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 Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 10, Examiner suggests correction of both instances of “an optical filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed close to the subject than the plurality of optical filters” to read as “a color filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed closer to the subject than the plurality of optical filters” consistent with ¶0113-0115 of Applicant’s published Specification. Similar corrections to claim 7 are also suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitations "the second image signals from which interference is removed using the second interference removal parameters" and “the second image signals from which interference is removed using the first interference removal parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner notes that no active step is recited in either claim 1 or 10 of actually removing interference from the second image signals, nor is it recited that the “first interference removal parameters” are to be used in the removal of interference from the second image signals. Therefore, it is additionally unclear if the first and second interference removal parameters are each respectively used for each of the first and second imaging signals, or if both are used on both the first and second image signals. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For purposes of Examination, the limitations will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s Specification. Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are additionally rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claims 1 and 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “remove interference from the second image signals using the interference removal parameters”, but does not specify which of the “first interference removal parameters” or the “second interference removal parameters” is being used. The claim additionally recites “output the plurality of image signals from which the interference has been removed”, but again does not specify if “the plurality of image signals” includes both the “first image signals” and “the second image signals”, nor is there an active step recited for removing interference from “the plurality of image signals” of claim 10 (the features of which are incorporated into base claim 11). Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of Examination, the limitations will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding of Applicant’s Specification.
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 are confusing as written because, in the limitation “acquire…first information by imaging the subject in a state where the plurality of optical filters are not disposed in the plurality of aperture regions and an optical filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed close to the subject than the plurality of optical filters”, it is unclear whether “an optical filter” is one of “the plurality of optical filters” or an additional type of optical filter. Based on Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s Specification at ¶0113-0115, “an optical filter” is “a color filter” placed closer to the subject than a “filter unit” comprising the recited “plurality of optical filters”. Appropriate correction and clarification is requested. Similar rationale is applied to the limitation “acquire…second information by imaging the subject in a state where the plurality of optical filters are disposed…” in claims 1 and 10, and to the limitation “in a state where an optical filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed close to the subject than the plurality of optical filters” in claim 7 (see objection to claims 1, 7 and 10 above for Examiner’s suggestion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if the claims are rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not expressly teach or render obvious the entire combination of limitations as recited in each of the independent claims. In particular, none of the cited references expressly discloses acquiring second interference removal parameters for correction of second information, obtained by imaging a subject having unknown wavelength characteristics in a state where the plurality of optical filters are disposed in the plurality of aperture regions and an optical filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed close to the subject than the plurality of optical filters, based on first information acquired about a subject of which wavelength characteristics are unknown by imaging the subject in a state where the plurality of optical filters are not disposed in the plurality of aperture regions and an optical filter transmitting one of the plurality of lights and not transmitting a rest of the lights is disposed close to the subject than the plurality of optical filters”, wherein the second interference removal parameters “allow a difference between the information acquired via the first imaging and the second image signals from which interference is removed using the second interference removal parameters to be smaller than a difference between the information acquired via the first imaging and the second image signals from which interference is removed using the first interference removal parameters”, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references pertain generally to multispectral imaging and interference removal.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is (571)270-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/SAMAH A BEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676