Detailed Action
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1 recites the limitation “… an imaging apparatus that captures images having different characteristics …. acquire a first image that is captured by the imaging apparatus” … “acquire a second image that is captured by the imaging apparatus … and that has the same characteristic as the first image among the images …”. First of all, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the same characteristic”. Furthermore, the limitations “images having different characteristics” and “images having same characteristic” contradict each other. It is not clear how the characteristics is defined. Claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason above. Claims 2-18 and 20-21 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 13-14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KUSAKA (US 20150234148 A1) in view of EDGAR (US 5509086 A).
Regarding claim 1, KUSAKA discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a processor (Fig. 1; control device 214; [0047]) configured to process images output from an image sensor (Figs. 1 and 4-5; image sensor 212) of an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1; imaging camera 203) that captures images having different characteristics by splitting a pupil (Figs. 3, 9-12, and 21, Claim 1, and [0054]-[0056], split-pupil detection; Figs. 6-8 and 11-12, Claim 1, and [0027], [0070]-[0076], different color images corresponding to different color filters), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a first image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to a first subject under a first imaging condition and that is output from the image sensor; acquire a second image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to the first subject under a second imaging condition different from the first imaging condition and that has the same characteristic as the first image among the images output from the image sensor (Figs. 3, 9-10, and 21, and Claim 1, and [0055]-[0056], [0062]-[0063]; a first image and a second image are captured by the imaging camera 204 under different focusing conditions, the first image signal and the second image signal are output from the image sensor 212).
KUSAKA discloses a correlation between feature amounts of the first image and the second image ([0094]-[0095], correlation equation (6)). KUSAKA also discloses detecting a crosstalk included in the images and how the crosstalk is associated with the first image and the second image (Figs. 12-13 and [0079]-[0080]; crosstalk). KUSAKA does not expressly disclose detecting the crosstalk based on the correlation between the first image and the second image. However, EDGAR discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 3 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 13) similar to that disclosed by KUDAKA, wherein the processor is configured to detect crosstalk included in the images based on a correlation between feature amounts of the first image and the second image (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18; correlation between the first image and the second image, crosstalk is determined based on the correlation between the first image and the second image). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from EDGAR to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus and method to reduce a crosstalk in an image and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 2, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, KUSAKA discloses wherein the second imaging condition is an imaging condition for changing the feature amounts in a case where the crosstalk occurs (Figs. 3, 9-10, and 21, and Claim 1, and [0055]-[0056], [0062]-[0063]; a first image and a second image under different focusing conditions).
Regarding claim 3, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, KUSAKA discloses wherein the second imaging condition is an imaging condition in which at least one of a focus position, an imaging magnification, an illumination condition for a subject, or a relative position between the subject and the imaging apparatus is different with respect to the first imaging condition (Figs. 3, 9-10, and 21, and Claim 1, and [0055]-[0056], [0062]-[0063]; a first image and a second image are captured at different focusing positions).
Regarding claim 4, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, KUSAKA discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of the first images of different wavelengths that are captured by the imaging apparatus under the first imaging condition and that are output from the image sensor (Figs. 3 and 6-12, Claim 1, and [0027], [0070]-[0076], acquire a plurality of first images corresponding to a first color filter); acquire a plurality of the second images of the different wavelengths that are captured by the imaging apparatus under the second imaging condition and that are output from the image sensor (Figs. 3 and 6-12, Claim 1, and [0027], [0070]-[0076], acquire a plurality of second images corresponding to a first color filter under a different focusing condition).
KUSAKA discloses a correlation between the plurality of first images and the plurality of second images ([0094]-[0095], correlation equation (6)). KUSAKA also discloses detecting a crosstalk included in the images and how the crosstalk is associated with the first images and the second images (Figs. 12-13 and [0079]-[0080]; crosstalk). KUSAKA does not expressly disclose detecting the crosstalk based on the correlation between the plurality of first images and the plurality of second images. However, EDGAR discloses wherein the processor is configured to detect the crosstalk included in the images based on a correlation between the plurality of first images and the plurality of second images (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18; correlation between the first image and the second image, crosstalk is determined based on the correlation between the first image and the second image). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from EDGAR to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 5, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, KUSAKA discloses wherein the crosstalk is image components of the different wavelengths included in the images (Figs. 12-13 and [0079]-[0080]; crosstalk and different color).
Regarding claim 6, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, KUSAKA discloses wherein the correlation is a relative value between positions and/or intensities of image components of the different wavelengths included in the first image and positions and/or intensities of image components of the different wavelengths included in the second image ([0094]-[0095], correlation equation (6)). EDGAR also discloses wherein the correlation is a relative value between positions and/or intensities of image components of the different wavelengths included in the first image and positions and/or intensities of image components of the different wavelengths included in the second image (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18; correlation between the first image and the second image).
Regarding claim 7, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, KUSAKA discloses wherein the correlation between the feature amounts of the first image and the second image is a correlation between peak positions or peak values of autocorrelation coefficients of the first image and the second image ([0094]-[0095], correlation between the first image and the second image, feature amounts including peak values of the images). EDGAR discloses the same features as claimed (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18).
Regarding claim 13, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, KUSAKA discloses wherein the processor is configured to obtain the correlation between the feature amounts of the first image and the second image for each of the plurality of locations ([0094]-[0095], correlation between the first image and the second image). In addition, EDGAR wherein the processor is configured to discloses detect the crosstalk for each of a plurality of locations based on the correlation between the feature amounts of the first image and the second image for each of the plurality of locations (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18).
Regarding claim 14, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, KUSAKA discloses wherein the processor is configured to display information indicating whether or not the crosstalk is present or an intensity of the crosstalk for each of the plurality of locations on a display in a superimposed manner on the images output from the image sensor (Figs. 12-13 and [0079]-[0080]; crosstalk).
Regarding claim 16, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: an imaging optical system in which an optical element including a plurality of wavelength-selective elements which respectively transmit lights having wavelength ranges different from each other for each of a plurality of regions is disposed at a pupil position or near the pupil position (EDGAR, Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 64-65; color filter wheel 38 including a plurality of optical filters to transmit red, green, and blue color light); an image sensor that receives subject light for each of the plurality of wavelength ranges transmitted through each of the plurality of wavelength-selective elements by splitting a pupil (EDGAR, Fig. 3; split-pupil detection, image sensor 42 receives subject light); and the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, KUSAKA discloses an information processing method of processing images output from an image sensor of an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1; image camera 203 and image sensor 212) that captures images having different characteristics by splitting a pupil (Figs. 3, 9-12, and 21, Claim 1, and [0054]-[0056], split-pupil detection; Figs. 6-8 and 11-12, Claim 1, and [0027], [0070]-[0076], different color images corresponding to different color filters), the information processing method comprising: a step of acquiring a first image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to a first subject under a first imaging condition and that is output from the image sensor; a step of acquiring a second image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to the first subject under a second imaging condition different from the first imaging condition and that has the same characteristic as the first image among the images output from the image sensor (Figs. 3, 9-10, and 21, and Claim 1, and [0055]-[0056], [0062]-[0063]; a first image and a second image are captured by the imaging camera 204 under different focusing conditions, the first image signal and the second image signal are output from the image sensor 212); wherein a processor is configured to execute processing of each step (Figs. 1 and 4-5; image sensor 212).
KUSAKA discloses a correlation between feature amounts of the first image and the second image ([0094]-[0095], correlation equation (6)). KUSAKA also discloses detecting a crosstalk included in the images and how the crosstalk is associated with the first image and the second image (Figs. 12-13 and [0079]-[0080]; crosstalk). KUSAKA does not expressly disclose detecting the crosstalk based on the correlation between the first image and the second image. However, EDGAR discloses an information processing method (Fig. 3 and col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 13) similar to that disclosed by KUDAKA, comprising a step of detecting crosstalk included in the images based on a correlation between feature amounts of the first image and the second image (col. 2, lines 32-36, col. 7, line 13-col. 8, line 14, col. 9, line 45-col. 9, line 18; correlation between the first image and the second image, crosstalk is determined based on the correlation between the first image and the second image). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from EDGAR to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus and method to reduce a crosstalk in an image and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 21, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses a non-transitory, computer readable tangible recording medium in which a program for causing (KUSAKA, Fig. 3 and [0047]; EDGAR, Figs. 3-4), when read by a computer, the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 19 is recorded.
7. Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KUSAKA (US 20150234148 A1) in view of EDGAR (US 5509086 A) and further in view of OEMRAWSINGH (US 20190377267 A1).
Regarding claim 15, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to perform interference removing processing of reducing the crosstalk among the images output from the image sensor, and each of the first image and the second image is an image that has been subjected to the interference removing processing. However, OEMRAWSINGH (e.g., Figs. 3 and 4) discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform interference removing processing of reducing the crosstalk among the images output from the image sensor (e.g., Fig. 7 and [0074]), and each of the first image and the second image is an image that has been subjected to the interference removing processing (e.g., Fig. 7 and [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from OEMRAWSINGH to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA in view of EDGAR. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus and method to reduce a crosstalk in an image and improve image quality.
Regarding claim 20, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing method according to claim 19, but does not disclose a step of performing interference removing processing of reducing the crosstalk. However, OEMRAWSINGH (e.g., Figs. 3 and 4) discloses an image processing method, further comprising: a step of performing interference removing processing of reducing the crosstalk included in the images output from the image sensor (e.g., Fig. 7 and [0074]), wherein each of the first image and the second image is an image that has been subjected to the interference removing processing (e.g., Fig. 7 and [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from OEMRAWSINGH to the processing method of KUSAKA in view of EDGAR. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus and method to reduce a crosstalk in an image and improve image quality.
8. Claims 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KUSAKA (US 20150234148 A1) in view of EDGAR (US 5509086 A) and further in view of SUDA (US 6980248 B1).
Regarding claim 17, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an image sensor that receives subject light transmitted through each of the plurality of regions of the imaging optical system by splitting a pupil (KUSAKA, Fig. 3, and EDGAR, Fig. 3; split-pupil detection), but does not disclose an imaging apparatus comprising: a multi-focus imaging optical system having focal lengths different from each other for each of a plurality of regions. However, SUDA (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2) discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: a multi-focus imaging optical system having focal lengths different from each other for each of a plurality of regions (e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 53-56, col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 6; different focal length with respect to different color light); an image sensor that receives subject light transmitted through each of the plurality of regions of the imaging optical system by splitting a pupil (e.g., Fig. 1; split-pupil detection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SUDA to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA in view of EDGAR. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus with a reduced chromatic aberration.
Regarding claim 18, KUSAKA in view of EDGAR discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose the plurality of first polarizing filters and the plurality of second polarizing filters as claimed. However, SUDA disclose an information processing apparatus similar to that disclosed by KUSAKA and EDGAR, further comprising: a plurality of first polarizing filters that are disposed to correspond to the plurality of regions and that have polarizing directions different from each other (Figs. 18-21 and col. 16, lines 20-28; first polarizing filters 700 a, 700b, and 700c); and a plurality of second polarizing filters that are disposed in each pixel of the image sensor and that correspond to the plurality of first polarizing filters, respectively (Figs. 18-21 and col. 16, lines 51-56; second polarizing filters 702a, 702b, and 702c), wherein the plurality of first polarizing filters and the plurality of second polarizing filters cause the subject light transmitted through the plurality of regions to be incident on the image sensor by splitting the pupil for each region (Figs. 18-21 and col. 16, lines 20-28 and 51-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from SUDA to the processing apparatus of KUSAKA in view of EDGAR. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image processing apparatus with an improved image quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention is directed to an image processing apparatus and method. The closet prior arts, KUSAKA (US 20150234148 A1), EDGAR (US 5509086 A), OEMRAWSINGH (US 20190377267 A1), and SUDA (US 6980248 B1), individually or in combination, discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to process images output from an image sensor of an imaging apparatus that captures images having different characteristics by splitting a pupil, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a first image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to a first subject under a first imaging condition and that is output from the image sensor; acquire a second image that is captured by the imaging apparatus with respect to the first subject under a second imaging condition different from the first imaging condition and that is output from the image sensor; and detect crosstalk included in the images based on a correlation between feature amounts of the first image and the second image, but fails to teach wherein the second imaging condition is an imaging condition for outputting a reference image without the crosstalk from the image sensor as the second image, and the correlation between the feature amounts of the first image and the second image is a cross-correlation coefficient that is a cross-correlation coefficient between the first image and the reference image and that is obtained in a case where the first image and the reference image are relatively shifted, and the feature amounts of the first image and the second image are a degree of matching between feature points of the first image and the reference image, and the feature amounts of the first image and the second image are a degree of matching between a plurality of divided images obtained by dividing each of the first image and the reference image into a lattice form.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623