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 4 and 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.
Claims 4 and 6 include the limitations “the information is mathematically expressed using the coding information and image data of the images”. It is not readily apparent what mathematical expression is output from the image sensor. For purposes of art rejection, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosaka (US 2007/0153335).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka discloses an imaging system comprising: a coding element (fig. 6; ¶75); an image sensor (101) that, in operation, detects light from the coding element (¶78); and one or more processor that, in operation, generates images by executing image reconstruction process based on a color image output from the image sensor, the color image including information corresponding to red wavelength band, green wavelength band, and blue wavelength band, wherein the images correspond one-to-one to four or more wavelength bands (RGBA) (fig. 8; ¶81-84).
Regarding claim 2, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches further comprising: a red filter that transmits light in the red wavelength band; a green filter that transmits light in the green wavelength band; and a blue filter that transmits light in the blue wavelength band (fig. 8; ¶81).
Regarding claim 3, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches wherein the one or more processors generates the images based on coding information, the coding element has transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands, and the coding information corresponds to the transmission spectra (fig. 8; ¶75, 81-84).
Regarding claim 4, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches wherein the one or more processors generates the images based on coding information, the coding element has transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands, the image sensor outputs information when the image sensor detects the light, and the information is
Regarding claim 5, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches wherein the one or more processors generates the images based on coding information, the coding element includes filters, the filters correspond one-to-one to transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands, transmission spectra are different from each other, and the coding information corresponds to the transmission spectra (fig. 6, 8; ¶75, 81-84).
Regarding claim 6, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches wherein the one or more processors generates the images based on coding information, the coding element includes filters, the filters correspond one-to-one to transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands, transmission spectra are different from each other, the image sensor outputs information when the image sensor detects the light, and the information is
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Hosaka.
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(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka in view of Lee (US 2015/0285677).
Regarding claim 7, Hosaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hosaka also teaches wherein the coding element has transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands (fig. 6, 8; ¶75, 81-84). Hosaka fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coding element has transmission spectra in a wavelength range including the four or more wavelength bands, and each of the transmission spectra includes peaks.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches spectrometry apparatus with multiple optical filters with mutually different transmittance, for example, the filter having the random transmittance function represents a graph that sharply varies with numerous peak values throughout the whole wavelength band instead of the specific point in the range of 400 nm to 800 nm, and the filter having the random transmittance function may have at least three random peak values…the non-ideal filter has a single peak value or two peak . The device includes RGB filters (fig. 5; ¶31). In light of the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Lee’s teaching in Hosaka’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improving the resolution of a spectroscopic apparatus using a digital signal processing device, and suggests a spectroscopic apparatus and a spectroscopic method, capable of improving the accuracy of a spectrum.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights