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.
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 1-20 and 22 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 1 recites the limitation "the response" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5and 6 recites the limitation "the response" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the response" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the response" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 and 22 recites the limitation "the convolution product" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, claims recite “function” and “function (d0, Z0, a, b)” various times this makes the claims indefinite as it is unclear if both are same or different.
All dependent claims are rejected as well as they depend on rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 21, 23 and 24 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Image and Depth from a Conventional Camera with a Coded Aperture, by Levin.
With respect to claim 1, Levin discloses A method for correcting the sharpness of at least one input image le into a rendered image IR, the at least one input image le originating from at least one optical sensor and being obtained through at least one optical imaging system, each sensor being associated with an optical imaging system (see section 5.1, camera 20D DSLR), said method comprising:
- receiving the at least one input image le comprising different points or areas imaging different imaged parts located at different distances from the sensor that acquired the point or area in question (see figure 1, images);
- acquisition or determination, by technical processing means, of information relating, for each point or area coordinate (a, b) of the at least one input image le, to:
o a distance ZO between, on the one hand, the imaged part corresponding to this point or area of the at least one input image le and, on the other hand, the imaging system or sensor that acquired this point or area of the at least one input image le, (see figure 8 depth estimation of a scene, section 4, page 70-6, wherein …However, interesting real world scenes include depth variations and so a separate blur scale should be inferred for every image pixel…; also …local energy estimate is then used to locally select the depth d(i) in the ith pixel…) ;
[
- a selection or construction, by the technical processing means, of a function F(d0, ZO, a, b) describing the response of the at least one imaging system, preferably optical transfer (OTF) or point spread (PSF) of the at least one imaging system, and which depends, for each point or area coordinate (a, b) of the at least one input image le;
o on the distance ZO between, on the one hand, the imaged part corresponding to this point or area of the at least one input image le and, on the other hand, the imaging system or sensor that acquired this point or area of the at least one input image le, (see section 3, Deblurring, equation 9-12, section 2.1, and section 4, page 70-6, wherein …However, interesting real world scenes include depth variations and so a separate blur scale should be inferred for every image pixel…; also …local energy estimate is then used to locally select the depth d(i) in the ith pixel…);
[
o and preferably on coordinates (a, b), (see and section 4, page 70-6, wherein …However, interesting real world scenes include depth variations and so a separate blur scale should be inferred for every image pixel…; also …local energy estimate is then used to locally select the depth d(i) in the ith pixel…);
- an application, by the technical processing means, of the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) or of an inverse invF(d0, ZO, a, b) of the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) to each point or area coordinate (a, b) of the at least one input image le, to obtain the rendered image IR, (see section 3, page 70-5, wherein to attain shaper image x the equation (12) is solved), as claimed.
However, Levin fails to explicitly disclose [
But, Levin in section 1, page 70-2, teaches the blur filter fk and figure 3, and the blurring function depends on the selected synthetic openings and the adjustment of the imaging system as seen from the equation (1), this obviate the distance between the sensor and the imaging system, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to use teaching of the distance from the sensor to the imaging system in equation (1), into the Levin system to yield a sharper image, as predicted in claim.
With respect to claim 3, Levin further discloses the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) depends on a numerical aperture of the at least one imaging system for acquiring the at least one input image le, (see page 70-2 equation (1)), as claimed.
With respect to claim 4, Levin further discloses each optical sensor is provided with photosites of different colors, (see section 5.1, canon 20D DSLR camera), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, Levin further discloses the function describing the response of the at least one imaging system depends:- on a distance (Zoo) between a part of the at least one imaging system and the at least one sensor, and/or - on a state of the at least one imaging system, such as a zoom or focus or numerical aperture setting of the at least one imaging system, and/or - on the pixel of the image being displayed and/or the photosite of the at least one sensor, and/or - on one or more angles between the at least one sensor and the at least one imaging system, (see section 5.1, canon 20D DSLR camera), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Levin further discloses passing light through the at least one imaging system to the at least one sensor so as to generate the at least one input image, (see figure 2 and 3), as claimed.
Claims 21, 23 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 1, 3 and 4, because claims 21, 23 and 24 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 3 and 4.
Claims 5, 8, 9-10, 22 and 25 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Image and Depth from a Conventional Camera with a Coded Aperture, by Levin in view of Precise Point Spread Function Estimation, by He et al (an IDS document).
With respect to claim 5, all limitations are addressed above in claim 1. However, Levin fails to explicitly disclose the function describing the response of the at least one imaging system is an optical transfer function (OTF) of the at least one imaging system or a point spread function (PSF) of the at least one imaging system, as claimed.
He teaches the function describing the response of the at least one imaging system is an optical transfer function (OTF) of the at least one imaging system or a point spread function (PSF) of the at least one imaging system, (see figure 1 (h) Precise PSF), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of image correction. The teaching of He can be incorporated into Levin system as suggested in Abstract, for suggestion, and modifying the system will yield the predictable results for sharping the images, for motivation.
With respect to claim 8, combination of Levin and He further discloses displaying the rendered image on a screen, (see He figure 4, PC), as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, combination of Levin and He further discloses the rendered image has a resolution greater than or equal to that of the combination of all the photosites of all the colors of the at least one sensor, (see He page 4, equation (7), focused image can be modeled as the convolution of the all-in-focus image with the kernel), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of Levin and He further discloses the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) comprises an iterative convolution of the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) with each point or area of the at least one input image le so as to obtain at each iteration an image being rendered IRk and then the rendered image IR at the end of the iterations, (see He section 3.3, wherein …the point in the focused image can be modeled as the convolution of the all-in-focus image with the kernel…, and equation (7)), as claimed.
With respect to claim 2, combination of Levin and He further discloses the inverse invF(d0, ZO, a, b) of the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) is defined so that the convolution product of the inverse invF(d0, ZO, a, b) of the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) and the function F(d0, ZO, a, b) is a two-dimensional Dirac function or substantially a two-dimensional Dirac function, (see He section 3.3 the convolution of the all -in-focus image, i.e. the convolution obviate the invF), as claimed.
Claims 22, 25 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claims 2 and 10, because claims 22 and 25 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 2 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 and 26-27 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights