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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and species IB in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 3-6 and 9 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The terms “an image picker”, and “a light weakener”, which are “that irradiates a subject with light and measures a distance to the subject using reflected light of the light” and “that is disposed to face the image picker with the subject interposed between the light weakener and the image picker and weakens light that has passed through the subject”, respectively in claim1, are indefinite because 1) the terms are not well defined in the art and 2) the specification does not clearly redefine the terms.
Further as to the light weakener, it is not clear whether it includes weakener which weakens the beam illuminated to the subject or only weakens the reflected or transmitted beam from the subject.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, the examiner interpreted the image picker as a light source and a sensor and the light weakener as any types of an object in the beam path (since there is no material 100% transparent 100% reflective to the entire wavelengths).
The claim 9 includes the same problems.
As to the claim 3, the claim recites “a light interferer”.
Since the meaning of interfere is broad and a light interferer is not known in the art structure or term, it is not clear whether the applicant tried to mean a light interferometer (object which creates light interference pattern) or some object which interferes with any certain ranges of wavelength or some other meaning.
Theoretically, any material in the beam path interferes with the beam.
For the examination purposes, the examiner interpreted any object in the beam path.
As to the claim 5, the claim recites “the light interferer emits light with a wavelength different from a wavelength of the light emitted by the light source”.
Standard meaning of emitting light is ‘produce and send out from a source’, i.e., the beam started from the indicated emitting object.
However, it is not clear applicant really tried to mean the light interferer as a second source of light emitter or tried to indicate the illuminated light’s wavelength (which is not created by the interferer) being just modified by the light interferer.
As to the claim 6, the claim recites “the image pick-up device further includes an adjuster that adjusts the wavelength of the light emitted by the light source based on a color of another subject in a case where the subject and the another subject that does not have a transparent or translucent portion are included in an image pick- up target.”
However, it is not clear with following reasons.
First, the claiming is requiring an adjuster for the case of another subject which does not have transparent or translucent portion and it is not clear whether the adjuster still required for the case of non-existing another object case.
Second, it is not clear how the adjuster performs the claimed functional limitations and what’s the required structure for the adjuster since adjuster is not known in the art term.
Clarifications are required.
Claims 3-6 also have been rejected also based upon their dependencies on the claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Shim et al. (US 20130301907 A1 hereinafter Shim)
As to claim 1, Shim teaches an image pick-up device (FIG. 1) comprising:
an image picker (110 in FIG. 1) that irradiates a subject (120) with light ([0045] structured light) and measures a distance to the subject using reflected light of the light ([0045] TOF), the subject being at least partially transparent or translucent (120); and
a light weakener (130 in FIG. 1) that is disposed to face the image picker (130 is faced to the camera 110) with the subject (120) interposed between the light weakener (130) and the image picker (110) and weakens light that has passed through the subject (130, inherently every material in the beam path weakens the light, see 112 rejection).
As to claim 9, the claim calls for the method that corresponds to the system of claim 1. Since the device of Shim as discussed above meets the system of claim 1, the method practiced as recited for claim 9 is also met.
As to claim 3, Shim teaches the image pick-up device according to claim 1.
Shim further teaches the light weakener (130) is a light interferer that emits light that interferes with the light that has passed through the subject ([0050] “the background 130 may be mixed in a depth image captured using the depth camera”, to be captured in the camera, the weakener 130 should have interfered with the emitted light).
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 of this title, 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 Shim in view of Fenrich et al. (US 20110013174 A1 hereinafter Fenrich).
As to claim 4, Shim teaches the image pick-up device according to claim 3.
Shim further teaches the light interferer weakens the light emitted by the image picker by emitting reflected light (specular or diffusive) that interferes with the light that has passed through the subject
However, Shim does not explicitly disclose diffused light.
Fenrich teaches diffused light that interferes with the light that has passed through the subject ([0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Shim by having diffusive reflector for the benefit including obtaining sharp defined outlines while suppressing glare.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Zou et al. (CN 107860773 A hereinafter Zou) and in further view of Shuichi (JP 2009164950 A, translated abstract filed in IDS, full translation attached to the instnat office action).
As to claim 5, Shim teaches the image pick-up device according to 3.
However, Shim does not explicitly disclose the image pick-up device further includes a light source that irradiates the subject with light and adjusts brightness of an image pick-up environment; and wherein the light interferer emits light with a wavelength different from a wavelength of the light emitted by the light source.
Zou teaches the image pick-up device further includes a light source that irradiates the subject with light and adjusts brightness of an image pick-up environment (“the target object comprises a PCB plate to be detected and the grating glass plate; the linear array camera and lens used for collecting target object image, a light source for irradiating a target, said controller is connected with said light source, irradiation control the brightness of the light source, the controller is further used for processing the collected target object image”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Shim by having light source brightness controllable device for the benefit of optimizing clarity of object image and glare.
Shuichi teaches the light interferer emits light with a wavelength different from a wavelength of the light emitted by the light source (“The imaging device 110 captures a front image of the subject 20 with light in the first wavelength region and a silhouette image of the subject 20 with light in the second wavelength region simultaneously from the front side of the subject 20. For example, the imaging apparatus 110 simultaneously displays a front image of the subject 20 with visible light that is light in the first wavelength region and a silhouette image of the subject 20 with infrared light that is light in the second wavelength region. Take an image from the front.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Shim by having light interferer emits light with a wavelength different from a wavelength of the light emitted by the light source for the benefit of optimizing clarity of object image by contrasting background with optimal wavelength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 6, no other prior art teaches use of the image pick-up device further includes an adjuster that adjusts the wavelength of the light emitted by the light source based on a color of another subject in a case where the subject and the another subject that does not have a transparent or translucent portion are included in an image pick- up target along with other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
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.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights