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 .
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.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,368,000. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,547,787. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,656. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,887,520. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,336,816. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,351. Any differences between the application’s claims the patent claims are not patentably distinct as shown by the prior art rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the frequency" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependence upon claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) (US Pat. No. 5,699,149).
Regarding claim 17, Kuroda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium of a camera device (5), the computer-readable medium storing a program for causing a processor to execute an imaging method (FIG. 9, a program is executed) comprising:
performing an imaging operation which captures a subject image by an image sensor (col. 3, lns. 3-5, an image sensor captures images) and an imaging optical system (col. 6, lns. 41-50, an optical system is used for capturing images); and
performing a distance measurement operation to derive a distance to a subject by emitting a light via an emitter, and receiving a reflected light of the light from the subject via a light receiver (col. 6, lns. 41-46, measuring the distance by emitting the light from the light emission part 3 and detecting the reflected light from the target vehicle by the image sensor 13),
wherein, in a case in which the imaging operation is performed, the shake correction function is synchronized with the distance measurement operation (col. 5, lns. 59-67, by adding such a function (i..e shake correction) for preventing image-blurring (during imaging) due to the vibration of the driving vehicle as used in handy video cameras to the above described embodiments of the distance measurement apparatus for vehicle, the distance measurement is performed so as to extract a clear image of the target vehicle from the image information. In FIG. 10, a mechanical method for correcting the vibration effect on image-blurring is shown).
Regarding claim 2, Kuroda discloses wherein the processor performs derivations of distance multiple times for deriving a final distance on the distance measurement operation (FIG. 3, col. 3, lns. 41-53, the distance measurement is performed repeatedly to determine a valid distance measurement).
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda discloses wherein a drive of the emitter or the light receiver is adjusted according to information of an exposure state of an imaging condition (col. 3, lns. 44-54, In case that the step 105 judges that the measured (distance) value is not valid and that the laser beam is not exposed to the target vehicle, going back to the step 100, the procedures from the step 100 for capturing the image to the step 103 for exposing the laser beam are repeated).
Regarding claim 15, Kuroda discloses wherein the shake correction function is function using a shake correction mechanism moving the image sensor (col. 5, lns. 66-67 - col. 6, lns. 1-20, an mechanical process of shifting the light detection part (4) (i..e. image sensor)).
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 (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 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 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) (US Pat. No. 5,699,149) in view of Yumiki (US 2008/0204565).
Regarding claim 6, Kuroda discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 (see claim 17 above) and wherein the image sensor captures the subject image formed by the imaging optical system (col. 6, lns. 41-50, an optical system is used for capturing images) in the imaging operation.
Kuroda is silent about and an electronic shutter function in the imaging operation.
Yumiki from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses an electronic shutter function in the imaging operation ([0225], an electronic shutter is incorporated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yumiki into the teachings of Karuda for increasing the shutter speed (Yumiki: ABSTRACT).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) (US Pat. No. 5,699,149) in view of Kao et al. (Kao) (US 2011/0304842).
Regarding claim 7, Kuroda discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 (see claim 17 above).
Kuroda is silent about wherein a drive of the emitter or the light receiver is adjusted according to a distance from the digital camera to the subject.
Kao from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein a drive of the emitter or the light receiver is adjusted according to a distance from the digital camera to the subject ([0034], [0065], the processor adjusts the main sensing range of the sensor according to the distance between the object and the time of flight system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kao into the teachings of Karuda for saving power during time of flight imaging.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) (US Pat. No. 5,699,149) in view of Tamamura (US 2008/0136939).
Regarding claim 9, Kuroda discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 (see claim 17 above).
Kuroda is silent about wherein the processor is further configured to receive a user instruction regarding whether or not shake correction function is performed.
Tamamura from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a user instruction regarding whether or not shake correction function is performed ([0046], a user selects the shake-compensation mode at the operating part 214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tamamura into the teachings of Karuda for allowing manual control of the shake correction processing.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kuroda discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 (see claim 17 above).
Kuroda is silent about wherein the processor is further configured to perform the shake correction function in the imaging operation, in a case in which the processor performs the imaging operation without the distance measurement operation.
Tamamura from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform the shake correction function in the imaging operation, in a case in which the processor performs the imaging operation without the distance measurement operation ([0003], [0024], shake compensation is performed during imaging (without a distance measurement being performed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tamamura into the teachings of Karuda for producing blur free images during a regular imaging process (i.e. without performing ranging detection).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) (US Pat. No. 5,699,149) in view of Tashiro (US 2010/0231774).
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 17 (see claim 17 above).
Kuroda is silent about wherein the distance measurement operation and the imaging operation are synchronized so that the emitter emits the light in a horizontal blanking period or vertical blanking period of the image sensor.
Tashiro from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the distance measurement operation ([0034] distance between the object and the imaging system is determined) and the imaging operation ([0026], an image is captured) are synchronized so that the emitter emits the light in a horizontal blanking period or vertical blanking period of the image sensor ([0034], light is emitted during blanking periods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kao into the teachings of Karuda for performing high speed time of flight imaging (Tashiro: [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 10, 11, and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights