DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
A. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
B. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is also acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Claim Interpretation
The limitations, supporting member, restricting member, rod-shaped member, imaging device, and first and second joining members, of claims 1,4,5, 8,11, and 12 do NOT invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Each of these limitations recites a generic placeholder (member, device) and is followed by an associated function. In the case of the supporting member, restricting member, rod-shaped member, and first and second joining members, these limitations are also not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing their associated functions. However, the examiner nevertheless submits that they do not invoke 112(f) interpretation because their broadest reasonable interpretation is limited to structure. In the case of the imaging device, the examiner submits the prior art evidences that the limitation is associated with structure.
As to the supporting member, claim 1 requires that it axially supports a plate of the plate group, which is necessarily a physical, structural function. Similarly, as to the restricting member, rod-shaped member, and first and second joining members, the functions of restricting a range and joining pieces of the imaging system together necessarily have a structural implication. Finally, as to the imaging device, the prior art routinely uses phrases like imaging device, image sensor, image capturing unit, and imaging element to refer to a structural solid-state imaging device that captures light at a plurality of pixels to produce image data.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, as to claim 3, it reads that “the one side corresponding to the rotation axis is one side close to a center of the plate group.” The examiner submits that the term “close” is relative and is not defined in the specification, thereby rendering it indefinite. However, after reviewing the specification and Fig. 5 of the drawings, the examiner notes that a subset of rotating plates of the plate group rotates about “one side” closest to the center of the plate group. Another subset of rotating plates rotates about “one side” that is not the closest to the center of the plate group. Moreover, all sides of all rotating plates have some proximity/closeness to the center of the plate group. Therefore, it is unclear whether the scope of claim 3 encompasses all plates of the plate group or just the subset rotating about one side closest to the center of the group. Claim 3 will not receive a prior art rejection until its ambiguity is resolved. However, note the discussion of allowable subject matter in section VIII below.
As to claim 8, it requires that “the imaging device includes a plurality of different color filters corresponding to respective different colors” and that “the color filter is arranged slidably in front of the light source.” The examiner submits that “the color filter” (italicized above) is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the plurality of color filters as a whole or one of the plurality of colors. Fig. 18 shows that both the plurality of color filters as a whole and one or each of the plurality of colors is positioned slidably in front of light source. Claims 9-12 are indefinite because they depend on claim 8 and fail to remedy its indefiniteness. Claims 8-12 will also not receive a prior art rejection until their ambiguity is resolved. However, note the discussion of allowable subject matter in section VIII below.
V. Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A. The examiner suggests amending lines 1 and 2 of the claim to “[a]n imaging system that includes a subject device, the subject device comprising….” As currently drafted, the claim presents ambiguity as to whether the imaging system or the subject device comprises the plate group and supporting member. However, it is clear from the specification and drawings that the subject device includes those elements.
B. On line 9, “include” should be “includes”, and “of a” before “rotating plate” should be deleted.
VI. 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagakiuchi et al. (US # 5,418,546).
As to claim 1, Nakagakiuchi et al. teaches an imaging system (apparatus of Fig. 20, which includes photoelectric conversion device “39”) that includes a subject device (Fig. 20, spatial light modulator “36”) comprising
a plate group constituted of a plurality of plates (col. 11, lines 51-54, “…mirrors [i.e., plates] 50 arranged in a two-dimensional matrix array.”) arranged at a position opposing a light source (Fig. 20, light source “420”) for imaging (col. 11, lines 55-62; or col. 15, lines 8-13; {Imaging, as claimed, can read as either image capture or image projection.}); and
a supporting member (Fig. 14, shafts “56”) that supports the plate group (col. 11, lines 34-36),
wherein
the plate group is constituted of plates arranged in a planar manner (col. 11, lines 51-54), and include at least one{The claimed “one side” is read as the side of the mirror opposite to the side that reflects incoming light.}), and
the supporting member axially supports one side corresponding to the rotation axis of the rotating plate (Fig. 14; {The mirror rotates about an axis that extends along the one side, as read by the examiner.}).
As to claim 4, Nakagakiuchi et al. teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein
the subject device further includes a restricting member (Fig. 14, landing electrode “62”) that restricts a rotation range of the rotating plate (col. 11, lines 36-38).
VII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Dokor et al. (US # 11,568,568 B1) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2022/0284627 A1).
As to claim 1, El Dokor et al. teaches an imaging system (Fig. 2; note, also, col. 2, lines 62-64, “…camera to be calibrated.”) that includes a subject device comprising
a plate group constituted of a plurality of plates (Fig. 2, calibration elements “246”) for imaging (col. 2, lines 62-64); and
a supporting member that supports the plate group (Fig. 2, support element “242”),
wherein
the plate group is constituted of plates arranged in a planar manner (Fig. 2), and include at least one{The claimed “one side” is read as the side of the calibration target “240” opposite to the checkerboard side.}), and
the supporting member axially supports one side corresponding to the rotation axis of the rotating plate (Fig. 2, direction “260”; {The mirror rotates about an axis (i.e., axis along direction “260”) that extends along the one side, as read by the examiner.}).
Claim 1 differs from El Dokor et al. in that it requires that the plurality of plates is arranged at a position opposing a light source. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Johnson et al. discloses a calibration system for cameras on a vehicle (Figs. 6C and 7). The system includes a vehicle including a plurality of cameras ([0143], lines 5-8) and a light source (Fig. 7, light source “620”) that emits light as the cameras capture images ([0132], lines 28-36) of a checkerboard calibration target (Fig. 6C, calibration target “200H”). In light of the teaching of Johnson et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a light source in El Dokor’s calibration system that emits light during image capture of the calibration target because, as Johnson et al. notes in [0132], lines 40-42, these light sources can be used to improve camera readings.
As to claim 7, El Dokor et al., as modified by Johnson et al., teaches the imaging system according to claim 1, wherein
out of the respective surfaces of each of the plates, a surface on a side facing the light source is covered with any one of a scale of a specific kind of fish, a model of a scale of the fish, a mimic skin, a color chart, and a checkerboard (see El Dokor et al., Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 49-51).
VIII. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claims 2,5, and 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 2, El Dokor et al. discloses that, about one axis of rotation, a center calibration element’s surface is fixed in one direction, while other calibration elements rotate to change a direction that their surfaces face. However, El Dokor’s calibration target rotates about other directions in which that center calibration element’s surface is not fixed to face one direction. Furthermore, after additional search, the examiner has been unable to find a calibration target (i.e., plate group) for an imaging system with a rotating plate and fixed plate. As to claim 5, El Dokor et al. discloses a support element detachably connected to a jig. However, there is no disclosure of press-fitting tubes associated with the support element and rotating plate with a rod-shaped member. Claim 6 is allowable because it depends on claim 5.
B. Regarding claim 3, the feature of the one side corresponding to the rotation axis being one side closest to the center of the plate group is allowable. However, the examiner will wait for a corresponding amendment to the claim before an official declaration of allowability.
C. Regarding claim 8, the feature of each of a plurality of different color filters being slidably arranged in front of a light source is allowable. However, the examiner again will wait for a corresponding amendment to the claim before an official declaration of allowability.
IX. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Chen et al. (CN 113405660 A) discloses an underwater spectral imaging device comprising an imaging device, a single diffuse reflection plate, and a light source.
X. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
2/2/2026