicant uses the un-enabled element, i.e., “a perspective-control lens”, as “built-in support” for their assertion by attempting to state that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the optical arts would recognize that focusing light toward the periphery with a perspective-control lens…” This is a semantic contradiction; using the term when trying to define the term. Absent knowledge as to what constitutes “a perspective-control lens”, one cannot factually support a conclusion as to what is known by a person of ordinary skill in the arts. In other words, absent knowledge as to what constitutes “a perspective-control lens”, one cannot factually claim what “one of ordinary skill” would or would not recognize.
Applicant also discusses the Office’s references to the statements within the specification relating to “the exemplary image capture system can be specifically manufactured to…” [followed by functional language] (Non-Final Action, pp. 5-6), by stating “enablement does not require step-by-step fabrication instructions or detailed process parameters…” (Remarks, p. 11). The Examiner agrees that “enablement does not require step-by-step fabrication instructions or detailed process parameters”. However, the cited passages in the rejection were pointed out and provided as examples of the original disclosure’s failures to enable the recited subject matter. The passages relate to the “desired results” of manufacture, without there being any related teaching or enablement provided within the disclosure as to how those results are are/would actually be achieved.
Applicant then goes on to assert general concepts and principles associated with lens, such as refractive indexes, curvatures, etc., and argues that an understanding of these concepts and principles to meet the functionally recited language would be well within the knowledge and routine skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art. (Remarks, p. 12). However, absent an enablement of the specific/physical structure, what exactly constitutes the recited “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”, it would not be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to realize the functionally recited results into actual structure that meets said functional language. Employing broad terms like “camera lens system” and the “perspective-control lens” without enabling how they physically/structurally achieve the functional results, is, once again, akin to reciting an ”anti-gravity engine configured to counteract the effects of gravity to levitate a vehicle through reverse polarity of magnetism” as discussed above. The functional language does not enable the “anti-gravity engine”; even though one of ordinary skill in the art may understand general concepts relating to gravity and magnetic polarity. Similarly, the functional language here does not enable the “camera lens system” and “perspective-control lens”, even though one of ordinary skill in the art may understand the concepts and buzzwords relating to the optical arts. The functional language recited in the claims of the instant application does not enable the “camera lens system” and the “perspective-control lens”, even though one of ordinary skill in the art may understand general concepts relating to optics presented in Applicant’s argument, general concepts and optics buzzwords that are not found in the disclosure and that do not add any further clarity to an enablement as to what constitutes the recited labels “camera lens system” and the “perspective-control lens”.
To be enabled, one needs to provide a written description of the invention, in full, clear, concise terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use. Accordingly, the specification has not been found to provide a written description of the invention, in full, clear, concise terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the “camera lens system” and the “perspective-control lens”, and therefore, the image capture system of the application has not been enabled. In light of at least the foregoing, the Office stands behind the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8-12 and 22, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8-12 and 22 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 14-17, 19, 20 and 23, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 14-17, 19, 20 and 23 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 24 and 25, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 25, Applicant has amended the claims to address the previously identified indefinite subject matter. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 25 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 2, 9 and 15, Applicant argues that the claims are proper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, the Examiner agrees that claiming with functional language is allowed. However, claims 2, 9 and 15 are directed to an apparatus/system. The rejected subject matter of claims 2, 9 and 14 instead discuss a later use associated with, but not structurally part of, the apparatus/system, e.g., “when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane.” The claim language does not recite any additional structure that further limits the previously recited apparatus/system and instead discussed later use associated with projection. Any terms inherited from the parent claims are also found to be related to a later use associated with, but not structurally part of, the apparatus/system, e.g., “when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane…” In light of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the position that the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend, and are therefore of improper dependent form as defined by 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 8-12 and 14-17 as being anticipated by Grillo, Applicant argues that the reference does not disclose “the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor" as recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 14. (Remarks, p. 14). The above recitation relates to the projection of the image and does not recite structural limitations related to the image capture system, or structural limitations of the image camera system found to be disclosed in original specification. Further, as the means for an image projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight when considering the recited image capture system. If Applicant wants the means for image projections, and the effect of projection of that light, included within the claimed “image capture system”, then Applicant should clearly, distinctly and definitively recite it as such. In view of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the rejection.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 17 as being anticipated by Nanjo, Applicant argues that the reference does not disclose “the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor" as recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 14. (Remarks, p. 14). The above recitation relates to the projection of the image and does not recite structural limitations related to the image capture system, or structural limitations of the image camera system found to be disclosed in original specification. Further, as the means for an image projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight when considering the recited image capture system. If Applicant wants the means for image projections, and the effect of projection of that light, included within the claimed “image capture system”, then Applicant should clearly, distinctly and definitively recite it as such. In view of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the rejection.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the teaching of the secondary references as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejections based on their dependence on the independent claims. In view of the response to arguments to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, supra, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to the dependent claims.
* * * * * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17 and 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recite that “the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor, the non-uniform light distribution causing the image”. However, the specification has not been found to teach or disclose how to make such a lens system. The disclosure is found to provide such statements as:
“The exemplary image capture system can be specifically manufactured to heterogeneously, for example, non-uniformly, distribute the rays of light that were captured by the exemplary image capture system onto the image sensor to further enhance the highest optical image quality for the image.” (Abstract).
“Moreover, the exemplary image capture system can be specifically manufactured to heterogeneously, for example, non-uniformly, distribute the rays of light that were captured by the exemplary image capture system onto the image sensor to further enhance the highest optical image quality for the one or more images.” ([0018]).
“In some embodiments, the ultra-wide-angle lens can be specifically manufactured to direct the light that is captured by the camera lens system to be heterogeneously, for example, non-uniformly, distributed onto the image sensor 212 about an approximate a center of the image sensor 212.” ([0027]).
“As further illustrated in FIG. 5B, the camera lens system 502 can be specifically manufactured to direct the rays of light 552.2 to be heterogeneously, for example, non-uniformly, distributed onto the image sensor 506 about the periphery of the image sensor 506.” ([0051]; newly added claim 27).
However, the original disclosure has not been found to teach or disclose the method of manufacture or any specifics relating to a final article of manufacture that produces these properties, i.e., , non-uniformly, distribute the rays of light that were captured by the exemplary image capture system onto the image sensor as claimed. Absent further information, the one of ordinary skill in the art would not even be put in position to determine the necessary means to produce the recited outcome, given the broad unspecific recitations of the claims, and in light of the lack of specifics within the disclosure, which is not found to provide any direction regarding material, specification parameters, manufacturing steps, etc. The disclosure is also not found to provide any working examples. Based on the lack of disclosure and information relating to a method of manufacture or structural specifics of a final article of manufacture, even the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention is undeterminable based on the content of the disclosure. In view of at least the above, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 29 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites “wherein the perspective-control lens comprises one or more curved lens elements, the curvature of the lens elements configured to focus a higher concentration of light near a periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor.” However, the original disclosure has not been found to provide this description. Applicant indicated paragraph [0051] for support. Neither the indicated paragraph nor the specification was found to support the recited limitation. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. - Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, 15, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus/system claim is not found to recite any additional structure that further limits the previously recited apparatus/system.
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus/system claim is not found to recite any additional structure that further limits the previously recited apparatus/system.
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus/system claim is not found to recite any additional structure that further limits the previously recited apparatus/system.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the apparatus/system claim is not found to recite any additional structure that further limits the previously recited apparatus/system. The Examiner notes that the recited “image capture system” is merely “coupled to an image process server”. The “image process server” is not claimed as part of the recited “image capture system”, i.e., The “image capture system of claim 1, further comprising an image process server…”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-17, 24, 25 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0032321 to Grillo et al. (hereinafter “Grillo”).
Regarding claim 1, Grillo teaches an image capture system, comprising a camera lens system (e.g., figs. 1, 3 and 4) having a perspective-control lens (e.g., figs. 1 and 3, element 130; [0021]) configured to steer a center of the lens with respect to an image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 128) toward a periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4, image sensor center axis 318 offset from lens optical axis 316; [0030]), the perspective-control lens being configured to focus light that is related to an image within a field of view of the camera lens system toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 4) such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor throughout the image circle, with the center of the image circle, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate the amount/concentration/distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for an image projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight), a camera assembly (e.g., figs. 2, 3 and 8), including the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 128), configured to capture the light that is focused onto the image sensor by the camera lens system to provide a digital image signal that is related to the image (e.g., figs. 1 and 3; [0025-30]), and an image recording system configured to store the digital image signal (e.g., fig. 7, step 712; [0051]; fig. 8, element 812; [0058-59]).
Regarding claim 2, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 3, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens system comprises an ultra-wide-angle lens having a field of view between approximately one hundred (100) and approximately one-hundred eighty (180) degrees (e.g., fig. 1; indicator 124; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees).
Regarding claim 4, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens is configured to shift the center of the lens with respect to the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Grillo teaches a camera lens system, comprising a camera lens housing (e.g., figs. 1-3, at least housing element 202 holding lens 130) configured to steer a center of the camera lens system toward a periphery of an image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 128; [0021]) to direct light toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4, image sensor center axis 318 offset from lens optical axis 316; [0030]), and a camera lens (e.g., figs, 1 and 3, element 130; [0021]) configured to focus the light toward the periphery of the image sensor such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor throughout the image circle, with the center of the image circle, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to an image projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight).
Regarding claim 9, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 10, Grillo teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens comprises an ultra-wide-angle lens having a field of view between approximately one hundred (100) and approximately one-hundred eighty (180) degrees (e.g., fig. 1, indicator 124; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees).
Regarding claim 11, Grillo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 10, supra) including teaching wherein the ultra-wide-angle lens comprises a fisheye lens (e.g., [0033], 160 degrees; fig. 6, note lens distortion; the claim, as currently written, does not recite any specific structural limitations or lens parameters beyond what is established by claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens housing comprises a perspective-control lens is configured to shift the center of the camera lens system with respect to the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Grillo teaches an image capture system, comprising a camera lens system (e.g., figs. 1, 3 and 4) configured to steer a center of the camera lens system toward a periphery of an image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 128; [0021]) to direct light toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 4, image sensor center axis 318 offset from lens optical axis 316; [0030]), and focus the light toward the-center the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1, 3 and 4), such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor throughout the image circle, with the center of the image circle, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to an image projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight), and a camera assembly (e.g., figs. 2, 3 and 8), including the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 128), configured to capture the light that is focused onto the image sensor by the camera lens system to provide a digital image signal that is related to the image (e.g., figs. 1 and 3; [0025-30]).
Regarding claim 15, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 16, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens system comprises an ultra-wide-angle lens having a field of view between approximately one hundred (100) and approximately one-hundred eighty (180) degrees (e.g., fig. 1; indicator 124; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees).
Regarding claim 17, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens system comprises a perspective-control lens is configured to shift the center of the camera lens system with respect to the image sensor (e.g., figs. 3 and 4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 24, Grillo teaches all of the limitations of the image capture system (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra). The claim also states that the claimed “image capture system” is coupled to an image processing server, the image processing server being configured to process the image for projection the image onto the three-dimensional media plane using in accordance with three-dimensional coordinates of the three-dimensional media plane and color information for the three-dimensional coordinates. However, because the image processing server is not part of the claimed “image capture system”, and is merely a separate and distinct apparatus that is coupled to the claimed “image capture system”, it has been considered, but has been given no weight; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 25, Grillo teaches all of the limitations of the image capture system (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra). The claim also states that the claimed “image capture system” is coupled to an image processing server (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 24, supra). However, because the image processing server is not part of the claimed “image capture system”, and is merely a separate and distinct apparatus that is coupled to the claimed “image capture system”, it has been considered, but has been given no weight; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 27, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 27 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens is configured to provide a first set of rays with the lower concentration of light focused near the center of the image sensor and a second set of rays with the higher concentration of light focused near the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 4, result of lens being offset from center alignment).
Regarding claim 28, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 28 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 27, supra) including teaching wherein the lens housing is configured to orient a center of the perspective-control lens relative to the image sensor to shift an image circle projected by the perspective-control lens to provide the second set of rays at the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 4, result of lens being offset from center alignment).
Regarding claim 29, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens comprises one or more curved lens elements (e.g., fig. 3, lens 130 is curved), the curvature of the lens elements configured to focus a higher concentration of light near a periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 3, lens 130 is curved; fig. 4, result in combination of lens being offset from center alignment).
Regarding claim 30, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 30 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens comprises a fish-eye lens configured to provide the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor when a center of the fish-eye lens is steered with respect to the image sensor toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 1, indicator 124; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees; fig. 4, result of lens being steered from center alignment).
Regarding claim 31, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 31 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 30, supra) including teaching wherein the fish-eye lens comprises one or more curved lens elements (e.g., fig. 3, lens 130 is curved; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees), the curvature of the lens elements configured to focus a higher concentration of light near a periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., fig. 1, indicator 124; [0021], 130 degrees; [0033], 160 degrees; fig. 4, result of lens being steered from center alignment).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0309815 to Nanjo et al. (hereinafter “Nanjo”).
Regarding claim 1, Nanjo teaches an image capture system, comprising a camera lens system (e.g., figs. 1, 2 and 26) having a perspective-control lens (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 2; [0052]) configured to steer a center of the lens with respect to an image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 3; [0052]; figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]; fig. 26, element 12; [0129-130]) toward a periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), the perspective-control lens being configured to focus light that is related to an image within a field of view of the camera lens system toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2) such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for an image projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight), a camera assembly (e.g., fig. 26), including the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 3; [0052]; fig. 26, element 12; [0129-130]), configured to capture the light that is focused onto the image sensor by the camera lens system to provide a digital image signal that is related to the image (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), and an image recording system configured to store the digital image signal (e.g., fig. 26, elements 30 and 51; [0129]).
Regarding claim 2, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 4, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens system comprises a perspective-control lens configured to tilt, shift, or rotate the center of the camera lens system with respect to the image sensor to optically direct the light toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Nanjo teaches a camera lens system comprising a camera lens housing (e.g., fig. 26; [0129-130]) configured to steer a center of the camera lens system toward a periphery of an image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 3 and fig. 26, element 12; [0052], [0129-130]) to direct light toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), and a camera lens (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]; fig. 26, element 12; [0129-130]) configured to focus the light toward the periphery of the image sensor such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for an image projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight).
Regarding claim 9, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 12, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens housing comprises a perspective-control lens configured to tilt, shift, or rotate the center of the camera lens system with respect to the image sensor to steer the center of the camera lens system toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]).
Regarding claim 14, Nanjo teaches an image capture system, comprising a camera lens system (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 2; [0052]) configured to steer a center of the camera lens system toward a periphery (e.g., figs. 1 and 2) of an image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 3; [0052]; fig. 26, element 12; [0129-130]) to direct light toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]; fig. 26, element 12; [0130]), and focus the light toward the-center the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2), such that the light is angularly distributed non-uniformly across the image sensor with a higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; light levels are based on incoming light, thus the lens directs this non-uniform incoming light in a manner resulting in non-uniform angular distribution by the lens onto the sensor, which is not aligned with the center of the image sensor, receiving more light and the edges being subject to vignetting; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens, lens configuration or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light), the non-uniform light distribution causing the image, when projected on a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, to exhibit a first viewing section located between a top and a base of the media plane corresponding to the higher concentration of light near the periphery of the image sensor and a second viewing section spatially separated from the first viewing section corresponding to the lower concentration of light near a center of the image sensor (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to an image projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight), and a camera assembly (e.g., fig. 26) including an image sensor (e.g., fig. 26, element 12; [0130]) configured to capture the light that is focused onto the image sensor by the camera lens system to provide a digital image signal that is related to the image (e.g., figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the non-uniform light distribution captured by the image sensor causes the image, when projected onto the three-dimensional media plane, to exhibit the first viewing section located midway between the top and the base of the three-dimensional media plane (as the means for projection and its effects are not claimed as part of the recited image capture system, the language directed to projection onto a three-dimensional media plane of a venue, although considered, is given no weight; further, the claim is not found to recite any specific lens or specific system structure that would differentiate an amount, concentration or distribution of light; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 17, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) including teaching wherein the camera lens system comprises a perspective-control lens configured to tilt, shift, or rotate the center of the camera lens system with respect to the image sensor to steer the center of the camera lens system toward the periphery of the image sensor (e.g., figs. 1 and 2, lens unit 290; [0086]).
Regarding claim 24, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of the image capture system (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra). The claim also states that the claimed “image capture system” is coupled to an image processing server, the image processing server being configured to process the image for projection the image onto the three-dimensional media plane using in accordance with three-dimensional coordinates of the three-dimensional media plane and color information for the three-dimensional coordinates. However, because the image processing server is not part of the claimed “image capture system”, and is merely a separate and distinct apparatus that is coupled to the claimed “image capture system”, it has been considered, but has been given no weight; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 25, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of the image capture system (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra). The claim also states that the claimed “image capture system” is coupled to an image processing server (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 24, supra). However, because the image processing server is not part of the claimed “image capture system”, and is merely a separate and distinct apparatus that is coupled to the claimed “image capture system”, it has been considered, but has been given no weight; Also see the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection, supra).
Regarding claim 26, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 26 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the perspective-control lens comprises a compound lens including a doublet, triplet, or achromatic configuration, configured to converge light onto the image sensor (e.g., fig. 2; The Examiner notes that how the recited “compound lens” is actually configured and employed in the “perspective-control lens” is not found to be disclosed by the specification (please see the related 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, supra).
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.
Claims 6, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grillo in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0127059 to Powell et al. (hereinafter “Powell’), in further view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-026304 to Hirakoso (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 6, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the image capture system as taught by Grillo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Grillo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Regarding claim 22, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 22 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the camera lens system as taught by Grillo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Grillo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Regarding claim 23, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 23 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the image capture system as taught by Grillo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Grillo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Claims 6, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjo in view of Powell, in further view of Hirakoso.
Regarding claim 6, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the image capture system as taught by Nanjo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Regarding claim 22, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 22 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 8, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the camera lens system as taught by Nanjo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Regarding claim 23, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 23 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the higher concentration of the light near the periphery of the image sensor onto a first density of pixels of the image sensor at the periphery of the image sensor, wherein the camera lens system is configured to focus the lower concentration of the light near the center of the image sensor onto a second density of pixels of the image sensor, less than the first density of pixels, at the center of the image sensor, and wherein the first density of pixels non-uniformly tapers to the second density of pixels.
Nevertheless, Powell teaches the concept of an image sensor having a greater number of pixels at higher field angles, such as at edges and/or corners (e.g., [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Powell to the image sensor of the image capture system as taught by Nanjo, resulting in an image sensor with a higher density at the edges/and or corners, i.e., periphery, in order to capture more light in areas subject to vignetting or capture subjects that may be attempting to evade a camera by attempting to sneak past beyond what they believe to be the capture area with a greater resolution for later electronic zoom options.
Further to this Hirakoso teaches the concept of non-uniformly tapering pixels (e.g., figs. 4 and 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hirakoso with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo and Powell, resulting in the recited combination, in order to simplify the construction of the pixels through a limited number of sizes versus uniformly changing sizes as one progresses from the center.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grillo in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,971,065 to Bayer.
Regarding claim 7, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image sensor comprises a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength.
Nevertheless, the concept of color sensors is well-known in the imaging arts. For example, Bayer teaches a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a color sensor as taught by Bayer with the image capture system as taught by Grillo in order to capture color images in a manner closely matching the response of the human visual system.
Regarding claim 19, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image sensor comprises a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength.
Nevertheless, the concept of color sensors is well-known in the imaging arts. For example, Bayer teaches a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a color sensor as taught by Bayer with the image capture system as taught by Grillo in order to capture color images in a manner closely matching the response of the human visual system.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjo in view of Bayer.
Regarding claim 7, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image sensor comprises a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength.
Nevertheless, the concept of color sensors is well-known in the imaging arts. For example, Bayer teaches a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a color sensor as taught by Bayer with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo in order to capture color images in a manner closely matching the response of the human visual system.
Regarding claim 19, Nanjo teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image sensor comprises a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength.
Nevertheless, the concept of color sensors is well-known in the imaging arts. For example, Bayer teaches a color sensor that includes a color mask that is configured to absorb undesired color wavelengths so that each pixel of the image sensor is sensitive to a specific color wavelength (e.g., fig. 6; col. 5, line 52 – col. 6, line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a color sensor as taught by Bayer with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo in order to capture color images in a manner closely matching the response of the human visual system.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grillo in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0216782 to Chernoff.
Regarding claim 20, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image recording system is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system.
Nevertheless, Chernoff teaches an example of an image recording system that is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system (e.g., fig. 1, element 120 and/or 125 as controlled by element 115; [0028], [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chernoff with the image capture system as taught by Grillo as a way to reduce processing requirements within the image capture system by allowing for storage/preservation of raw data with minimal data loss, which can later be post-processed off-system by a more-powerful processing device or to a specific user’s specification.
Regarding claim 21, Grillo teaches all the limitations of claim 21 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image recording system is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system.
Nevertheless, Chernoff teaches an example of an image recording system that is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system (e.g., fig. 1, element 120 and/or 125 as controlled by element 115; [0028], [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chernoff with the image capture system as taught by Grillo as a way to reduce processing requirements within the image capture system by allowing for storage/preservation of raw data with minimal data loss, which can later be post-processed off-system by a more-powerful processing device or to a specific user’s specification.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjo in view of Chernoff.
Regarding claim 20, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image recording system is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system.
Nevertheless, Chernoff teaches an example of an image recording system that is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system (e.g., fig. 1, element 120 and/or 125 as controlled by element 115; [0028], [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chernoff with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo as a way to reduce processing requirements within the image capture system by allowing for storage/preservation of raw data with minimal data loss, which can later be post-processed off-system by a more-powerful processing device or to a specific user’s specification.
Regarding claim 21, Nanjo teaches all the limitations of claim 21 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the image recording system is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system.
Nevertheless, Chernoff teaches an example of an image recording system that is configured to store the digital image signal as a raw camera image file having radiometric characteristics of the light captured by the image capture system (e.g., fig. 1, element 120 and/or 125 as controlled by element 115; [0028], [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chernoff with the image capture system as taught by Nanjo as a way to reduce processing requirements within the image capture system by allowing for storage/preservation of raw data with minimal data loss, which can later be post-processed off-system by a more-powerful processing device or to a specific user’s specification.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights