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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of foreign patent application number 2021-189212, filed in Japan on November 24, 2021, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on April 11, 2024, and the IDS submitted on March 4, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
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.
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:
a high-frequency image generation unit in claim 1, with claims 2-12 depending;
a polarization image acquisition unit in claim 5, with claims 6-8 depending;
a polarization optical unit in claim 9, with claims 10-12 depending;
a polarization separation unit in claim 9, with claims 10-12 depending;
an optical filter unit in claim 9, with claims 10-12 depending;
a polarized light combining unit in claim 9, with claims 10-12 depending; and
a high-frequency image generation unit in claim 13.
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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 Feb. 23, 2010, regarding Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, provides:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim 14 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite, inter alia, "a program”. After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not does not clearly and unequivocally identify what may be included as a program and what is not to be included as a program.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a program (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the ambiguity or silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the program of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to program that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2000-354251 to Matsuda et al. (hereinafter “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuda teaches an image processing apparatus (e.g., fig. 1) comprising a high-frequency image generation unit that generates a high-frequency image (e.g., fig. 1, element 200; [0024-41]), using a first polarization image based on first polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 6; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) and subjected to optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, via low pass filter 8, when employing image sensor 10; [0009], [0017]), and a second polarization image based on second polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 2; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from the incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) but has not been subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, when employing image sensor 10; [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the high-frequency image generation unit performs difference computation using the first polarization image and the second polarization image to generate the high-frequency image (e.g., [0024-41], [0036], where the different color elements of two images undergo computations; the Examiner notes that the term “difference computation” is exceptionally broad and therefore, absent recited specificity within the claim, is open to broad interpretation).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda teaches all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the high-frequency image generation unit calculates a difference from a peripheral pixel that generates pixel information on different polarized light for each pixel to generate the high-frequency image (e.g., [0036], performed for the pixels, including a “peripheral pixel”; the Examiner notes that the term “peripheral pixel” is exceptionally broad and therefore, absent recited a relative anchor point or reference establishing what is and what is not peripheral within the claim, is open to broad interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the high-frequency image generation unit performs compensation for a decrease in an amount of light due to the optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 2; [0007], [0025]), on the first polarization image (e.g., [0024-41]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuda teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the image processing apparatus further comprising a polarization optical unit (fig. 1, at least elements 2, 4, 6, 8 and 200) that generates combined light obtained by combining the first polarized light subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing and the second polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 200; [0024-41]), wherein the polarization optical unit includes a polarization separation unit that separates the incident light into the first polarized light and the second polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, element 4; [0015]), an optical filter unit that performs the optical low-pass filter processing on the first polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, element 8; [0017]), and a polarized light combining unit that combines the first polarized light subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing and the second polarized light not subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing to generate the combined light (e.g., fig. 1, element 200; [0024-41]). The Examiner notes that the broad term “unit” can be interpreted to include multiple elements or combinations of elements, as needed, absent structural distinction.
Regarding claim 13, Matsuda teaches an image processing method comprising generating a high-frequency image in a high-frequency image generation unit (e.g., fig. 1, element 200; [0024-41]), using a first polarization image based on first polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 6; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) and subjected to optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, via low pass filter 8, when employing image sensor 10; [0009], [0017]), and a second polarization image based on second polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 2; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from the incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) but has not been subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, when employing image sensor 10; [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda teaches a program for causing a computer to execute generation of a high-frequency image (e.g., fig. 6, via computer 160, [0111-112], [0117]), the program causing the computer to execute a procedure of generating the high-frequency image from a first polarization image based on first polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 6; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) and subjected to optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, via low pass filter 8, when employing image sensor 10; [0009], [0017]), and a second polarization image based on second polarized light (e.g., fig. 1, via element 2; [0009], [0011-13]) that has been generated from the incident light (e.g., fig. 1; [0009]) but has not been subjected to the optical low-pass filter processing (e.g., fig. 1, when employing image sensor 10; [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638