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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 06/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 06/03/2026 which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 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 3 recites the limitation "the first radial distances" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes: Claim 1 recites “a first plurality of radial distances” in line 4. However, it is unclear if "the first radial distances" is referring to “a first plurality of radial distances”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the original" in lines. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first radial distances" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes: Claim 8 recites “a first plurality of radial distances” in lines 4-5. However, it is unclear if "the first radial distances" is referring to “a first plurality of radial distances”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the original" in lines. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first radial distances" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes: Claim 15 recites “a first plurality of radial distances” in line 10. However, it is unclear if "the first radial distances" is referring to “a first plurality of radial distances”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first radial distances" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes: Claim 15 recites “a first plurality of radial distances” in line 10. However, it is unclear if "the first radial distances" is referring to “a first plurality of radial distances”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the original" in lines. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern (US 2017/0134620 A1) in view of Walls et al. (US 2020/0167960 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Stern teaches an apparatus (Stern, Fig. 1) comprising:
an image sensor (Stern, Fig. 3, image sensor 12, Paragraph 0033) configured to convey image data of an image to view based on a lens (Stern, Fig. 3, lens 4, Paragraph 0033) located at one of a plurality of lens positions (Stern, Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0036-0037);
a lens controller configured to adjust a lens position of the lens (Stern, Paragraph 0038, “The camera unit 2 then moves the lens 4 to a second lens position where a second image is captured”); and
an image signal processing circuit (Stern, Fig. 3, processor 10, Paragraph 0033 and 0036) comprising:
an interface configured to receive data representing an image captured by a camera with a lens located at a first lens position of the plurality of lens positions (Stern, Paragraph 0036); and
circuitry configured to:
access data including one or more compensation values (Stern, Paragraphs 0039-0041, “Inverse FOV/D correction map”) based on radial distances measured at the first lens position (Stern, Paragraph 0039, “first lens position”) and corresponding radial distances of reference data (Stern, Paragraphs 0039-0041);
generate a modified image based on the data including one or more compensation values (Stern, Paragraphs, 0044-0045).
However, Stern does not teach circuitry configured to: generate a first plurality of radial distances, each extending from a reference location in the image to a corresponding point within the image; and access data including one or more compensation ratios based on radial distances measured at the first lens position and corresponding radial distances measured at a reference lens position; modify the first radial distances using the one or more compensation ratios to generate second radial distances; and generate a modified image based on the second radial distances.
In reference to Walls et al. (hereafter referred to Walls), Walls teaches circuitry configured to: generate a first plurality of radial distances, each extending from a reference location (Walls, Paragraphs 0040, principal point/center) in the image to a corresponding point within the image (Walls, Paragraphs 0042-0043, Radial distortion, depends on a distance to the center “principal” point of the pattern. Undistorting an image at a plurality of radii requires calculating a first plurality of radial distances.); and
access data including one or more compensation ratios based on radial distances measured at the first lens position and corresponding radial distances measured at a reference lens position (Walls, Fig. 4A, Paragraphs 0039-0044, The factor applied to the pixel distance (radius) is a compensation ratios. Distortion correction data includes one or more compensation ratios since radial distortion depends on the radius (distance of the pixel from the center.);
modify the first radial distances using the one or more compensation ratios to generate second radial distances (Walls, Paragraphs 0043, Modifying each radius with a respective factor.); and
generate a modified image based on the second radial distances (Walls, Paragraphs 0043).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices compensating for focus breathing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Stern with distortion correction as seen on Walls since it is a known method of focus breathing correction relative to a first lens position and would provide similar and expected results. That is, Stern discloses determining FOV/D based on the distortion model and correcting distortion with an inverse of the FOV/D which may be stored in a LUT (Stern, Paragraph 0041) but does not disclose a form of the IFOV/D. Walls discloses determining a distortion model using radial distances measured at the first lens position and corresponding radial distances measured at a reference lens position and correcting distortion at a radial distance using a compensation ratio which is an inverse of the distortion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to store compensation ratios as the inverse of the FOV/D.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more compensation ratios are selected from stored compensation ratios corresponding to a plurality of lens positions, based on the first lens position (Stern, Paragraph 0041, Walls, Paragraph 0043).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to radial distances of the first radial distances (Walls, Paragraph 0043).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more compensation ratios are accessed from stored calibration data (Stern, Paragraph 0045) or are generated by interpolation using stored compensation ratios corresponding to different lens positions (Stern, Paragraphs 0021 0045,).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the modified image compensates for lens-position-dependent magnification change relative to the original image (Stern, Paragraphs 0037-0038, Walls, Paragraph 0046).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the one or more are compensation ratios are generated from calibration data associated with the reference lens position and the first lens position (Walls, Fig. 4A, Paragraphs 0039-0044).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 20.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern (US 2017/0134620 A1) in view of Walls et al. (US 2020/0167960 A1) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2019/0377166 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Stern and Walls teaches the circuit as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Stern and Walls does not teach wherein the reference lens position corresponds to a minimal focus distance.
In reference to Komatsu et al. (hereafter referred as Komatsu), Komatsu teaches wherein the reference lens position corresponds to a minimal focus distance (Komatsu, Paragraphs 0197-0200, A maximum angle of view corresponds to a minimal focal distance.).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices compensating for focus breathing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of Stern and Walls with the teaching of using the minimum focal distance as a reference.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, when pursuing the known options within his or her technical grasp (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), to have modified the combination of Stern and Walls with the teaching of using the minimum focal distance as a reference since it is a known reference point and would produce similar and expected results for a reference point to scale to.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESLEY J CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights