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 .
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 10/28/2025.
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 10/28/2025, 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 1-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the original image” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the original image” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the reference lens position” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the reference lens position” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the original image” in lines 7- 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the original image” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the reference lens position” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the reference lens position” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the reference lens position” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vakrat et al. (US 2008/0291447 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vakrat et al. (hereafter referred as Vakrat) teaches a circuit (Vakrat, Fig. 2) comprising:
an interface (Vakrat, Fig. 2, A to D converter 207, Video Processor 209, Paragraph 0019) configured to receive data representing an image captured by a camera (Vakrat, Fig. 2, image sensor 203, Paragraph 0019) with a lens located at a first lens position (Vakrat, Fig. 2, Lens 201, Paragraphs 0019 and 0026); and
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 (Vakrat, Fig. 3, Step 303-305, Paragraphs 0021-0022, The reference location is the optical center, the corresponding point is the current pixel coordinate.); and
generate a modified image by scaling one or more portions of the original image in respective radial directions from the reference location, using one or more offline-generated compensation ratios (Vakrat, Fig. 3, Steps 307-311, Paragraphs 0022-0024, Red and blue portions of the original image are scaled to correct for chromatic aberration.).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Vakrat teaches the circuit as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to the first plurality of radial distances (Vakrat, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0022 and 0030).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Vakrat teaches the circuit as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to one of:
previously stored calibration data (Vakrat, Paragraphs 0022); and
an interpolation of the previously stored calibration data (Vakrat, Paragraphs 0030).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshino (US 2014/0300799 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshino teaches an apparatus (Yoshino, Fig. 1) comprising:
an image sensor (Yoshino, Fig. 1, image sensor 260, Paragraph 0069) configured to convey image data of an image to view based on a lens located at one of a plurality of lens positions (Yoshino, Fig. 1, movable lens 240, Paragraph 0069);
a lens controller configured to adjust a lens position of the lens (Yoshino, Fig. 6, focus control section 330, Paragraph 0073); and
an image signal processing circuit (Yoshino, Fig. 6, magnification correction section 370, Paragraph 0072) comprising:
an interface configured to receive data representing an original image captured by a camera with a lens located at a first lens position of the plurality of lens positions (Yoshino, Fig. 6, preprocessing section 320 and correction section 371, Paragraph 0105); and
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 (Yoshino, Fig. 10, Paragraphs 0108-0109, ShiftX and ShiftY of each pixel are horizontal and vertical radial distances each extending from the center (reference location) to the location of the pixel.); and
generate a modified image by scaling one or more portions of the original image in respective radial directions from the reference location (Yoshino, Figs. 10C or 10D, Paragraphs 0109-0113), using one or more offline- generated compensation ratios (Yoshino, Paragraphs 0109-0110, K is considered to be an offline-generated compensation ratios since it is generated within the device.).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshino teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios relate the first lens position to a reference lens position (Yoshino, Figs. 8-9, Paragraphs 0106-0107).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshino teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to the first plurality of radial distances (Yoshino, Paragraphs 0109-0110).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to one of:
previously stored calibration data (Yoshino, Paragraph 0105, “correction coefficient calculation data” is considered to be calibration data.); and
an interpolation of the previously stored calibration data (Yoshino, Paragraph 0107).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the modified image represents the original image as if captured by the lens located at a second lens position different from the first lens position (Yoshino, Paragraphs 0044, 0060, 0099 and 0120).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakrat et al. (US 2008/0291447 A1) in view of Stern (US 2017/0134620 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Vakrat et al. (hereafter referred as Vakrat) teaches an apparatus (Vakrat, Fig. 2) comprising:
an image sensor (Vakrat, Fig. 2, image sensor 203, Paragraph 0019) configured to convey image data of an image to view based on a lens located at one of a plurality of lens positions (Vakrat, Fig. 2, Lens 201, Paragraphs 0019 and 0026); and
an image signal processing circuit (Vakrat, Fig. 2, Video Processor 209) comprising:
an interface (Vakrat, Fig. 2, A to D converter 207, Video Processor 209, Paragraph 0019) configured to receive data representing an original image captured by a camera (Vakrat, Fig. 2, image sensor 203, Paragraph 0019) with a lens located at a first lens position of the plurality of lens positions (Vakrat, Fig. 2, Lens 201, Paragraphs 0019 and 0026); and
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 (Vakrat, Fig. 3, Step 303-305, Paragraphs 0021-0022, The reference location is the optical center, the corresponding point is the current pixel coordinate.); and
generate a modified image by scaling one or more portions of the original image in respective radial directions from the reference location, using one or more offline- generated compensation ratios (Vakrat, Fig. 3, Steps 307-311, Paragraphs 0022-0024, Red and blue portions of the original image are scaled to correct for chromatic aberration.).
However, Vakrat does not explicitly teach a lens controller configured to adjust a lens position of the lens.
In reference to Stern, Stern teaches 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").
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices with focus lenses. 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 Vakrat with the explicit teaching of a lens controller configured to adjust a lens position of the lens as seen in Stern to allow for automatic focusing or automatic movement of the focus lens.
Regarding claim 17, Vakrat teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15, (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to the first plurality of radial distances (Vakrat, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0022 and 0030).
Regarding claim 18, Vakrat teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15, (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios correspond to one of:
previously stored calibration data (Vakrat, Paragraphs 0022); and
an interpolation of the previously stored calibration data (Vakrat, Paragraphs 0030).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino (US 2014/0300799 A1) in view of Irisawa et al. (US 2012/0044369 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Yoshino teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 15 (see claim 15 analysis), wherein the one or more offline-generated compensation ratios are derived from a comparison of radial distances generated at the reference lens position to radial distances generated at the first lens position (Yoshino, Paragraphs 0097 and 0106, An image height is a radial distance from the center of an image.).
However, Yoshino does not teach the radial distances are measured radial distances.
In reference to Irisawa et al. (hereafter referred as Irisawa), Irisawa teaches image height (radial distance) may be determined from measurement or specifications of an optical lens unit (Irisawa, Paragraph 0270).
These arts are analogous since they are related to imaging devices. 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 Yoshino with measured radial distances as seen in Irisawa to for the correction coefficient calculation data of Yoshino since it is a known alternative to generating image heights from objective lens design data and would provide for actual image heights of the lens.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 20.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshino and Irisawa teaches the circuit as recited in claim 6 (see claim 6 analysis), wherein the reference lens position corresponds to a minimal focus distance (Yoshino, Figs. 9 and 15, Paragraph 0107, Determining a reference lens position between Movable lens positions “A” and “B” would correspond to the minimal focal distance of lens position “A”.).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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