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 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, 15 and 16 recites the limitation "the same object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-14 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same pixel positions" in line 4. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taro et al., (EP1202214A2) hereafter Taro (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are shown/disclosed in multiple figs/embodiments).
1. Regarding claim 1, Taro discloses an image processing device (figs 1, 2A-2B, 3-6, 7A, 8A-9B, 13A-13, 15, 20 and paras 0030-0031, 0033, 0038-0039, 0041-0057, 0070, 0150-0155, 0157, 0163-0164, 0170-0171 and 0185 shows and discloses an image processing apparatus/device) comprising: a processor (paras 0063-0070, fig 6 element 125 is a digital signal processor), wherein the processor acquires a first image (figs 2A, 6, 7A, 20, para 0038 shows and disclose image 601) and a second image (figs 2A, 6, 7A, 20, para 0038 shows and disclose image 602) in which the same object is imaged from different positions and which are two-dimensional images (figs 7A, 20, 2A, paras 0038-0039 and 0043 shows and discloses the two dimensional images in which the same object (i.e human) is imaged from different positions meeting the above claim limitation) captured in different wavelength ranges (para 0038 discloses the images captured at different wavelengths i.e visible light image captured at wavelength band 380-800nm and far-infrared image captured at wavelength band 8 to10 µm), acquires information indicating positions of reference points on a surface of the object and associates values of the first image with values of the second image on the basis of the acquired first image, the acquired second image, and the acquired information (fig 2A elements 631-634, paras 0043-0046 shows and discloses acquires information indicating positions of reference points on a surface of the object and associates values of the first image with values of the second image on the basis of the acquired first image, the acquired second image, and the acquired information), the values of the first image and the values of the second image corresponding to non-reference points that are points other than the reference points on the surface (fig 2B elements 681-684 (non-reference points), paras 0048-0050 shows and discloses the values of the first image and the values of the second image corresponding to non-reference points that are points other than the reference points on the surface i.e fig 2A elements 631-634 reference points). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments in Taro are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a simplified, improved and efficient apparatus at paras 0163-0164, 0170-0171.
2. Regarding claim 2, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information is information that is acquired on the basis of the first image and the second image (figs 2A elements 631-634, paras 0043-0046 shows and discloses wherein the information is information that is acquired on the basis of the first image and the second image).
3. Regarding claim 3, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the reference points is a point present at any one of an end, a curved portion, or a boundary of the object (fig 2A elements 631-634, paras 0043-0046 shows and discloses wherein at least one of the reference points is a point present at any one of an end, a curved portion, or a boundary of the object).
4. Regarding claim 5, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor estimates positions of the non-reference points on the basis of the information (fig 2B elements 681-684 (non-reference points), paras 0048-0050 shows and discloses wherein the processor estimates positions of the non-reference points on the basis of the information (i.e the position information)).
5. Regarding claim 11, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor discriminates the surface of the object on the basis of the values of at least one image of the first image or the second image (fig 4 shows the discriminant straight line 702 discriminating the surface of the object on the basis of the values of at least one image of the first image or the second image meeting the claim limitations).
6. Regarding claim 12, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates data in which the values of the first image and the values of the second image corresponding to at least the non-reference points are superimposed at the same pixel positions (fig 2B shows the superimposed data in which the values of the first image and the values of the second image corresponding to at least the non-reference points are superimposed at the same pixel positions meeting the claim limitations), or
7. Regarding claim 13, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires an image which is captured with light having a wavelength range including at least a part of a wavelength range of visible light as one image of the first image and the second image (Fig 2A, para 0038 shows and discloses wherein the processor acquires an image which is captured with light having a wavelength range including at least a part of a wavelength range of visible light as one image of the first image (i.e visible light image captured at wavelength band 380-800nm) and the second image), and acquires an image which is captured with light having a wavelength range including at least a part of a wavelength range of infrared light as the other image of the first image and the second image (Fig 2A, para 0038 shows and discloses wherein the processor acquires an image which is captured with light having a wavelength range including at least a part of a wavelength range of infrared light as the other image of the first image and the second image (far-infrared image captured at wavelength band 8 to10 µm).
8. Claim 15 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1.
9. Claim 16 is a corresponding non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Taro shows and discloses non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium in fig 6 and para 0185.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taro et al., (EP1202214A2) hereafter Taro in view of Takayama (US20130250070) hereafter Takayama.
10. Regarding claim 4, Taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1. As seen in claim 1, Taro shows and discloses acquiring information indication the position. Taro is silent and however fails to disclose wherein the information is information that is acquired on the basis of a distance measured by a distance measuring unit.
Takayama discloses wherein the information is information that is acquired on the basis of a distance measured by a distance measuring unit (fig 11 element 5, para 0036 shows the distance detection device meeting the limitations of wherein the information is information that is acquired on the basis of a distance measured by a distance measuring unit). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Takayama and taro are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and reliable and faster (quick) system at paras 0003 0046. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Takayama in the apparatus/device of Taro to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taro in view of
METZLER et al, (US20160314593) hereafter METZLER.
11. Regarding claim 14, taro discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires the first image and the second image in which an object (i.e a person, tree) is imaged. Taro is silent and however fails to disclose concrete structure as the object is imaged.
METZLER discloses concrete structure as the object is imaged in fig 1a. Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, METZLER and Taro are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a real-time, improved and efficient system/apparatus at para 0018. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of METZLER in the device of Taro to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677