DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 03/25/2026. New claims 11-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the Hicks and Jin references, applying Jin's correction method to the system of Hicks, they would apply Jin's RGB subtraction matrix to the RGB-IR sensor of Hicks (which is Hicks' second sensor 124). That is, the skilled artisan would use the RGB signals generated by Hicks' second imaging element to correct the IR signal generated by that same second imaging element. Nothing in Hicks or Jin teaches or suggests using the visible image generated by a first imaging element to correct the invisible image generated by a second imaging element. In fact, applying Jin's RGB subtraction matrix to Hicks' first imaging element (monochrome sensor 114) would be physically impossible, as Hicks' first sensor lacks the required RGB color information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies on Hicks for the two sensor hardware arrangement and relies on Jin for the known correction technique (subtracting visible light influence from an NIR image). In other words, the combination does not require using Jin’s same single sensor. Hicks already has the first visible sensor and the second IR sensor and Jin is only being used to show that it was known to clean up an NIR image by removing visible light contamination.
Jin does not need to disclose two physically separate sensors to support the combination. Jin teaches that an RGB-NIR image signals includes both visible RGB information and NIR information, and that processing circuitry separates those components to produce an RGB image and/or an NIR image. (paragraph 33: image processing circuitry such as storage and processing circuitry 18 (FIG. 1) may include a color accurate RGB recovery unit for accurately and efficiently separating image data corresponding to visible light from image data corresponding to infrared light.) Even if Jin starts from one four channel RGB-NIR image, Jin teaches separating RGB and NIR information and using RGB information to improve the NIR output. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the same logic to Hicks’ two sensor system.
In Hicks, the first monochrome sensor 114 receives visible band light and records luminance (paragraph 21), while the second camera receives light passed through a filter that includes visible light of all colors and a selected NIR band and is configured to sense RGB and NIR (paragraphs 22-23). Hicks further teaches that the two camera outputs are processed together by ISP 106 wherein the first output is a high dynamic range monochrome image and the second is a color image, and the infrared image may be isolated by the ISP (paragraphs 28-30).
Jin is relied on for the correction technique by teaching processing circuitry to separate visible light image data from infrared light image data (paragraphs 33-35). Jin teaches that the NIR image signal may be isolated using an RGB subtraction operation (paragraph 55) that corrects unwanted sensitivity of the NIR image signal in the visible band (paragraph 56), and that matrix T is an RGB subtraction matrix selected to reduce RGB interference effects in the NIR image (paragraph 57).
Thus, one of ordinary skill would have used Jin’s known visible component subtraction in Hicks’ ISP 106 because Hicks already has both a high quality visible image from the first sensor and an NIR image from the second sensor. The first monochrome sensor provides better luminance information with higher SNR than the IR sensor, making it a predictable and beneficial visible image input for correcting visible contamination in the second sensor’s NIR image.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 8-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 2017/0094141 A1) in view of Jin (US 2015/0062347 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hicks discloses an image reading device comprising:
a visible light source to emit visible light to an object; (paragraph 29: a white LED to provide white broad band illumination for visible light images)
an invisible light source to emit invisible light to the object; (paragraph 29: a near infrared light LED to provide NIR illumination for NIR images)
a first imaging element to receive light including the visible light reflected from the object to capture a visible image; (paragraph 21: the first camera light is filtered by an IR cut-off filter and then passed to a monochrome sensor which receives all of the light in the visible band)
a second imaging element to receive light including the visible light reflected from the object to capture an invisible image; and (paragraphs 22-23: The second camera has a similar optical imaging lens to capture and focus light from the same scene. The captured light is passed through an optical filter that passes visible light of all visible colors and a particular, selected NIR band. The light that passes through the filter is captured by the camera sensor that is configured to sense RGB and NIR.)
Although Hicks discloses the general concept of extracting IR from visible information, i.e., using visible information to isolate IR, Hicks fails to specifically disclose circuitry configured to remove a visible component included in the invisible image that is generated by the second imaging element capturing the received light, using the visible image generated by the first imaging element capturing the received light.
In related art, Jin discloses circuitry configured to remove a visible component included in the invisible image that is generated by the second imaging element capturing the received light, using the visible image generated by the first imaging element capturing the received light. (Jin teaches correcting NIR using RGB subtraction. In paragraphs 20-21, Jin teaches NIR pixels may have “unwanted sensitivity to visible light in the infrared imaged imaging pixels. In paragraph 56, Jin further teaches correction for unwanted sensitivity of the input NIR image signal in the visible band
PNG
media_image1.png
72
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where T is a RGB subtraction matrix. Therefore, Jin teaches processing that removes the visible component (RGB terms) from the NIR signal (the “invisible image”), using the visible channel data.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Jin into the teachings of Hicks to effectively recover color images with color accuracy and improve the quality of the standard RGB image by using the NIR image signal determining color correction matrices. The NIR processor may improve the quality of the standard RGB image by using the NIR signal to determine the scene illuminant and thus determining appropriate image processing operations to be performed upon the RGB image.
Regarding claim 2, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the circuitry is configured to generate a correction coefficient, and remove the visible component included in the invisible image using the correction coefficient. (Jin: paragraphs 56-57: Jin teaches selecting subtracting matrices (coefficients) to correct NIR using RGB)
Regarding claim 4, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the visible image from which the visible component is removed is captured by the first imaging element when the visible light source is turned on while the invisible light source is not turned on. (Jin: paragraphs 31-32: Jin teaches separate visible flash and separate NIR flash which supports operating visible illumination independently)
Regarding claim 8, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the invisible light includes a near infrared light. (Jin: paragraph 20)
Regarding claim 9, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein an image forming apparatus comprising: the image reading device according to claim 1; and an image forming device to form an image read by the image reading device. (figure 1)
Regarding claim 11, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the visible light source and the invisible light source are simultaneously turned on. (Hicks: paragraph 29)
Regarding claim 12, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first imaging element and the second imaging element simultaneously read the light reflected from the object. (Hicks: paragraphs 20-23, 38 and 30)
Regarding claim 14, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the circuitry further includes an invisible component correction circuit configured to execute image correction on an infrared component to remove the visible component. (Jin: paragraphs 23, 33-35 and 55-57)
Regarding claim 15, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the circuitry further includes: a correction coefficient generation circuit configured to generate the correction coefficient, and a correction calculation circuit configured to perform correction calculation using the correction coefficient. (Jin: paragraphs 38-44, 50 and 56-57)
Regarding claim 16, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the emitting the visible light and the emitting the invisible light are performed simultaneously. (Hicks: paragraph 29)
Regarding claim 17, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the capturing the visible image and the capturing the invisible image are performed simultaneously. (Hicks: paragraphs 20-23, 28-30; Jin paragraph 20)
Regarding claim 18, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention wherein further comprising: driving the visible light source without driving the invisible light source to generate a correction coefficient. (Hick: paragraph 29; Jin paragraphs 39 and 57)
Claims 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Jin and in further view of Lim (US 2015/0189129 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the correction coefficient using the visible image captured by the first imaging element and the invisible image captured by the second imaging element before the visible component included in the invisible image is removed.
In related art, Lim discloses circuitry is configured to generate the correction coefficient using the visible image captured by the first imaging element and the invisible image captured by the second imaging element before the visible component included in the invisible image is removed. (paragraph 18: Lim teaches generating a normalization value from averages of visible and IR portions before coefficient adjustment)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lim into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to accurately perform lens shading correction.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on a ratio between an average value of an R channel, a G channel, and a B channel and a value of an invisible channel of the first imaging element.
In related art, Lim discloses circuitry is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on a ratio between an average value of an R channel, a G channel, and a B channel and a value of an invisible channel of the first imaging element. (paragraphs 99 and 104: Lim teaches calculated by a ratio of the average of the characteristic values of the one or more second portions of the light passing through the one or more infrared light pass filters to the average of the characteristic values of the one or more first portions of the light passing through the one or more visible light pass filters)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lim into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to accurately perform lens shading correction.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Jin and in further view of Fawzy (US 2018/0188108 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first imaging element and the second imaging element are each configured to capture a member having a spectral reflectance with a flat characteristic from a visible range to an invisible range, to generate the visible image and the invisible image each to be used for generating the correction coefficient.
In related art, Fawzy discloses the first imaging element and the second imaging element are each configured to capture a member having a spectral reflectance with a flat characteristic from a visible range to an invisible range, to generate the visible image and the invisible image each to be used for generating the correction coefficient. (paragraphs 7 and 18: Fawzy teaches calibration using a target with known, preferably flat spectral response and a white diffuse reflectance disk)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Fawzy into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to effectively provide accurate spectral images of a target in dynamically changing viewing or illuminating conditions.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Jin and in further view of Oumi (US 2010/0134855 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first imaging element and the second imaging element are each configured to capture a reference white plate that is used for shading correction when an image is read, to generate the visible image and the invisible image each to be used for generating the correction coefficient.
In related art, Oumi discloses the first imaging element and the second imaging element are each configured to capture a reference white plate that is used for shading correction when an image is read, to generate the visible image and the invisible image each to be used for generating the correction coefficient. (abstract: Oumi teaches scanning a white reference plate and using it for shading correction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Oumi into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to effectively improve accuracy of object detection.
Claims 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Jin and in further view of Ashikawa (US 2011/0064496 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a first carriage including the visible light source and the invisible light source; and a second carriage including a mirror.
However, in related art, Ashikawa discloses a first carriage including the visible light source and the invisible light source; and a second carriage including a mirror. (paragraph 74)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ashikawa into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to effectively maintain optical path length while scanning an object.
Regarding claim 19, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein moving a first carriage including the visible light source and the invisible light source, and a second carriage including a mirror, in a sub-scanning direction.
In related art, Ashikawa discloses moving a first carriage including the visible light source and the invisible light source, and a second carriage including a mirror, in a sub-scanning direction. (paragraph 74)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ashikawa into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to effectively maintain optical path length while scanning an object.
Regarding claim 20, Hicks, as modified by Jin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein automatically feeding the object from a document tray using a feeding roller.
In related art, Ashikawa discloses automatically feeding the object from a document tray using a feeding roller. (paragraphs 79-81)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ashikawa into the teachings of Hicks and Jin to effectively maintain optical path length while scanning an object.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights