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 .
The action is responsive to the following communication: an application filed on 007/23/2024 where:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 18 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.
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)(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.
.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou).
Regarding claim 1, Itou teaches: A signal processing device (fig. 1, The image processing unit 30-1) comprising:
a signal processing section (fig. 1, signal processing unit 32a) that performs signal processing on at least one image in multiple types of images generated on a basis of an output of a light reception sensor in which pixels having light receiving elements are arrayed two- dimensionally ([0061, 0079-0080], image sensor 20 generates an image signal of a moving image by performing a process of thinning pixels or lines in a horizontal direction and reading pixel signals in accordance with the resolution of the moving image, and outputs the generated image signal to an image processing unit 30-3. Further, the image sensor 20 generates an image signal of a still image with a resolution higher than that of a moving image while capturing the moving image by reading the pixel signals without performing the thinning process and outputs the generated image signal to the image processing unit 30-3.); and
a control section that controls a signal processing parameter in the signal processing section such that modes of the multiple types of images become appropriate ([0066-0068], The evaluation value generation unit 33 causes the signal selection unit 332 shown in FIG. 2 to select any one of the image signals supplied from the signal processing units 32a and 32b and generates the evaluation value using the selected image signal. [0067] When the image signal of the still image is generated while capturing the moving image, the still image is an image which is present at one time point of the moving image and is substantially the same as a moving image immediately before the generation of the still image or immediately after the generation of the still image. Therefore, controlling signal processing parameters so that the modes of both image types moving and still are made appropriate).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 above.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of Gowda et al. (US 6275259, hereinafter Gowda).
Regarding claim 2, Itou teaches: The signal processing device according to claim 1.
Itou does not explicitly teach: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process as the signal processing.
However, Gowda teaches: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process as the signal processing (Col. 3, lines 25-30, Thus, the digital automatic gain control (AGC) circuit of the present invention performs automatic contrast control by gradually (frame to frame) adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the dynamic range of the frames).
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou to include wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process as the signal processing as taught by Gowda. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the range of the frames; therefore, allowing for finer resolution.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of Raynor et al. (US 2005/0279921, hereinafter Raynor).
Regarding claim 6, Itou teaches: The signal processing device according to claim 1.
Itou does not explicitly teach: wherein the light reception sensor is a polarization sensor.
However, Raynor teaches: comprising: wherein the light reception sensor is a polarization sensor ([0015], The present invention provides for a polarization sensitive solid state image sensor comprising an integrated photodetector and polarizing assembly. An embodiment of such a sensor is illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2.).
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou to include wherein the light reception sensor is a polarization sensor as taught by Raynor. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for ability to measure angle and degree of polarization; therefore, allowing the sensor to block unwanted glare and reveal hidden physical properties that standard color miss.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of Raynor et al. (US 2005/0279921, hereinafter Raynor) and further in view of Gowda et al. (US 6275259, hereinafter Gowda).
Regarding claim 7, Itou and Raynor teach: The signal processing device according to claim 6.
Itou and Raynor do not explicitly teach: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process on at least one polarization image in multiple types of polarization image generated on a basis of an output of the polarization sensor.
However, Gowda taches: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process (Col. 3, lines 25-30, Thus, the digital automatic gain control (AGC) circuit of the present invention performs automatic contrast control by gradually (frame to frame) adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the dynamic range of the frames) on at least one polarization image in multiple types of polarization image generated on a basis of an output of the polarization sensor.
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou and Raynor to include wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process on at least one polarization image in multiple types of polarization image generated on a basis of an output of the polarization sensor as taught by Gowda. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the range of the frames; therefore, allowing for finer resolution.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0271516, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Itou teaches: The signal processing device according to claim 1.
Itou does not explicitly teach: wherein the light reception sensor is a spectral sensor.
However, Lee teaches: comprising: wherein the light reception sensor is a spectral sensor ([0007], he spectrum sensor region may include a first spectrum sensor region for obtaining a reference signal and a second spectrum sensor region for obtaining a spectrum signal of an object.).
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou to include wherein the light reception sensor is a spectral sensor as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for ability to identify chemical composition capturing by specific wavelengths that are invisible to the human eye; therefore, providing highly accurate, non-destructive, and real-time data for wide range of analytical application.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0271516, hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Gowda et al. (US 6275259, hereinafter Gowda).
Regarding claim 11, Itou and Lee teach: The signal processing device according to claim 10.
Itou and Lee do not explicitly teach: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process on at least one image in multiple types of images generated on a basis of an output of the spectral sensor.
However, Gowda taches: wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process (Col. 3, lines 25-30, Thus, the digital automatic gain control (AGC) circuit of the present invention performs automatic contrast control by gradually (frame to frame) adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the dynamic range of the frames) on at least one image in multiple types of images generated on a basis of an output of the spectral sensor.
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou and Lee to include wherein the signal processing section performs a digital gain adjustment process on at least one image in multiple types of images generated on a basis of an output of the spectral sensor as taught by Gowda. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for adjusting the brightness of the frames and dynamically adjusting the range of the frames; therefore, allowing for finer resolution.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (US 2013/0235150, hereinafter Itou) in view of VIgnetti et al. (US 2022/0308190, hereinafter Vignetti).
Regarding claim 15, Itou teaches: The signal processing device according to claim 1.
Itou does not explicitly teach: wherein the light reception sensor is an iToF sensor.
However, Vignetti teaches: comprising: wherein the light reception sensor is an iToF sensor ([0029], usual implementations of an iTOF sensor).
Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Itou to include wherein the light reception sensor is an iToF sensor as taught by Vignetti. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the signal processing device since doing so would allow for ability to calculate distance by measuring the time it takes for a pulse of light to an object and back; therefore, allowing the sensor to provide rapid real-time measurement speeds, reliable performance in the dak and contactless operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW H LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7969 and fax number is 571-270-8969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW H LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights