DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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:
Regarding claim 1,
a first depth information acquisition unit
The above limitation uses a generic placeholder “a first depth information acquisition unit” coupled with functional language “acquiring first depth information…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the recited function. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although the term “a first depth information acquisition unit” is not one of the recognized nonce terms, such as “means” or “step”, the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is overcome. Specifically, “a first depth information acquisition unit” is not a term of art with structural connotation to one skilled in the art.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing “a first depth information acquisition unit” is in page 6, line 23, Fig. 2, page 7, line 20. Therefore, the interpretation of “a first depth information acquisition unit” is a computer program implemented in software run on a processor in the control section 30.
a second depth information acquisition unit
The above limitation uses a generic placeholder “a second depth information acquisition unit” coupled with functional language “acquiring second depth information…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the recited function. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although the term “a second depth information acquisition unit” is not one of the recognized nonce terms, such as “means” or “step”, the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is overcome. Specifically, “a second depth information acquisition unit” is not a term of art with structural connotation to one skilled in the art.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing “a second depth information acquisition unit” is in Fig. 2, page 7, line 20 and line 25. Therefore, the interpretation of “a second depth information acquisition unit” is a computer program implemented in software run on a processor in the control section 30.
a temperature acquisition unit
The above limitation uses a generic placeholder “a temperature acquisition unit” coupled with functional language “acquiring an environmental temperature…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the recited function. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although the term “a temperature acquisition unit” is not one of the recognized nonce terms, such as “means” or “step”, the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is overcome. Specifically, “a temperature acquisition unit” is not a term of art with structural connotation to one skilled in the art.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing “a temperature acquisition unit” is in Fig. 2, page 7, line 25. Therefore, the interpretation of “a temperature acquisition unit” is a computer program implemented in software run on a processor in the control section 30.
a correction unit
The above limitation uses a generic placeholder “a correction unit” coupled with functional language “correcting the first depth information…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the recited function. Further, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although the term “a correction unit” is not one of the recognized nonce terms, such as “means” or “step”, the presumption of not invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is overcome. Specifically, “a correction unit” is not a term of art with structural connotation to one skilled in the art.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing “a correction unit” is in Fig. 2, page 7, line 25. Therefore, the interpretation of “a temperature acquisition unit” is a computer program implemented in software run on a processor in the control section 30.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18625442 in view of Oigawa et al. (US 20220321871 A1, hereinafter “Oigawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Application No. 18625442 teaches an imaging apparatus having an optical system, an aperture unit in which a coded aperture pattern partially shielding incident light to the optical system is formed, and an imaging device acquiring image data based on the incident light passing through the optical system (Application No. 18625442; claim 1, line 2-4);
a first depth information acquisition unit acquiring first depth information in each of a plurality of pixels of the imaging device (Application No. 18625442; claim 1, line 5-7);
a memory unit correlating and storing a relationship between the first depth information and the second depth information with an environmental temperature (Application No. 18625442; claim 2, line 2-4);
a temperature acquisition unit acquiring an environmental temperature based on the first depth information of the imaging object acquired by the first depth information acquisition unit and the second depth information of the imaging object acquired by the second depth information acquisition unit (Application No. 18625442; claim 2, line 2-4); and
a correction unit correcting the first depth information in each of the plurality of pixels based on the environmental temperature acquired by the temperature acquisition unit (Application No. 18625442; claim 2, line 5-6).
Application No. 18625442 does not teach,
a correction sensor measuring a time between reflection of emitted light by a surface of an arbitrary imaging object and return;
a second depth information acquisition unit acquiring second depth information of the imaging object based on a measurement result of the correction sensor;
Oigawa teaches,
a correction sensor measuring a time between reflection of emitted light by a surface of an arbitrary imaging object and return (Oigawa; Fig. 3A, Fig. 7A, Fig. 8A, [0126], [0138], distance measurement system 700 includes a second distance measurement device 730 (TOF, [0143], not influenced by temperature changes [0135]), which measures a subject distance on basis of an arrival time of emitted laser light reflected by a subject and detected by the detector);
a second depth information acquisition unit acquiring second depth information of the imaging object based on a measurement result of the correction sensor (Oigawa; Fig. 3A, Fig. 8A, [0138], [0139], the second acquisition unit 320 acquires the second distance information Idist2 by second distance measurement device 730);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the imaging unit taught by Application No. 18625442 to include temperature insensitive sensor to measure the correct distance taught by Oigawa with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using a temperature insensitive sensor to measure the correct distance which can be used to correct the distance measured by temperature sensitive sensor ([0065], [0102], [0139]).
Claims 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18625442 in view of Oigawa.
Claim 2 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to those of claim 1 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning but map to application No. 18625442 claim 7 of the method claim .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oigawa et al. (US 20220321871 A1, hereinafter “Oigawa”), modified in view of Kane et al. (US 20120076362 A1, hereinafter “Kane”).
Regarding claim 1, Oigawa teaches an imaging unit comprising:
an imaging apparatus having an optical system and an imaging device acquiring image data based on the incident light passing through the optical system (Oigawa; Fig. 1A, Figs. 2, Figs. 3, Fig. 7A, [0126], distance measurement system 700 includes optical system 120, a distance measurement device 720 (influenced by temperature changes [0135] and similar to the distance measurement device 110 in Figs. 2, Figs. 3); [0045], the distance measurement device acquires first distance information Idist1 (Fig. 3C, section [0048], step 314, [0059]-[0063]) in a first acquisition unit 310; system 700 has same operation of measure 1st distance but uses TOF device 730 to measure 2nd distance);
a correction sensor measuring a time between reflection of emitted light by a surface of an arbitrary imaging object and return (Oigawa; Fig. 3A, Fig. 7A, Fig. 8A, [0126], [0138], distance measurement system 700 includes a second distance measurement device 730 (TOF, [0143], not influenced by temperature changes [0135]), which measures a subject distance on basis of an arrival time of emitted laser light reflected by a subject and detected by the detector);
a first depth information acquisition unit acquiring first depth information in each of a plurality of pixels of the imaging device (Oigawa; Fig. 3A, Fig. 8A, ([0045], the distance measurement device acquires first distance information Idist1 (Fig. 3C, section [0048], step 314, [0059]-[0063]) in a first acquisition unit 310);
a second depth information acquisition unit acquiring second depth information of the imaging object based on a measurement result of the correction sensor (Oigawa; Fig. 3A, Fig. 8A, [0138], [0139], the second acquisition unit 320 acquires the second distance information Idist2 by second distance measurement device 730);
a memory unit correlating and storing a relationship between the first depth information and the second depth information with an environmental temperature (Oigawa; Fig. 3A-3C, Fig. 8A, [0044], computer program stored in the memory to perform each process in Figs 3B-3C; [0139], the correction information generation unit 330 acquires the correction value Ic (due to the change in the surrounding environment, like temperature [0065], [0102]) from the first distance information Idist1 and the second distance information Idist2. The correction value is related to temperature implies the temperature information can be obtained from first/second distance information);
a temperature acquisition unit acquiring an environmental temperature based on the first depth information of the imaging object acquired by the first depth information acquisition unit and the second depth information of the imaging object acquired by the second depth information acquisition unit (Oigawa; Fig. 3A-3C, Fig. 8A, [0139], the correction information generation unit 330 acquires the correction value Ic (due to the change in the surrounding environment, like temperature [0065], [0102]) from the first distance information Idist1 and the second distance information Idist2. The correction value is related to temperature implies the temperature information can be obtained from first/second distance information); and
a correction unit correcting the first depth information in each of the plurality of pixels based on the environmental temperature acquired by the temperature acquisition unit (same as above; Oigawa; Fig. 3A-3C, Fig. 8A, [0139], the correction unit 340 generates and outputs the corrected distance information IdistC by correcting the first distance information Idist1 by using the correction value Ic (related to temperature changes [0065], [0102])).
Oigawa does not teach,
an aperture unit in which a coded aperture pattern partially shielding incident light to the optical system is formed.
Kane disclosed in Fig. 4, [0036], the capture device 210 includes a lens 215, a coded aperture 220, and an electronic sensor array 225; Fig. 3, [0035], further disclosed using coded aperture imaging unit to determine the range information for object in the scene. The coded aperture imaging unit uses geometrical optics to determine range information (Kane; [0003]-[0006]) which is similar to Oigawa’s invention (also related to geometrical optics) to determine depth information ([0045], the distance measurement device acquires first distance information Idist1 (Fig. 3C, section [0048], step 314, [0059]-[0063]) in a first acquisition unit 310). As disclosed in Oigawa’s invention, the first distance information Idist1 calculated by the first acquisition unit is susceptible to changes over time in the optical system (change due to surrounding environment such as temperature [0135]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the range information determined by the coded aperture imaging unit disclosed by Kane will be change over time in the optical system due to temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the imaging unit taught by Oigawa to include coded aperture imaging unit taught by Kane with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that Oigawa provide a method to correct the distance measured from a temperature sensitive sensor by a temperature insensitive sensor. Furthermore, use the method from Oigawa with a coded aperture imaging unit (also has similar temperature influence) from Kane, predictably to correct the distance measured by a coded aperture imaging unit with success.
Claim 2 is the method claim possesses nearly identical limitation to those of claim 1 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights