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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “an imaging device having an optical system and configured to perform coded imaging”; “a depth estimation unit configured to decode an image”; “a temperature sensor configured to output a signal”; “a correction unit configured to correct the depth”; and “a storage unit configured to store” in claims 1-2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea done via generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generic computer elements do not constitute anything more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because any technical element of the invention is given a generic recitation as a unit or system such as an “optical system” which could be constituted as mere eyesight, a “depth estimation unit” to estimate depth, a “temperature sensor” to detect the temperature, a “correction unit” to correct depth estimation, and lastly a “storage unit” to store information. These are all generic recitations of units that perform basic tasks. The only thing that could move it beyond a 101 rejection are the “coded imaging” and “decode an image”, but from the specification, the BRI of “coded imaging” is merely imaging performed via a mask with the BRI of “to decode an image” being compensating for blurring effects during an initial estimation of the position. As such, these do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In regards to claim 1, an imaging system comprising: an imaging device having an optical system and configured to perform coded imaging of a subject (A person of ordinary skill can mask an image that they are acquiring by simply covering parts of their eyes with their hands or simply by putting a piece of paper with a pattern on it over their eyesight); a depth estimation unit configured to decode an image captured by the imaging device to estimate a depth at each position of the subject from the optical system (A person of ordinary skill in the art can observe an object and calculate a rough distance to that object at any number of positions, and a person can compensate for any blurring of this object by blocking any sunlight that obscures their vision, moving closer to an object to account for vision issues, or by applying glasses along with the many other ways a person can compensate for blurring); a temperature sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to an ambient temperature of the imaging device (A person of ordinary skill in the art can output a signal of some form to another person based on the air temperature which they can detect by simply being outside and feeling the temperature of the environment or around a specific device); and a correction unit configured to correct the depth of the subject based on the signal from the temperature sensor (A person can then correct the perceived depth by compensating for a possible heat haze around the object or for other temperature related factors).
In regards to claim 2, further comprising a storage unit configured to store information representing a relationship between a depth before correction and a depth after correction for a plurality of ambient temperatures, wherein the correction unit corrects the depth of the subject based on the information (A person of ordinary skill in the art can simply remember the various depth and the associated ambient temperatures along with the relationship between the two depths. A person could still correct the depth based on this information more specifically).
In regards to claim 3, wherein the imaging device is installed in a vehicle (A person of ordinary skill in the art could perform these steps if they were in a vehicle of some kind).
Further, wherein the imaging device is installed in a vehicle (This is insignificant extra solution activity as a person could accomplish whether or not they were even in a vehicle. It seems to be an attempt to apply this to a particular field of use. Taking a known concept and simply stating it is done in a vehicle).
In regards to claim 4, wherein the vehicle is an automobile(A person of ordinary skill in the art could perform these steps if they were in a vehicle of some kind).
Further, wherein the vehicle is an automobile (This is insignificant extra solution activity as a person could accomplish whether or not they were even in an automobile of some kind whether a car, truck, or other permutations of the concept. It seems to be an attempt to apply this to a particular field of use. Taking a known concept and simply stating it is done in an automobile).
In regards to claim 5, it is similar to claim 1, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 6, it is similar to claim 2, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 7, it is similar to claim 3, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 8, it is similar to claim 4, and it is rejected similarly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuruyama et al. (US20200051261A1).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuruyama et al. (US20200051261A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsuruyama.
In regards to claim 1, Tsuruyama discloses an imaging system comprising: an imaging device having an optical system and configured to perform coded imaging of a subject (Paragraphs 35 and 44, Paragraph 35 discloses an imaging system that would read on the optical system and the coded imaging is covered by a mask since that method is disclosed in the specification); a depth estimation unit configured to decode an image captured by the imaging device to estimate a depth at each position of the subject from the optical system (Paragraphs 53 and 58-60, The “decoding process” is loosely defined by the specification to having improvements to the blur within the images and an estimated distance for each position of the object as such, this phrasing is covered by the reference. Further, paragraph 53 states that the blur functions are point spread functions); a temperature sensor configured to output a signal corresponding to an ambient temperature of the imaging device (Paragraph 107 and 109, Disclose the usage of a sensor to detect temperature via a thermometer to measure the air temperature around the device which is the ambient temperature); and a correction unit configured to correct the depth of the subject based on the signal from the temperature sensor (Paragraphs 81-82, The temperature is fed into the calculator which chooses a corresponding filter to be applied to the image to correct the image).
In regards to claim 2, Tsuruyama discloses further comprising a storage unit configured to store information representing a relationship between a depth before correction and a depth after correction for a plurality of ambient temperatures, wherein the correction unit corrects the depth of the subject based on the information (Paragraph 36-37, 51-61, and 109, Paragraphs 36-37 disclose a memory that has the distance with paragraphs 51-61 covering the relationship between the calculated distance or corrected distance and the observed difference. This relationship is defined by the relationship to the focusing distance and where the distance estimate is blurred. Paragraph 109 allows for the ambient temperature to cover current air temperature which would change over time which would constitute a plurality of ambient temperatures).
In regards to claim 3, Tsuruyama discloses wherein the imaging device is installed in a vehicle (Figure 22 and paragraphs 26 and 125, Discloses that the system can be a vehicle in paragraph 125 with Figure 22 and paragraph 26 showing that the vehicle can be a car).
In regards to claim 4, Tsuruyama discloses wherein the vehicle is an automobile (Figure 22 and paragraph 26, Shows the device inside of an automobile with paragraph 26 describing the image).
In regards to claim 5, it is similar to claim 1, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 6, it is similar to claim 2, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 7, it is similar to claim 3, and it is rejected similarly.
In regards to claim 8, it is similar to claim 4, and it is rejected similarly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675