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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an input unit”, “an output unit”, “a control unit”, “an image processing unit”, “a first storage unit”, “a conversion processing unit”. “a second storage unit” in claims 1-6. These are described in the specification in fig. 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azegami et al. (US PGPUB 20190124293) in view of Trainin (US Patent # 6,813,279).
[Claim 1]
Azegami teaches a multiplexer (Paragraph 36) comprising:
an input unit (fig. 1, first and second reception units 101 and 102) to which multiple image signals acquired by respective ones of multiple imaging devices are input, the multiple image signals being based on a first data communication standard (Paragraph 23, wherein the first camera (C1) transmits the first front packet data (PD1A) and the first rear packet data (PD1B) each attaching a code for detecting errors to the first reception unit (101), [0024] the second camera (C2) transmits the second front packet data (PD2A) and the second rear packet data (PD2B) each attaching a code for detecting errors to the second reception unit (102) and Paragraph 52, It is possible to apply the invention to CoaXpress standards);
an image processing unit (control unit 13) that performs image processing on multiple images composed of the multiple image signals input to the input unit, the multiple image signals being based on the first data communication standard (Paragraph 42, The camera C1, . . . may start to capture the images by sending trigger signals from a control unit 13. Fig. 1 also shows that the controller 13 also controls the first and second reception unit and the data combining unit (11) that connects with the reception units (101, 102) and prepares combined data (PD.sub.S) where the first packet data (PD1) and the second packet data (PD2) are alternately arranged);
a first storage unit (110) that temporarily buffers the image signals of the multiple processed images subjected to the image processing in the image processing unit (Paragraph 43, The data combining unit 11 may have a data saving unit 110 that sequentially stores one of both, or both, the first packet data PD1 received by the first reception unit 101, and the second packet data PD2 received by the second reception unit 102).
Azegami fails to teach an output unit that outputs a signal based on a second data communication standard having a data transfer rate lower than that of the first data communication standard and a conversion processing unit that converts the image signals buffered in the first storage unit to the signal based on the second data communication standard.
However Trainin teaches a FIFO buffer 48 that reduces cell loss by accumulating ATM cells 64. Because the ATM physical interface 24 is sending the ATM cells to the converter 10 (conversion processing unit) at a rate of at least 155 Mbps, the buffering is used to hold the ATM cells 64, thereby allowing the slower Ethernet physical interface 18 operating at 100 Mbps to catch up to the faster data rate coming out of the ATM physical interface 24 (col. 6 lines 18-28). As the ATM cells 64 leave the FIFO buffer 48 (or while they are in the FIFO buffer 48 itself), the preamble generation logic unit 50 (output unit) appends a preamble 62 to the ATM cell 64. The converter then waits for an IPG idle time 66 before completed frames 60 are sent separately to the Ethernet physical interface 18. As such, the frames 60 of FIG. 5 that are received by the Ethernet physical interface 18 comprise "shorter" Ethernet-type frames as compared to the Ethernet-type frame 52 of FIG. 4. That is, the data field is only 53 bytes long, corresponding to the size of the original ATM cell 64. The only overhead is the eight bytes in the preamble 62 because MAC header and CRC information are eliminated (col. 6 lines 5-18).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Azegami and Trainin, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have an output unit that outputs a signal based on a second data communication standard having a data transfer rate lower than that of the first data communication standard and a conversion processing unit that converts the image signals buffered in the first storage unit to the signal based on the second data communication standard in order to be able to connect two different interfaces without having to replace existing hardware interfaces thereby reducing cost.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azegami et al. (US PGPUB 20190124293), Trainin (US Patent # 6,813,279) and in further view of Muraki et al. (US PGPUB 20180088446).
[Claim 2]
Azegami teaches first data communication standard is CoaXPress (Paragraph 52) but Azegami and Trainin do not explicitly disclose wherein the second data communication standard is GigE Vision.
In the same field of endeavor (e.g., communication system) Muraki discloses a function enhancement device that comprises wherein the first data communication standard is wherein the first data communication standard is CoaXPress, and the second data communication standard is GigE Vision. CoaXPress, and the second data communication standard is GigE Vision (Muraki, paragraph [0161], The CDM conversion unit 1213 executes mutual conversion of a command between CXP, and GigE (GE), USB, or a Camera Link (CL) by conversion of an XML file. The data conversion unit 1215 packetizes data from CXP to GE, USB, CL, or the like. The conversion command and packetized data are input to the I/F 1216 of an MAC layer. The I/F 1216 of the MAC layer transmits the input conversion command and packetized data to the PHY 1217. The PHY 1217 transmits the received conversion command and packetized data to a PC 1220).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Azegami and Trainin by
using the features, as taught by Muraki in order to provide a function enhancement
device capable of flexibly incorporating a function according to needs based on a user's
selection of a function to be enhanced (see Muraki, abstract and paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azegami et al. (US PGPUB 20190124293), Trainin (US Patent # 6,813,279) and in further view of Oh et al. (US PGPUB 20200351449).
[Claim 3]
Azegami in view of Trainin fails to teach wherein the image processing unit sets respective regions of interest for the multiple images and adopts images corresponding to the set respect regions of interest as the processed images. However Oh teaches he tracking unit may generate information about a viewpoint of the user's region of interest, a viewing position at the viewpoint, and a viewing orientation at the viewing position based on the input information of the sensor and the user. This information may be used for selection or extraction of a region of interest by each module of the 360 video reception apparatus, or may be used for a post-processing process for emphasizing information about the region of interest. When delivered to the 360 video transmission apparatus, the information may be used for file extraction or sub-picture selection for efficient bandwidth use, and various ROI-based image reconstruction methods (viewport/viewing position/viewpoint dependent processing)(Paragraph 244).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Azegami, Trainin and Oh, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have the image processing unit sets respective regions of interest for the multiple images and adopts images corresponding to the set respect regions of interest as the processed images in order to use the bandwidth more efficiently.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azegami et al. (US PGPUB 20190124293), Trainin (US Patent # 6,813,279), Oh et al. (US PGPUB 20200351449) and in further view of Hibi et al. (US PGPUB 20180106608).
[Claim 4]
Azegami in view of Trainin and Oh fails to teach wherein captured images acquired by the multiple imaging devices include an observation target line formed by reflected light of linear irradiation light that irradiates an object to be imaged, and the image processing unit sets the regions of interest to a parallelogram shape so that the observation target line is included in the regions of interest.
However Hibi teaches As described with reference to FIG. 7, when a moving rigid body S is imaged by the area camera 113, a region imaged in common (that is, the common irradiation portion shown in FIG. 7) exists in consecutive two captured images (for example, the i-th captured image and the i+1-th captured image). Therefore, when the i-th captured image captured by the area camera 113 is translated by ΔL.sup.b in the negative direction of the X.sup.b-axis on the basis of the second calibration data, the X.sup.b-coordinate of the common irradiation portion of the i-th image and the X.sup.b-coordinate of the common irradiation portion of the i+1-th image can be caused to coincide. Similarly, also for the light-section line L.sub.c, when the i-th captured image captured by the area camera 113 is translated by ΔL.sup.c in the negative direction of the X.sup.C-axis on the basis of the second calibration data, the X.sup.C-coordinate of the common irradiation portion of the i-th image and the X.sup.C-coordinate of the common irradiation portion of the i+1-th image can be caused to coincide. Since the common irradiation portion is the same position on the rigid body S, the true surface height of the common irradiation portion in the real space is the same. Therefore, by equalizing the X-coordinate and then comparing the Y-coordinate of the common irradiation portion in the i-th image and the Y-coordinate of the common irradiation portion in the i+1-th image, it becomes possible to estimate the magnitude of disturbance that has occurred on the rigid body S at the time of capturing the i+1-th image (Paragraph 179).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Azegami, Trainin, Oh and Hibi, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have captured images acquired by the multiple imaging devices include an observation target line formed by reflected light of linear irradiation light that irradiates an object to be imaged, and the image processing unit sets the regions of interest to a parallelogram shape so that the observation target line is included in the regions of interest in order to have an approximation with a straight line, the variation occurring between points on the light-section lines L.sub.b and L.sub.c can be absorbed, and the value of disturbance at the intersection point can be found with better accuracy, as compared to conventional light-section methods
[Claim 5]
Hibi teaches wherein the conversion processing unit calculates numerical data relating to the observation target line from the image signals buffered in the first storage unit (Paragraph 123, The image processing unit 203 is configured with, for example, a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a communication device, etc. The image processing unit 203 acquires imaging data generated by the area cameras 111 and 113 (that is, captured image data related to the light-section image), performs image processing described below on the imaging data, and calculates the height of the entire surface of the rigid body S as three-dimensional shape data. On finishing the processing of calculating the surface height of the rigid body S, the image processing unit 203 transmits information on the obtained calculation result to the display control unit 205 and the storage unit 207, or transmits the information to various devices etc. provided outside the shape measurement apparatus 10) in order to provide a true measurement of the surface such as heights and removing the effects of any disturbance.
[Claim 6]
Hibi teaches a second storage unit that temporarily buffers the numerical data (Paragraph 123, The image processing unit 203 is configured with, for example, a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, a communication device, etc. The image processing unit 203 acquires imaging data generated by the area cameras 111 and 113 (that is, captured image data related to the light-section image), performs image processing described below on the imaging data, and calculates the height of the entire surface of the rigid body S as three-dimensional shape data. On finishing the processing of calculating the surface height of the rigid body S, the image processing unit 203 transmits information on the obtained calculation result to the display control unit 205 and the storage unit 207, or transmits the information to various devices etc. provided outside the shape measurement apparatus 10) in order to provide a true measurement of the surface such as heights and removing the effects of any disturbance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH K AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6.
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 5712727564. 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.
/YOGESH K AGGARWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights