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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 1/15/2026.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 22, 30, 32, 35, 40, 41, 45 and 46 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1-21 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 48-56 has/have been added; Claim(s) 22 and 25 is/are independent claims. Claims 22-56 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 10/30/2025, 11/25/2025 and 3/11/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 30 and 33 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 12).
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguing in the remark (page 12) about the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f), the Examiner respectfully submits that the amendment removed the “holding part”. Thus, the claim interpretation for this limitation is withdrawn. However, no amendment or persuasive argument for the limitation “light division member”. Therefore, the claim interpretation for this limitation is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 and 45 in the remarks (pages 13-16) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“light division member” in claim(s) 22, 24, 30, 33 and 45.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 56 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the imaging result" in the last line. 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 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) 22-28, 39 and 45-56 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Heugten et al (US 20120062784 A1; hereinafter “Van”) in view of Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Van teaches An imaging device (Fig. 7) comprising:
an image formation optical system (Main Lense 7150);
a light division member (Beam Splitter 7450) configured to divide light which has passed through at least a part of the image formation optical system;
a first imaging sensor (First Image Sensor 7250) configured to capture a first image formed by one light flux divided by the light division member;
a second imaging sensor (Second Sensor 7850) configured to capture a portion in a second image formed by the other light flux divided by the light division member; and
a driving motor configured to select a position of the portion (Fig. 7; para. 0046; “FIG. 7 shows Second Sensor 7850 being moved along the plane of Third Aerial Image 7800, which can result in a panning and/or tilting of Second Resulting Image 7600”; para. 0042: “The movement of Smaller Sensor 3350 can be accomplished by utilizing traditional mechanical actuators and/or Electroactive Actuators”); and
circuitry configured to
generate control information for controlling the driving motor
but fails to teach
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Tsunashima teaches
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in Van to have circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor for automatically tracking a detected target allowing zoomed detail of the target to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Van teaches wherein the driving motor selects the position of the portion by a movement (Figs. 6-7; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Van teaches wherein a portion of an intermediate image, which is formed by the other light flux divided by the light division member, is set as the portion, and the driving motor selects the position of the portion (Figs. 6-7; paras. 0042, 0046).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Van teaches wherein the second imaging sensor includes an image re-formation optical system (Relay Lens 7700 and/or 7750, Tip/Tilt Device 7950) configured to re-form the portion, and the second imaging sensor is configured to capture the re-formed portion with the image re-formation optical system (Fig. 7; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Van teaches wherein the driving motor moves the portion with respect to an optical axis (Fig. 7; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Van teaches wherein the image re-formation optical system re-forms the portion at a predetermined enlargement magnification (Fig. 7; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 27. In addition, Van teaches wherein the image re-formation optical system is able to modify the enlargement magnification (Fig. 7; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Van teaches wherein the driving motor moves the second imaging sensor in a direction crossing a light path of the other light flux and selects the position of the portion (Fig. 7; para. 0046; “FIG. 7 shows Second Sensor 7850 being moved along the plane of Third Aerial Image 7800, which can result in a panning and/or tilting of Second Resulting Image 7600”; para. 0042: “The movement of Smaller Sensor 3350 can be accomplished by utilizing traditional mechanical actuators and/or Electroactive Actuators”).
Regarding claim 45, Van teaches A light receiving device (Fig. 7) comprising:
an image formation optical system (Main Lense 7150);
a light division member (Beam Splitter 7450) configured to divide light which has passed through at least a part of the image formation optical system;
an imaging sensor (First Image Sensor 7250) configured to capture a first image formed by one light flux divided by the light division member;
a light receiving sensor (Second Sensor 7850) having a light incidence part into which a part of the other light flux divided by the light division member enters;
a driving motor configured to select the part of the other light flux (Fig. 7; para. 0046; “FIG. 7 shows Second Sensor 7850 being moved along the plane of Third Aerial Image 7800, which can result in a panning and/or tilting of Second Resulting Image 7600”; para. 0042: “The movement of Smaller Sensor 3350 can be accomplished by utilizing traditional mechanical actuators and/or Electroactive Actuators”); and
circuitry configured to
generate control information for controlling the driving motor
but fails to teach
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part.
However, in the same field of endeavor Tsunashima teaches
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in Van to have circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part for automatically tracking a detected target allowing zoomed detail of the target to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 45. In addition, Van teaches wherein an image is formed by the other light flux, when the image formed by the one light flux is set as the first image, an image formed by the other light flux is set as a second image, when the imaging sensor is set as a first imaging sensor, the light receiving sensor includes a second imaging sensor, the second imaging sensor captures an image of a portion of the second image formed by a part of the other light flux, and the driving motor selects a position of the portion (Fig. 7; para. 0046; “FIG. 7 shows Second Sensor 7850 being moved along the plane of Third Aerial Image 7800, which can result in a panning and/or tilting of Second Resulting Image 7600”; para. 0042: “The movement of Smaller Sensor 3350 can be accomplished by utilizing traditional mechanical actuators and/or Electroactive Actuators”).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 46. In addition, Van teaches wherein the second imaging sensor includes an image re-formation optical system (Relay Lens 7700 and/or 7750, Tip/Tilt Device 7950) configured to re-form an image of a portion of the second image, and an imaging element configured to capture an image of the portion of the second image re-formed by the image re-formation optical system (Fig. 7; para. 0046).
Regarding claims 48-52 and 54-56, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Tsunashima teaches
Claim 48: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein information related to a state of the object is obtained based on an imaging result of the second imaging sensor, and an operation of the imaging device is determined based on the information related to the state (paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 49: The imaging device according to claim 48, wherein the object includes a person, and the information related to the state of the object includes a movement of the person (Figs. 5-7; paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 50: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein first positional information related to a position of an object at a first time is obtained based on a first imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the first time, second positional information related to a position of the object at a second time is obtained based on a second imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the second time different from the first time, and information related to a movement of the object is obtained based on the first positional information and the second positional information (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 51: The imaging device according to claim 50, wherein the information related to the movement includes at least one of a moving direction and a moving quantity (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 52: The imaging device according to claim 50, wherein information related to a movement of a different object different from the object is obtained based on an imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor (Figs. 6, 7, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 54: The imaging device according to claim 22,wherein first positional information related to a position of an object at a first time is obtained based on a first imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the first time, second positional information related to a position of the object at a second time is obtained based on a second imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the second time different from the first time, information related toa position of the object at a third time after the first time and the second time is estimated based on the first positional information and the second positional information, and the driving motor moves the second imaging sensor based on the estimated information related to the position of the object at the third time (Figs. 6, 7, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 55: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on information related to the position of the object, the information related to the position of the object being obtained by an imaging result different from the imaging result of the first imaging sensor (Figs. 5-7; paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 56: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein the object is a first object, wherein the circuitry is further configured to detect a position of a second object different from the first object, generate control information for driving the driving motor based on information related to a position of the first object, and generate control information for driving the driving motor based on information related to a position of the second object obtained based on the imaging result (Figs. 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in the combination to have features of claims 48-52 and 54-56 for automatically tracking detected targets allowing zoomed detail of a proper target subject to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 48. In addition, Van teaches wherein the operation includes an operation storing an imaging result of the second imaging sensor (Fig. 14; para. 0056).
Claim(s) 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Heugten et al (US 20120062784 A1; hereinafter “Van”) in view of Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Stanley et al (US 20200103277 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 25, but fails to teach
wherein the image formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor Stanley teaches
wherein the image formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the second image (Figs. 3, 10, 12; paras. 0135-0159; “The optical system is preferably telecentric. The optical system can be configured to limit the light rays forming the filter image on the array 4 to telecentric light rays or to lights rays propagating (substantially) parallel to an optical axis of optical system. This advantageously permits a fixed magnification image of the filter to be formed on the array 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Stanley in the combination to have wherein the image formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the second image for obtaining fixed magnification image to be formed on the image sensors improving overall spatial resolution yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Van, Tsunashima and Stanley teaches everything as claimed in claim 29. In addition Stanley teaches wherein the image re-formation optical system re-forms an image of the portion in the intermediate image formed in an image forming region by the image formation optical system, and a difference between an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member toward a first place in the image forming region and an optical axis of the image formation optical system on the side of the second imaging sensor and an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member toward a second place, in which a distance from the optical axis in the image forming region is different from the first place, and the optical axis is within 1o (Figs. 3, 10, 12; paras. 0135-0159; “The optical system is preferably telecentric. The optical system can be configured to limit the light rays forming the filter image on the array 4 to telecentric light rays or to lights rays propagating (substantially) parallel to an optical axis of optical system. This advantageously permits a fixed magnification image of the filter to be formed on the array 4”; the angle difference is close to 0 which is within 1o because the light fluxes are substantially parallel to an optical axis of optical system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Stanley in the combination to have wherein the image re-formation optical system re-forms an image of the portion in the intermediate image formed in an image forming region by the image formation optical system, and a difference between an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member toward a first place in the image forming region and an optical axis of the image formation optical system on the side of the second imaging sensor and an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member toward a second place, in which a distance from the optical axis in the image forming region is different from the first place, and the optical axis is within 1o for obtaining fixed magnification image to be formed on the image sensors improving overall spatial resolution yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 25, but fails to teach
wherein the image re-formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the image formation optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Stanley teaches
wherein the image re-formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the image formation optical system (Figs. 3, 10, 12; paras. 0135-0159; “The optical system is preferably telecentric. The optical system can be configured to limit the light rays forming the filter image on the array 4 to telecentric light rays or to lights rays propagating (substantially) parallel to an optical axis of optical system. This advantageously permits a fixed magnification image of the filter to be formed on the array 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Stanley in the combination to have wherein the image re-formation optical system is telecentric on the side of the image formation optical system for obtaining fixed magnification image to be formed on the image sensors improving overall spatial resolution yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 reciting features corresponding to claim 30 is also rejected for the same reason presented above.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 25, but fails to teach
wherein a difference between an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member and an optical axis of the image formation optical system on the side of the second imaging sensor and an angle formed by a main beam of a light flux entering the image re-formation optical system and an optical axis of the image re-formation optical system is within 1o.
However, in the same field of endeavor Stanley teaches
wherein a difference between an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member and an optical axis of the image formation optical system on the side of the second imaging sensor and an angle formed by a main beam of a light flux entering the image re-formation optical system and an optical axis of the image re-formation optical system is within 1o (Figs. 3, 10, 12; paras. 0135-0159; “The optical system is preferably telecentric. The optical system can be configured to limit the light rays forming the filter image on the array 4 to telecentric light rays or to lights rays propagating (substantially) parallel to an optical axis of optical system. This advantageously permits a fixed magnification image of the filter to be formed on the array 4”; the angle difference is close to 0 which is within 1o because the light fluxes are substantially parallel to an optical axis of optical system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Stanley in the combination to have wherein a difference between an angle formed by a main beam of the other light flux from the light division member and an optical axis of the image formation optical system on the side of the second imaging sensor and an angle formed by a main beam of a light flux entering the image re-formation optical system and an optical axis of the image re-formation optical system is within 1o for obtaining fixed magnification image to be formed on the image sensors improving overall spatial resolution yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Heugten et al (US 20120062784 A1; hereinafter “Van”) in view of Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Osawa ( JPH09149305A).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Van and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 25. In addition, Van teaches
wherein the image re-formation optical system includes a plurality of optical members, when the driving motor is set as a first driving motor (Fig. 7; para. 0046; “FIG. 7 shows Second Sensor 7850 being moved along the plane of Third Aerial Image 7800, which can result in a panning and/or tilting of Second Resulting Image 7600”; para. 0042: “The movement of Smaller Sensor 3350 can be accomplished by utilizing traditional mechanical actuators and/or Electroactive Actuators”),
but fails to teach
the image re-formation optical system further includes a second driving motor configured to move at least one of the plurality of optical members along the optical axis of the image re-formation optical system, and the image re-formation optical system modifies the enlargement magnification through movement of at least one of the plurality of optical members by the second driving motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Osawa teaches
the image re-formation optical system further includes a second driving motor configured to move at least one of the plurality of optical members along the optical axis of the image re-formation optical system, and the image re-formation optical system modifies the enlargement magnification through movement of at least one of the plurality of optical members by the second driving motor (Fig. 2; paras. 0023-0024; “The drive unit 11 moves the second optical system 4 along the second optical axis 7 or adjusts it in the second optical axis 7 direction to form an image on the second planned image forming surface 9. It is configured to change the magnification and control the movement of the second CCD 2 along the direction of the second optical axis 7 or along the second planned imaging plane 9.”; Osawa does not expressly teach that drive unit 11 comprising a driving motor. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a zoom lens is moved by a motor for the advantages of providing a motorized device allowing smooth and controlled movements to be controlled electronically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Osawa in Van to have the image re-formation optical system further includes a second driving motor configured to move at least one of the plurality of optical members along the optical axis of the image re-formation optical system, and the image re-formation optical system modifies the enlargement magnification through movement of at least one of the plurality of optical members by the second driving motor for enabling enlargement magnification to be controlled so that detail image of the enlargement portion can be captured at different magnification levels yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 22-28, 35, 39, 42 and 45-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama et al (JP 2004153605 A) in views of Shapiro et al (US 20170235293 A1) and Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Yoneyama teaches An imaging device (Fig. 8) comprising:
an image formation optical system (21);
a light division member (8) configured to divide light which has passed through at least a part of the image formation optical system;
a first imaging sensor (9) configured to capture a first image formed by one light flux divided by the light division member;
a second imaging sensor (10) configured to capture a portion in a second image formed by the other light flux divided by the light division member;
a driving
circuitry configured to
generate control information for controlling the driving
but fails to teach
a driving motor configured to select a position of the portion;
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shapiro teaches
a driving motor configured to select a position of the portion (Figs. 1-2; para. 0057: “translation rail 170 can be any sort of translating mechanism that enables movement of the head 160 in the X-Y direction, for example a single rail with a motor that slides the head 160 along the translation rail 170, a combination of two rails that move the head 160, a combination of circular plates and rails, a robotic arm with joints, etc”; para. 0077: “a head camera 120 can be mounted to the head 160. The head camera 120 can have a narrower field of view 122 and take higher resolution images of a smaller area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Shapiro in Yoneyama to have a driving motor configured to select a position of the portion for utilizing x-y translation rail with motors configuration for making precisely and smoothly x-y translation of the camera possible yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Tsunashima teaches
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in the combination to have circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that the object is included in an imaging range of the second imaging sensor for automatically tracking a detected target allowing zoomed detail of the target to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the driving motor selects the position of the portion by a movement (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein a portion of an intermediate image, which is formed by the other light flux divided by the light division member, is set as the portion, and the driving motor selects the position of the portion (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the second imaging sensor includes an image re-formation optical system (24) configured to re-form the portion, and the second imaging sensor is configured to capture the re-formed portion with the image re-formation optical system (para. 0049: “The zoom lens system 24 enlarges an arbitrary part of the real image 3 formed in the space and forms an image on the light receiving surface of the image sensor of the second image pickup unit 10”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the driving motor moves the portion with respect to an optical axis (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 24. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the image re-formation optical system re-forms the portion at a predetermined enlargement magnification (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 27. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the image re-formation optical system is able to modify the enlargement magnification (para. 0043: “the focal length of the zoom lens system 24 is changed to set the magnification of the partial region of the subject (step S14)”).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 25. In addition, Shapiro teaches the second imaging sensor comprises an imaging element configured to capture an image of the portion, wherein the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element are held together such that the driving motor moves both the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element together (movable head 160) to select the position of the portion (Figs. 1-2; para. 0057: “translation rail 170 can be any sort of translating mechanism that enables movement of the head 160 in the X-Y direction, for example a single rail with a motor that slides the head 160 along the translation rail 170, a combination of two rails that move the head 160, a combination of circular plates and rails, a robotic arm with joints, etc”; para. 0077: “a head camera 120 can be mounted to the head 160. The head camera 120 can have a narrower field of view 122 and take higher resolution images of a smaller area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Shapiro in the combination to have the second imaging sensor comprises an imaging element configured to capture an image of the portion, wherein the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element are held together such that the driving motor moves both the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element together to select the position of the portion for utilizing a movable head mounted with a camera on x-y translation rail with motors configuration for making precisely and smoothly x-y translation of the camera possible yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the driving motor (the motor taught by Shapiro above) moves the second imaging sensor in a direction crossing a light path of the other light flux and selects the position of the portion (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045, 0049).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein a maximum angle of view of the image formation optical system is 170o or more (para. 0052: “360-degree view angle image captured by the omnidirectional sensor system”).
Regarding claim 45, Yoneyama teaches A light receiving device (Fig. 8) comprising:
an image formation optical system (21);
a light division member (8) configured to divide light which has passed through at least a part of the image formation optical system;
an imaging sensor (9) configured to capture an image formed by one light flux divided by the light division member;
a light receiving sensor (10) having a light incidence part into which a part of the other light flux divided by the light division member enters;
a driving
circuitry configured to
generate control information for controlling the driving
but fails to teach
a driving motor configured to select the part of the other light flux;
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shapiro teaches
a driving motor configured to select the part of the other light flux (Figs. 1-2; para. 0057: “translation rail 170 can be any sort of translating mechanism that enables movement of the head 160 in the X-Y direction, for example a single rail with a motor that slides the head 160 along the translation rail 170, a combination of two rails that move the head 160, a combination of circular plates and rails, a robotic arm with joints, etc”; para. 0077: “a head camera 120 can be mounted to the head 160. The head camera 120 can have a narrower field of view 122 and take higher resolution images of a smaller area”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Shapiro in Yoneyama to have a driving motor configured to select the part of the other light flux for utilizing x-y translation rail with motors configuration for making precisely and smoothly x-y translation of the camera possible yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Tsunashima teaches
circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in the combination to have circuitry configured to detect a position of an object in the first image based on image data of the first image captured by the first imaging sensor, and generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on the position of the detected object such that light from the object enters the light incidence part for automatically tracking a detected target allowing zoomed detail of the target to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 45. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein an image is formed by the other light flux, when the image formed by the one light flux is set as the first image, an image formed by the other light flux is set as a second image, when the imaging sensor is set as a first imaging sensor, the light receiving sensor includes a second imaging sensor, the second imaging sensor captures an image of a portion of the second image formed by a part of the other light flux (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045; “moving unit 27 moves the zoom lens system 24 and the second imaging unit 10 along a plane perpendicular to the optical system, and the second imaging unit moves an arbitrary part of the optical image obtained by the wide-angle lens system 21”; para. 0049: “The zoom lens system 24 enlarges an arbitrary part of the real image 3 formed in the space and forms an image on the light receiving surface of the image sensor of the second image pickup unit 10”), and the driving motor selects a position of the portion (the motor taught by Shapiro as presented above).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 46. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the second imaging sensor includes an image re-formation optical system (24) configured to re-form an image of a portion of the second image, and an imaging element configured to capture an image of the portion of the second image re-formed by the image re-formation optical system (para. 0049: “The zoom lens system 24 enlarges an arbitrary part of the real image 3 formed in the space and forms an image on the light receiving surface of the image sensor of the second image pickup unit 10”).
Regarding claims 48-52 and 54-56, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 22. In addition, Tsunashima teaches
Claim 48: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein information related to a state of the object is obtained based on an imaging result of the second imaging sensor, and an operation of the imaging device is determined based on the information related to the state (paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 49: The imaging device according to claim 48, wherein the object includes a person, and the information related to the state of the object includes a movement of the person (Figs. 5-7; paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 50: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein first positional information related to a position of an object at a first time is obtained based on a first imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the first time, second positional information related to a position of the object at a second time is obtained based on a second imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the second time different from the first time, and information related to a movement of the object is obtained based on the first positional information and the second positional information (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 51: The imaging device according to claim 50, wherein the information related to the movement includes at least one of a moving direction and a moving quantity (Figs. 6, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 52: The imaging device according to claim 50, wherein information related to a movement of a different object different from the object is obtained based on an imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor (Figs. 6, 7, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 54: The imaging device according to claim 22,wherein first positional information related to a position of an object at a first time is obtained based on a first imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the first time, second positional information related to a position of the object at a second time is obtained based on a second imaging result obtained by the first imaging sensor at the second time different from the first time, information related toa position of the object at a third time after the first time and the second time is estimated based on the first positional information and the second positional information, and the driving motor moves the second imaging sensor based on the estimated information related to the position of the object at the third time (Figs. 6, 7, 16; paras. 0137, 0155, 0157).
Claim 55: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate control information for controlling the driving motor based on information related to the position of the object, the information related to the position of the object being obtained by an imaging result different from the imaging result of the first imaging sensor (Figs. 5-7; paras. 0152, 0192, 0228).
Claim 56: The imaging device according to claim 22, wherein the object is a first object, wherein the circuitry is further configured to detect a position of a second object different from the first object, generate control information for driving the driving motor based on information related to a position of the first object, and generate control information for driving the driving motor based on information related to a position of the second object obtained based on the imaging result (Figs. 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Tsunashima in the combination to have features of claims 48-52 and 54-56 for automatically tracking detected targets allowing zoomed detail of a proper target subject to be obtained automatically improving functionality of the system yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 48. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the operation includes an operation storing an imaging result of the second imaging sensor (para. 0058).
Claim(s) 36-38, 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama et al (JP 2004153605 A) in views of Shapiro et al (US 20170235293 A1) and Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1) as applied to claim 35 or 22 above, and further in view of Nakata (US 20200295062 A1).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 35. In addition, Yoneyama teaches the first imaging sensor includes a first imaging element configured to capture the first image, when the imaging element included in the second imaging sensor is set as a second imaging element (Fig. 8; para. 0049),
but fails to teach
an array pitch of pixels of the second imaging element is smaller than an array pitch of pixels of the first imaging element.
However, in the same field of endeavor Nakata teaches
an array pitch of pixels of the second imaging element is smaller than an array pitch of pixels of the first imaging element (Fig. 2; paras. 0043-0046; a pixel pitch of narrow-angle image sensor 14b is smaller than a pixel pitch of wide-angle image sensor 13b; “The main camera 14 has a narrower area than that of the main camera 13, but is capable of capturing an image of higher resolution”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Nakata in the combination to have an array pitch of pixels of the second imaging element is smaller than an array pitch of pixels of the first imaging element for capturing the zoomed area at better resolution increasing detail of the region of interest yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 depending from claim 22 reciting features corresponding to 36 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro, Tsunashima and Nakata teaches everything as claimed in claim 36. In addition, Nakata teaches wherein an area of a region in which the pixels of the first imaging element are arranged is greater than an area of a region in which the pixels of the second imaging element are arranged (Fig. 2; paras. 0043-0046; a pixel region of wide-angle image sensor 13b is larger than narrow-angle image sensor 14b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Nakata in the combination to have wherein an area of a region in which the pixels of the first imaging element are arranged is greater than an area of a region in which the pixels of the second imaging element are arranged for capturing the smaller zoomed area at better resolution increasing detail of the region of interest yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro, Tsunashima and Nakata teaches everything as claimed in claim 36. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the driving motor (the motor taught by Shapiro above) moves the second imaging element to select the position of the portion (Yoneyama: Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045; “moving unit 27 moves the zoom lens system 24 and the second imaging unit 10 along a plane perpendicular to the optical system, and the second imaging unit moves an arbitrary part of the optical image obtained by the wide-angle lens system 21”; para. 0049: “The zoom lens system 24 enlarges an arbitrary part of the real image 3 formed in the space and forms an image on the light receiving surface of the image sensor of the second image pickup unit 10”).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro, Tsunashima and Nakata teaches everything as claimed in claim 40. In addition, Yoneyama teaches wherein the driving motor (motor is taught by Shapiro as presented above) moves the second imaging element in a direction crossing a light path of the other light flux and selects the position of the portion (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045; “moving unit 27 moves the zoom lens system 24 and the second imaging unit 10 along a plane perpendicular to the optical system, and the second imaging unit moves an arbitrary part of the optical image obtained by the wide-angle lens system 21”; para. 0049: “The zoom lens system 24 enlarges an arbitrary part of the real image 3 formed in the space and forms an image on the light receiving surface of the image sensor of the second image pickup unit 10”).
Claim(s) 43 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama et al (JP 2004153605 A) in views of Shapiro et al (US 20170235293 A1) and Tsunashima et al (US 20240056686 A1) as applied to claim 28 or 22 above, and further in view of Nakata (US 20090080695 A1).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Yoneyama, Shapiro and Tsunashima teaches everything as claimed in claim 28. In addition, Yoneyama teaches
further comprising an imaging range controller configured to execute movement of the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element and modification of the enlargement magnification by the driving motor (motor taught by Shapiro) on the basis of the image data of the first image generated by the first imaging sensor (Figs. 8, 14; paras. 0038-0045; paras. 0002-0003: “it is possible to monitor the entire monitoring place and the operation of the part to be noticed, and it is possible to construct an automatic tracking monitoring system for crime prevention”).
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor Nakata teaches
further comprising an imaging range controller configured to execute movement of the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element and modification of the enlargement magnification by the driving motor on the basis of the image data of the first image generated by the first imaging sensor (Figs. 1-4; paras. 0024-0027; to detect the potential existence of interested target ROI based on the image data of the wide-angle image sensor 110; the ROI area can be selected to be captured by the narrow-angle image sensor 116; the combination of Yoneyama and Shapiro teaches moving the enlargement magnification area by controlling the driving motor to move the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Nakata in the combination to have further comprising an imaging range controller configured to execute movement of the image re-formation optical system and the imaging element and modification of the enlargement magnification by the driving motor on the basis of the image data of the first image generated by the first imaging sensor for enabling automatically tracking an interested target and providing detailed image data of the target yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 depending from claim 22 reciting similar features as in claim 43 is also rejected for the same reason above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights