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 2022-017967, filed in Japan on February 8, 2022, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on July 30, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is 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:
“an image organizing unit” in claim 1;
“a signal processing unit” in claim, 1;
“a polarization image generation unit” in claim 6;
“a timing adjustment unit” in claim 6;
“an image organizing unit” in claim 10; and
“a signal processing unit” in claim, 10.
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)(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 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0013988 to Kondo et al. (hereinafter “Kondo”).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a signal processing device comprising an image organizing unit (e.g., fig. 1, element 30) that receives an input of a captured image obtained by a polarization sensor (e.g., [0061-68]), and extracts a light reception value of pixels that receive light of the same polarization angle from the captured image to organize polarization-angle-specific images that are images for respective polarization angles (e.g., [0068]), the polarization sensor having polarization pixel units formed by two-dimensionally arranging a plurality of types of pixels that selectively receive light of different polarization angles in a predetermined pattern, the polarization pixel units being two-dimensionally arranged in the polarization sensor (e.g., fig. 2a; [0058-60]), and a signal processing unit (e.g., fig. 1, element 30) that performs signal processing on the polarization-angle-specific images obtained by the image organizing unit (e.g., [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo teaches all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the image organizing unit receives an input of a captured image obtained by the polarization sensor in which color polarization pixel units are two-dimensionally arranged, the color polarization pixel units being formed by two-dimensionally arranging, in a predetermined pattern, a plurality of types of the polarization pixel units each of which receives light of a different color (e.g., fig. 2; [0058-60]), and extracts a light reception value of pixels that receive light of the same polarization angle from the captured image, to organize the polarization-angle-specific images (e.g., [0057-67]).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo teaches all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching wherein, in the polarization sensor, the color polarization pixel units each include the polarization pixel unit that selectively receives red light, the polarization pixel unit that selectively receives green light, and the polarization pixel unit that selectively receives blue light, the polarization pixel units being arranged in a Bayer pattern (e.g., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kondo teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein, in the polarization sensor, the polarization pixel unit includes four types of pixels that receive light of polarization angles that differ by 45 degrees from each other, the four types of pixels being two-dimensionally arranged in a predetermined pattern (e.g., fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kondo teaches a signal processing device comprising a polarization sensor (e.g., fig. 1, element 20; [0057]) in which polarization pixel units formed by two-dimensionally arranging a plurality of types of pixels that selectively receive light of different polarization angles in a predetermined pattern are two-dimensionally arranged (e.g., fig. 2; [0058-60]), an image organizing unit (e.g., fig. 1, element 30) that receives an input of a captured image obtained by the polarization sensor, and extracts a light reception value of pixels that receive light of the same polarization angle from the captured image to organize polarization-angle-specific images that are images for the respective polarization angles (e.g., [0061-68]), and a signal processing unit (e.g., fig. 1, element 30) that performs signal processing on the polarization-angle-specific images obtained by the image organizing unit (e.g., [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo teaches a program that is readable by a computer device, and causes the computer device to execute a function of (e.g., [0178-179]): receiving an input of a captured image obtained by a polarization sensor in which polarization pixel units formed by two-dimensionally arranging a plurality of types of pixels selectively receiving light of different polarization angles in a predetermined pattern are two-dimensionally arranged (e.g., [0058-60]), extracting a light reception value of pixels receiving light of the same polarization angle from the captured image to organize polarization-angle-specific images that are images for the respective polarization angles (e.g., [0061-68]), and performing signal processing on the polarisation-angle-specific images (e.g., [0069]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. 2020/0213238 to Hirasawa et al. (hereinafter “Hirasawa”, employing U.S. Patent No. 11,997,398 as an English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Kondo teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the signal processing unit performs a pixel position correction process that is a process of correcting pixel positions of the respective polarization angles that are different positions in the captured image, to the same pixel position.
Nevertheless, Hirasawa teaches performing a pixel position correction process that is a process of correcting pixel positions of the respective polarization angles that are different positions in the captured image, to the same pixel position (e.g., col. 2, lines 60-63; col. 7, line 30 – col. 8, line 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Hirasawa into the signal processing unit as taught by Kondo in order to create images that are representative of the full array, i.e., demosaiced images.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo and Hirasawa in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0267286 to Solomon.
Regarding claim 5, Kono and Hirasawa teach all the limitations of claim 4, including teaching wherein the signal processing unit performs, as signal processing on the polarization-angle-specific images, the pixel position correction process (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, supra). However, neither Kondo nor Hirasawa have been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the signal processing unit performs a lens distortion correction process as a common filtering process.
Nevertheless, correcting lens distortion is a well-known and accepted practice in the imaging arts. For example, Solomon teaches a signal processing unit that provides a lens distortion correction process as a common filtering process (e.g., [0245], []). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Solomon into the signal processing unit as taught by Kondo and Hirasawa in provide for the correction of lens aberrations, such barrel distortion and pin cushion distortion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0279807 to Kanamori et al. teaches a similar polarization sensor.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0270421 to Kanamori et al. teaches a similar polarization sensor.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0356572 to Kadambi et al. teaches a similar polarization sensor.
U.S. Patent No. 11,399,144 to Mitani et al. teaches a similar polarization sensor and separation of polarized images.
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