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 .
Status of claims: claims 1-6 are pending below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remark – (page 7-9) Applicant argued the lack of teaching by cited prior art OKAWA on the newly claim amendment to clarify the processing after an image recording for the geometric aberration. Please see the Remarks for more detail.
Examiner’s response – Examiner respectfully disagree. The new claim amendment concept is now taught by Plemons et al in figure 4A-C and detail in paragraph 0081 in steps 1-6, specifically in step 6 (6) where captured image by imaging sensor is further correction processed for its warped. The combine teaching of OKAWA (US 2018/0373013) in view of Plemons et al (US 2010/0295945) teaches the claim elements and concept. Please see the Office Action below for more details.
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 deformation model” in claim 1, “a deformation model” in claim 4, “an evaluation model configured to” in claim 4, “a correction unit configure to” in claim 4.
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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAWA (US 2018/0373013) in view of Plemons et al (US 2010/0295945).
Claim 1, similar claim 4:
OKAWA (US 2018/0373013) teaches the following subject matter:
A method for correcting a geometric imaging aberration of a camera having an image sensor which is formed by a sensor housing, a sensor layer arranged in a sensor recess of the sensor housing and having a plurality of picture points, and a transparent cover hermetically sealing the sensor housing from the outside, wherein an object point of an object recorded with the camera is mapped onto a picture point of the sensor layer (0004-0005 detail distorting (geometric aberration) of imaging of sealed structure with pressure difference inside the cell observation device resulting in deformation of the top plate; figure 1, figures 4A-B), comprising the steps of:
a deformation of the transparent cover and/or the sensor layer caused by a pressure difference between an internal pressure in the sensor recess and an ambient pressure of the camera (0005 detail deformation caused by inside and outside pressure different and temperature difference of the sealed image sensor)
determining a pressure difference currently prevailing at the time of an image recording with the camera is determined on the basis of the internal pressure and ambient pressure of the camera known at the time of the image recording (0005 detail displacement of observation surface such as bending and indenting the top plate; figure 1 and 0027-0028 detail camera section 10 with image formed by lens, where 0046 detail correct the focus map due to temperature and pressure difference),
and determining a deformation of the transparent cover and/or the sensor layer at the time of the image recording is determined with the determined pressure difference using the deformation model (0064-0068 detail focus adjustment with focus position, reference position, optical axis direction due to environment temperature and pressure difference as detail above in 0027-0028);
determining in that from the determined deformation and the known geometric dimensions of the image sensor, a shift of the mapping of the object point onto a resulting actual picture point in the image recording caused by the deformation is determined as a geometric imaging aberration (figure 4A-B and 0070-0074 detail distortion of the transparent top board 40 with difference between points of optical axis with focus deviation, with correction/adjustment using XY position).
OKAWA teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following: modeling by a deformation model.
Plemons et al (US 2010/0295945) teaches the following subject matter:
modeling by a deformation model (0011-0017 detail generating a image model due to warping (deformation model), where correction of the deformation/warping in 0081 and 0083. Figure 12 and 0101 detail application to sealed housing with camera);
and after the image recording has been recorded with the camera, correcting the determined geometric imaging aberration as determined in the image recording, in the recorded image recording to determine a corrected image recording, by shifting the mapping of the object point onto the actual picture point in the image recording to another picture point in the corrected image recording determined geometric imaging aberration (figure 4A-C and 0081 step 1-6 detail in step (6) with captured (after image recording) by the image sensor (camera) where processing of warped according to warp template (correcting geometric image aberration) to subsequent image (another picture point) by warp template/image grid/warp map (picture points)).
OKAWA and Plemons et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially correction warp/deformed image in sealed/enclosed imager/image grabbers such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify OKAWA by Plemons et al regarding generating deformation/warp model help with automatically warped or positioned to be substantially aligned with images from the other corresponding image sensors as disclosed by Plemons et al in 0083, which would result in better images for the user.
Claim 2, similar claim 5:
OKAWA teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the geometric imaging aberration is determined as a shift of the mapping of the object point onto an expected picture point in the case of an undeformed transparent cover and/or undeformed sensor layer to an actual mapping of the object point onto the resulting actual picture point occurring due to the deformation (figure 4A-B; 0028 detail deformation of the transparent plate is estimated and a focus map is corrected (refer, for example, to FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, FIG. 7, FIG. 8, and S31 and S41 in FIG. 15); 00154 detail a focus map that stores a focus map that associates imaging position with focus control information for focusing on the specimen. Imaging position of the imaging section is then changed (refer to S1 to S7 in FIG. 13), data of a focus map that has been stored is corrected based on the imaging position that has been changed, and focus is controlled based on the focus map that has been corrected (S9 and S11 in FIG. 13). As a result, it is possible to correct focus deviation due to deformation of a top plate.).
Claim 3, similar claim 6:
OKAWA teach:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the geometric imaging aberration, an offset that is caused by an optical refraction on the undeformed transparent cover is also taken into account (figure 4A-B. especially figure 4B detail and 0071-0073 detail focus position with range distance difference (such Fc deviation is corrected) of the position points by X:Y adjustment; 0068-0069).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Douady et al (US 2019/0297283) Image Signal Processor For Local Motion Estimation And Video Codec - a camera alignment model may be based on the physical orientation of elements of the image capture device, such as the physical alignment of lenses, image sensors, or both. Changes in the physical orientation of elements of one or more of the image capture devices having overlapping fields-of-view may cause misalignment such that aligning overlapping image regions, such as the aligning overlapping image regions 700 shown in FIG. 7, based on a misaligned camera alignment model may inaccurately or inefficiently align image elements, such as pixels (paragraph 0180).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights