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 .
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:
“a measurement part configured to…”
in claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims 2-6.
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 § 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)(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, 6-7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USPN 2018/0204351 to Oki.
With regard to claim 1, Oki discloses an image processing device comprising a measurement part configured to process a first image outputted from a first imaging part (Fig. 1 camera 11) and a second image outputted from a second imaging part (Fig. 1, camera 12) placed so as to be separated from the first imaging part, and search for a pixel block corresponding to a target pixel block on the first image (Figs. 2 and 3 display target pixel block W used for matching the location in the two stereo images), in a search range defined on the second image (Fig. 1, matching unit 14, and paragraphs [0031]-[0036], the search range is shown in Figs. 2 and 3), wherein
the search range extends in a direction of separation between the first imaging part and the second imaging part (paragraph [0040], the search line is parallel to the x axis, and Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the search range as the matching of pixels/blocks is performed. The search range is shown in the x direction of separation between the object such as a person in Fig. 2 and the determined distance offset is shown more detailed in Fig. 3 as xp), and
the measurement part respectively executes a plurality of search processes for a plurality of ranges into which the search range is divided (Fig. 2 shows a search range that is divided by the search window. Each window is considered a search range wherein a search or comparison is performed. The search range is limited according to the system as discussed in paragraphs [0024]-[0025]. The search ranges correspond to the comparison windows and the rows and columns for which search and comparisons are performed).
With regard to claim 4, Oki discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement part extracts a pixel block having a highest degree of correlation with the target pixel block, as the pixel block corresponding to the target pixel block, based on processing results of the plurality of search processes (paragraphs [0032]-[0036], [0042] and [0057], Oki calculates a degree of matching and indicates that past a certain degree of matching that a certainty factor is determined).
With regard to claim 6, Oki discloses the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the measurement part acquires information about a distance to an object to be imaged, and selects the processing result to be a target for extraction of the pixel block, based on the acquired information (paragraph [0044], Distance can be calculated on a pixel or pixel block basis once the disparity between the two images is known).
With regard to claim 7, the discussion of claims 1 applies. Oki discloses an image processing method comprising a step of processing a first image outputted from a first imaging part (Fig. 1, camera 11 and image G1) and a second image outputted from a second imaging part (Fig. 1, camera 2 and image G2) placed so as to be separated from the first imaging part , and searching for a pixel block corresponding to a target pixel block on the first image (Figs. 2 and 3 display target pixel block W used for matching the location in the two stereo images), in a search range defined on the second image (Fig. 1, matching unit 14, and paragraphs [0031]-[0036], the search range is shown in Figs. 2 and 3), wherein
the search range extends in a direction of separation between the first imaging part and the second imaging part (paragraph [0040], the search line is parallel to the x axis, and Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the search range as the matching of pixels/blocks is performed. The search range is shown in the x direction of separation between the object such as a person in Fig. 2 and the determined distance offset is shown more detailed in Fig. 3 as xp), and
the searching step includes a step of respectively executing a plurality of search processes for a plurality of ranges into which the search range is divided (Fig. 2 shows a search range that is divided by the search window. Each window is considered a search range wherein a search or comparison is performed. The search range is limited according to the system as discussed in paragraphs [0024]-[0025]. The search ranges correspond to the comparison windows and the rows and columns for which search and comparisons are performed).
With regard to claim 10, the discussion of claim 4 applies.
With regard to claim 12, the discussion of claim 6 applies.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0204351 to Oki and 2019/0268585 to Bell.
With regard to claim 2, Oki discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement part performs the plurality of search processes in parallel for the same search range.
Bell teaches a similar stereoscopic camera system for comparing locations in the acquired stereo images and further teaches that comparison of the different locations is performed in parallel (paragraphs [0009], [0018] and [0055]). Bell teaches in paragraph [0055]: “The ground plane discrimination described above may be performed rapidly due to the simplicity of comparing one location in an image to another location in a second image. Further, the method may be massively parallelized since each row in the image is independent of other rows and as such the rows in an image may be computed in parallel. Further, by comparing portions of rows linearly, for example from left to right, the image portions for comparison may be easily pre-fetched from memory.” Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to perform the comparison of image areas in parallel as taught by Bell in order to more efficiently and effectively find matching image areas.
With regard to claim 3, the discussion of claim 2 applies. The plurality of searches will be inherently performed at different timings whether they are performed in parallel or in sequence. Oki and Bell both disclose wherein the measurement part performs the plurality of search processes for the same search range at different timings, and performs the plurality of search processes in parallel for the plurality of search ranges, respectively. The searches performed in Oki occur in sequence as the matching process steps through the window locations (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3), which is considered to be at different timings. Likewise Bell teaches that the comparisons of different locations can occur in parallel, and these searches are still considered to be performed with different timings as the different areas or search ranges are stepped through (paragraphs [0009], [0018] and [0055]).
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the discussions of claims 2 and 3 apply respectively.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of USPNs 2018/0204351 to Oki and 2015/0348416 to Fujita et al.
With regard to claim 5, Oki discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the measurement part excludes a pixel block whose degree of correlation with the target pixel block does not exceed a predetermined threshold value, from an extraction target in the plurality of search processes.
Fujita teaches a similar stereoscopic imaging with block-based comparison similar to Oki and further teaches that when performing the comparisons of blocks, that blocks that do not meet a luminance threshold may be ignored or effectively discarded in the image matching comparison. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the thresholding and discarding of image blocks taught by Fujita in order to only consider the most relevant image data in performing image comparison and matching in the system of Oki, to achieve accurate image block matching.
With regard to claim 11, the discussion of claim 5 applies.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY J TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7427. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM Monday-Friday.
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, JOHN VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/WESLEY J TUCKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights