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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11 and 12, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 11 being exemplary:
looking up first data stored in a memory, in which information for each pixel position on an image sensor is stored in a first array in an order from an optical axis of an imaging optical system toward a periphery or from the periphery toward the optical axis, and second data stored in the memory, in which the first data is stored in a second array regarding an optical condition (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d));
calculate third data using a plurality of consecutive adjacent data of a part of the first data in the second data; (mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I), as the originally filed specification sets forth that training involves mathematical computation such as convolution, loss functions and weight application); and
storing in the memory the third data in a third array different from the first array (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 further recite additional elements: claim 1 is directed processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing first data, in which information for each pixel position on an image sensor is stored in a first array in an order from an optical axis of an imaging optical system toward a periphery or from the periphery toward the optical axis, and second data, in which the first data is stored in a second array regarding an optical condition; and a processor, claim 10 is directed to an image pickup apparatus comprising: an image sensor, a processor and memory and claim 12 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. While the a non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claims 10 and 20, and the processor of claim 10 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 10 and 20 as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 2, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the memory stores a pixel position table that associates a position in the first array and a position in the third array with each other (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and
wherein the processor is configured to look up the pixel position table (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)), and
store in the memory the third data in the third array obtained by calculation in an order of the first array (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding claim 3, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the imaging optical system has a plurality of optical axes (this limitation does not further limit the processing apparatus, which does not include the optical system, but is instead used to define a starting point for how data is arranged in conventional data arrays), and
wherein the first array is an array in an order from each of the plurality of optical axes toward the periphery or an order from the periphery toward each of the plurality of optical axes (well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding claim 4, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the first array is an array in a spiral order based on the optical axis (this merely discloses how data is stored in the array and does not provide significantly more or a practical application for the calculation of claim 1 and therefore can be considered part of the well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) of storing data).
Regarding claim 5, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the second array is an array in an order of a value regarding the optical condition (this merely discloses how data is stored in the array and does not provide significantly more or a practical application for the calculation of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the value regarding the optical condition includes at least one of a F-number and a PO value (this merely discloses how data is stored in the array and does not provide significantly more or a practical application for the calculation of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the third array is an order in a horizontal or vertical direction of pixels (this merely discloses how data is stored in the array and does not provide significantly more or a practical application for the calculation of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
wherein the third data is coefficient data that is used to calculate a defocus amount (this merely discloses what is calculated but does not provide significantly more or a practical application for the calculation of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the following limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, and not directed towards a practical application or significantly more as follows:
calculate an image shift amount using a first focus detecting signal generated from a light receiving signal of a first focus detecting pixel configured to receive a light beam passing through a first pupil partial area in the imaging optical system, and a second focus detecting signal generated from a light receiving signal of a second focus detecting pixel configured to receive a light beam passing through a second pupil partial area in the imaging optical system that is different from the first pupil partial area (mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
calculate a defocus amount using the image shift amount and the third data (mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0002838), hereinafter referenced as Fukuda.
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing first data, in which information for each pixel position on an image sensor is stored in a first array in an order from an optical axis of an imaging optical system toward a periphery or from the periphery toward the optical axis, and second data, in which the first data is stored in a second array regarding an optical condition (figure 17 shows that coefficient data kX is stored based on pixel position (X,Y) and in an array corresponding to the F-number of exit pupil distance P0 as disclosed at paragraphs 125 and 127); and a processor configured to: calculate third data using a plurality of consecutive adjacent data of a part of the first data in the second data (paragraph 125 teaches calculating a conversion coefficient K(X,Y) for each image height using a plurality of consecutive adjacent k values k0, k1 and k2), and store in the memory the third data in a third array different from the first array (paragraph 126 teaches that the values K(X,Y) are stored in a table).
Regarding claim 5, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fukuda discloses wherein the second array is an array in an order of a value regarding the optical condition (figure 17 shows that the second array is in an order of F-number and PO value).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 5, in addition, Fukuda discloses wherein the value regarding the optical condition includes at least one of a F-number and a PO value (figure 17 shows that the second array is in an order of F-number and PO value).
Regarding claim 8, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fukuda discloses wherein the third data is coefficient data that is used to calculate a defocus amount (paragraph 125 teaches that the data is defocus conversion coefficient data).
Regarding claim 9, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fukuda discloses wherein the processor is configured to: calculate an image shift amount using a first focus detecting signal generated from a light receiving signal of a first focus detecting pixel configured to receive a light beam passing through a first pupil partial area in the imaging optical system, and a second focus detecting signal generated from a light receiving signal of a second focus detecting pixel configured to receive a light beam passing through a second pupil partial area in the imaging optical system that is different from the first pupil partial area (figure 8 exhibits steps S110 and S120 in which the shift amount is calculated as disclosed at paragraphs 91 and 92), and calculate a defocus amount using the image shift amount and the third data (figure 8 exhibits step S160 in which a defocus amount is calculated using the shift amount and the conversion coefficient as disclosed at paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuda discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising: an image sensor (figure 1 exhibits image sensor 107 as disclosed at paragraph 34); and a processing apparatus, wherein the processing apparatus includes: a memory storing first data, in which information for each pixel position on an image sensor is stored in a first array in an order from an optical axis of an imaging optical system toward a periphery or from the periphery toward the optical axis, and second data, in which the first data is stored in a second array regarding an optical condition (figure 17 shows that coefficient data kX is stored based on pixel position (X,Y) and in an array corresponding to the F-number of exit pupil distance P0 as disclosed at paragraphs 125 and 127); and a processor configured to: calculate third data using a plurality of consecutive adjacent data of a part of the first data in the second data (paragraph 125 teaches calculating a conversion coefficient K(X,Y) for each image height using a plurality of consecutive adjacent k values k0, k1 and k2), and store in the memory the third data in a third array different from the first array (paragraph 126 teaches that the values K(X,Y) are stored in a table).
Claim 11, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 12, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1 (paragraph 37 teaches storing operating programs on a ROM).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of Maekawa (United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0002523).
Regarding claim 2, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus of claim 1, however, Fukuda fails to disclose wherein the memory stores a pixel position table that associates a position in the first array and a position in the third array with each other, and wherein the processor is configured to look up the pixel position table, and store in the memory the third data in the third array obtained by calculation in an order of the first array.
Maekawa is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Maekawa teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of quickly converting data from one position to another would have prompted a predictable variation of Fukuda by applying Maekawa’s known principal of stores a pixel position table that associates a position in the first array and a position in the third array with each other, and wherein the processor is configured to look up the pixel position table, and store in the memory the third data in the third array obtained by calculation in an order of the first array (figure 4A shows a table which a position in a first array and a position in another array with each other, and wherein the processor is configured to look up the pixel position table, and store in the memory the third data in the third array in an order of the first array as disclosed at paragraphs 44 and 45).
In view of the motivations such as quickly converting data from one position to another one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Fukuda.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of Yoshino (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0227992).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus of claim 1, however, Fukuda fails to disclose wherein the first array is an array in a spiral order based on the optical axis.
Yoshino is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshino teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of processing image data in a continuous manner would have prompted a predictable variation of Fukuda by applying Yoshino’s known principal of initially arranging data related to pixels in a spiral order based on the optical axis (paragraph 77 teaches that pixel data is initially arranged as a spiral shaped track).
In view of the motivations such as processing image data in a continuous manner one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Fukuda.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Fukuda discloses the processing apparatus of claim 1, however, Fukuda fails to disclose wherein the third array is an order in a horizontal or vertical direction of pixels.
Yoshino is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshino teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of arranging data in a manner suitable for display would have prompted a predictable variation of Fukuda by applying Yoshino’s known principal of arranging data in an array in an order in a horizontal or vertical direction of pixels (paragraph 77 teaches that pixel data is rearranged in a raster order, a raster order arranges pixels in either column or row order).
In view of the motivations such as arranging data in a manner suitable for display one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Fukuda.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights