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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3-6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites that “the controller causes the optical axis changing assembly to change the optical axis of the imaging device from the state of the first optical axis to the state of the second optical axis” or vice versa “between two consecutive imaging and imaging in the first optical axis change.” It is unclear what “between two consecutive imaging and imaging in the first optical axis change” means. To the best of Examiner’s ability, it appears that Applicant is attempting to recite that the controller causes the switch between the first and second optical axes between two consecutive imaging operations, however it is unclear what is meant by “between two consecutive imaging [operations] and imaging in the first optical axis change.” Clarification and correction is required.
Claims 4-6 are dependent on claim 3, and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0160429 A1; hereafter Kang).
Regarding claims 1, Kang discloses an imaging system comprising: an imaging device disposed in a mobile object (see Kang Fig. 2, item 200), the imaging device performing imaging in a first imaging state and a second imaging state of different optical axes (see Kang Fig. 7B, items 720); an attitude detector that detects an attitude change amount of the mobile object (see Kang paragraph [0034] “the sensor module 176 may include, for example… an acceleration sensor”); an optical axis changing assembly that changes, while the mobile object is moving in a first direction, an optical axis of the imaging device from a state of a first optical axis at a time when the imaging device performs imaging in the first imaging state to a state of a second optical axis inclined in a second direction intersecting the first direction at a time of imaging in the second imaging state (see Kang Fig. 7B, item 760. When the speed increases, the device can change the optical axis against the motion, which intersects the first optical axis, in order to generate smooth image motion.); and a controller that sets an optical axis change amount by which the optical axis changing assembly changes the optical axis of the imaging device, based on the attitude change amount (see Kang Fig. 1, item 120 and paragraph [104] “When the moving speed of the electronic device exceeds the given value as in a scene 750, the processor may move the optical axis 720 in a direction 760 by operating the tilt OIS to rotate the camera about a rotation axis parallel to the Y axis (step S730).”), wherein the optical axis changing assembly changes the optical axis of the imaging device based on the set optical axis change amount (see Kang Fig. 7B, step S730, which is changing the optical axis to maintain the panning rate at a set change amount.).
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the controller instructs the optical axis changing assembly to make a change to two types of optical axes, a first optical axis change for expanding an imaging range of a captured image and a second optical axis change for reducing an influence of the attitude change of the mobile object (see Kang Figs. 7A and 7B, step S730. The change of the optical axis in the panning direction can be construed as “expanding an imaging range of a captured image.” There is no requirement that the rotation of the device is what causes the imaging range to expand; the translation of the device, which also constitutes a change of the device axis, is a change of the axis which causes an expansion of the image capture range. The change shown in Fig. 7A of correcting a deviation from the panning direction can be construed as “reducing an influence of the attitude change of the mobile object”).
Regarding claim 3, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the controller causes the optical axis changing assembly to change the optical axis of the imaging device from the state of the first optical axis to the state of the second optical axis or from the state of the second optical axis to the state of the first optical axis between two consecutive imaging operations (see Kang Fig. 7B, item 760 which shows correcting the panning axes based on the motion between two sequential images).
Regarding claim 4, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 3, wherein the controller causes the optical axis changing assembly to change the optical axis of the imaging device between the state of the first optical axis and the state of the second optical axis in the first optical axis change by a first optical axis change angle for expanding the imaging range of a captured image as the optical axis change amount (see Kang Fig. 7B, item 760, the amount corrected for the speed can be construed as the first change angle for controlling the expanded imaging range).
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses a mobile object comprising the imaging system according to claim 1 (claim 1 already discloses that the device is disposed in a mobile object).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang.
Regarding claim 6, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 4, wherein the attitude detector detects an attitude change amount of the mobile object in a roll direction, and wherein the controller changes, as the optical axis change amount, a sum of a second optical axis change angle and the first optical axis change angle in the second optical axis change, the second optical axis change angle being opposite in sign to and equal in magnitude to the attitude change amount detected by the attitude detector (see Kang Fig. 2, item 240 and paragraph [0048] which discloses that the “image stabilizer 240 may move the image sensor 230… This allows compensating for at least part of a negative effect (e.g., image blurring) by the movement on an image being captured.” Examiner contends that this disclosure of optical image stabilization is sufficient to anticipate the claim, since the purpose of image stabilization is to counteract the unwanted motion by being equal-yet-opposite in sign and magnitude. However, in the event that it is not anticipatory, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control the image sensor to move opposite to the unwanted motion in order to counteract the effect of the unwanted motion.).
Claim(s) 7-10, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Kanda et al. (Pub. No. JP 2003-111073; hereafter Kanda).
Regarding claims 7 and 15-17, and 19, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claims 1-4 and 6, respectively, further comprising: and a blur correction assembly that corrects a blur in a captured image along the first direction at the time when the imaging device performs imaging while the mobile object is moving, wherein the controller sets a blur correction angle for a blur correction with the blur correction assembly based on the moving speed, and changes the blur correction angle based on the optical axis change amount (see Kang Fig. 2, items 240 and paragraphs [0048] and [0104] which disclose that the camera uses its sensors to compensate for blur, which comprises setting a blur correction angle for the image sensor based on the detected motion, and to ensure that the motion in the panning direction is not exceeded. While Kang does not explicitly state that the motion blur correction is in the first direction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to correct the motion in any direction in order to reduce the blur, including the first direction.).
Kang does not explicitly state that the imaging system comprises a speed detector that detects a moving speed of the mobile object; [claim 8] wherein the controller calculates a subject distance from the imaging device to an imaging target region based on an optical axis change angle changed by the optical axis changing assembly, the subject distance being changed before and after an optical axis change, and sets the blur correction angle for correcting the blur along the first direction, based on the subject distance; [claim 9] further comprising a subject distance measurement device that measures the subject distance from the imaging device to the imaging target region; [claim 10] wherein the controller causes the subject distance measurement device to detect the subject distance in the state of the first optical axis before the optical axis change, and calculates the subject distance based on the subject distance detected in the state of the first optical axis after the optical axis changing assembly changes the optical axis to the state of the second optical axis and the optical axis change amount.
Kanda discloses a speed sensor for aiding the camera in compensating the amount of motion based on the detected speed (see Kanda Fig. 2, item 7 and paragraph [0047] in the provided translation); [claim 8] wherein the controller calculates a subject distance from the imaging device to an imaging target region based on an optical axis change angle changed by the optical axis changing assembly (see Kanda paragraph [0032] which discloses the calculation for the distance based on the camera position), the subject distance being changed before and after an optical axis change (This is entirely subject to what is being filmed, and has no structural implication of the device, however, Kanda discloses a subject (pipe) whose distance is constantly changing.); [claim 9] further comprising a subject distance measurement device that measures the subject distance from the imaging device to the imaging target region (see Kanda Fig. 2, item 5); [claim 10] wherein the controller causes the subject distance measurement device to detect the subject distance in the state of the first optical axis before the optical axis change (see Kanda paragraph [0027] “the distance between the video recording device 3 and the surface to be measured at the time of shooting can be detected by the object distance detector 5”).
Kanda does not explicitly disclose that the device sets the blur correction angle for correcting the blur along the first direction, based on the subject distance; and calculates the subject distance based on the subject distance detected in the state of the first optical axis after the optical axis changing assembly changes the optical axis to the state of the second optical axis and the optical axis change amount. However Kanda does disclose that “the shooting range expands linearly in proportion to the distance in the z-direction… so the standard angle of view width should be corrected according to the distance value” (see Kanda paragraph [0033]). Therefore Kanda discloses that compensating for distance to the subject is known.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a camera like that in Kang into an inspection device like that in Kanda in order to simplify the device of Kanda by reducing the amount of movement required for the camera. This also has the benefit of speeding up the scanning time of the camera. Furthermore, in combination, the travel distance in the Y-axis direction of Kanda would be converted into angular movement of the Kang camera, so though Kanda does not disclose compensating for motion based on the speed in terms of correction angle, it would have been well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art at the time the invention was filed to convert the linear-motion corrections of Kanda into angular-motion corrections for Kang as well-known mathematical transformations.
With respect to the limitation in claim 10 wherein the distance in the second optical axis position is calculated based on the subject distance detected in the state of the first optical axis and the optical axis change amount, as discussed above, calculations for compensating the distance based on the angle to the subject is explicitly shown in Kanda paragraphs [0031]-[0032], and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have readily been able to apply the same well-known mathematics to calculate the distance when the camera angle changes as when the wall angle changes.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higo (Pub. No. US 2006/0083502 A1; hereafter Higo).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 14, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 4, 2, and 3, respectively, but does not specifically disclose that the controller does not issue an instruction of the second optical axis change while the optical axis changing assembly is making the first optical axis change, and issues the instruction of the second optical axis change until the optical axis changing assembly makes a next first optical axis change after completing the first optical axis change.
Higo discloses suspending the image shake correction when the movement of the camera is greater than a threshold value (see Higo Fig. 2 and abstract “a pan/tilt detecting device which detects panning or tilting of said optical system; an image shake correction stopping device which stops image shake correction by said image shake correcting device when said panning or tilting has been detected”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to suspend the shake correction during rapid movement of the camera, as taught by Higo, in order to save energy by not attempting to correct shake when the motion is too great and correction is not desired.
Regarding claim 11, Kang discloses the imaging system according to claim 4, but does not specifically disclose that the controller does not issue an instruction of the second optical axis change while the optical axis changing assembly is making the first optical axis change, and issues the instruction of the second optical axis change while the imaging device is performing exposure.
Higo discloses suspending the image shake correction when the movement of the camera is greater than a threshold value (see Higo Fig. 2 and abstract) and resuming shake correction when capturing an image (see Higo Fig. 2, and abstract “an image shake correction restarting device which causes said image shake correcting device to resume image shake correction when the end of said panning or tilting has been detected”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to suspend the shake correction during rapid movement of the camera, as taught by Higo, in order to save energy by not attempting to correct shake when the motion is too great and correction is not desired, and to resume shake correction, and to resume shake correction when an image is being capture to reduce blur caused by shake in the captured image.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Higo as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of Kanda.
Regarding claim 18, Kang in view of Higo discloses the imaging system according to claim 5, further comprising: a blur correction assembly that corrects a blur in a captured image along the first direction at the time when the imaging device performs imaging while the mobile object is moving, wherein the controller sets a blur correction angle for a blur correction with the blur correction assembly based on the moving speed, and changes the blur correction angle based on the optical axis change amount (see Kang Fig. 2, items 240 and paragraphs [0048] and [0104] which disclose that the camera uses its sensors to compensate for blur, which comprises setting a blur correction angle for the image sensor based on the detected motion, and to ensure that the motion in the panning direction is not exceeded. While Kang does not explicitly state that the motion blur correction is in the first direction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to correct the motion in any direction in order to reduce the blur, including the first direction.).
Kang does not explicitly state that the imaging system comprises a speed detector that detects a moving speed of the mobile object.
Kanda discloses a speed sensor for aiding the camera in compensating the amount of motion based on the detected speed (see Kanda Fig. 2, item 7 and paragraph [0047] in the provided translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a camera like that in Kang into an inspection device like that in Kanda in order to simplify the device of Kanda by reducing the amount of movement required for the camera. This also has the benefit of speeding up the scanning time of the camera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights