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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 08/18/2026. Claims 1, 2 and 4-12 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Naoto (JP 5454983) does not disclose “he selection of the region of the captured images, and setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are performed, without changing an imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Naoto explicitly discloses the image processing unit 14 changing the frame rate by adjusting the number of times the image is processed and rewritten per unit time (pg. 5 ¶1) based on the vehicle speed provided by the vehicle speed sensor 16 (pg. 4 ¶12). Cameras 11 and 12 unidirectionally provide image information to the image processing unit 14 via the image correction unit 13 (Fig. 1, pg. 4 ¶10-12) and the frame rate of the cameras is not changed based on the vehicle speed as this information is only provided to the image processing unit 14.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naoto (JP 5454983), citations refer to provided English translation.
Consider claim 1, Naoto clearly teaches an image processing device (Fig. 1) for
processing a series of a pair of captured images acquired by a pair of camera modules adapted to capture an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle, thereby obtaining surrounding-environment recognition information for controlling the vehicle, (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 processes images from right camera 11 and left camera 12 mounted to a vehicle, pg. 4 ¶9-10.)
wherein the image processing device is enabled to select a region of the captured images to be used for creating a parallax image from the pair of captured images, and the image processing device changes over the selection of the region according to the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into image processing per unit time, (Figs. 2-4: During time T0 to T1 the largest area C is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is reduced. During time T4 to T5 the smallest area A is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is increased. Pg. 5 ¶10 to pg. 6 ¶3)
the selection of the region of the captured images, and setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are performed, without changing an imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules. (The image processing device 14 changes the rate at which the captured images are processed and the frame rate of the cameras is not changed, pg. 5 ¶1.)
Consider claim 2, Naoto clearly teaches a relationship between the selection of the region of the captured images, and the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time is such that a value of a product of a rate in size of the selected region to an entire region of an original captured image, and the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time is equal to or less than a certain value determined uniquely depending on hardware. (As the region of the captured images to be parallax processed is increased the frame rate of the processing decreases thereby the scale of hardware processing remains constant, pg. 6 ¶10.)
Consider claim 4, Naoto clearly teaches a parallax image creation unit adapted to create a parallax image from the pair of captured images, and a control unit adapted to select a region of the captured images to be used in creating the parallax image by the parallax image creation unit. (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 creates parallax images of the regions selected by the region selection unit 14a, pg. 4 ¶12, pg. 5 ¶8.)
Consider claim 6, Naoto clearly teaches the selection of the region of the captured images, and setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are changed over, according to information reflecting a traveling scene of the vehicle. (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 creates parallax images, at the selected frame rate, of the regions selected by the region selection unit 14a based on information from vehicle speed sensor 16, pg. 4 ¶12 to pg. 5 ¶1.)
Consider claim 7, Naoto clearly teaches the selection of the region of the captured images, and the setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are changed over, according to speed information obtained from the vehicle. (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 creates parallax images, at the selected frame rate, of the regions selected by the region selection unit 14a based on information from vehicle speed sensor 16, pg. 4 ¶12 to pg. 5 ¶1.)
Consider claim 8, Naoto clearly teaches the selection of the region of the captured images, and the setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are changed over, according to information obtained from the captured images. (Figs. 1, 10: Image processing unit 14 creates parallax images, at the selected frame rate, of the regions selected by the region selection unit 14a based on distance information measured from the captured images, pg. 4 ¶12 to pg. 5 ¶1, pg. 8 ¶1-4.)
Consider claim 9, Naoto clearly teaches an imaging device (Fig. 1) comprising
a pair of camera modules adapted to capture an image of a surrounding environment of 56 a vehicle, and an image processing device for processing a series of a pair of captured images acquired by the pair of camera modules to obtain surrounding-environment recognition information for controlling the vehicle, (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 processes images from right camera 11 and left camera 12 mounted to a vehicle, pg. 4 ¶9-10.)
wherein the image processing device is enabled to select a region of the captured images to be used for creating a parallax image from the pair of captured images, and the image processing device changes over the selection of the region according to the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into image processing per unit time, (Figs. 2-4: During time T0 to T1 the largest area C is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is reduced. During time T4 to T5 the smallest area A is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is increased. Pg. 5 ¶10 to pg. 6 ¶3)
the selection of the region of the captured images, and setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are performed, without changing an imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules. (The image processing device 14 changes the rate at which the captured images are processed and the frame rate of the cameras is not changed, pg. 5 ¶1.)
Consider claim 10, Naoto clearly teaches an imaging processing method performed by an image processing device, (Fig. 5)
the image processing device being adapted to process a series of a pair of captured images acquired by a pair of camera modules adapted to capture an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle, thereby obtaining surrounding-environment recognition information for controlling the vehicle, (Fig. 1: Image processing unit 14 processes images from right camera 11 and left camera 12 mounted to a vehicle, pg. 4 ¶9-10.)
the imaging processing method comprising: a process for selecting a region of the captured images to be used for creating a parallax image from the pair of captured images, and changing over the selection of the region according to the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into image processing per unit time, (Figs. 2-4: During time T0 to T1 the largest area C is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is reduced. During time T4 to T5 the smallest area A is selected for parallax imaging and the frame rate of the processed images is increased. Pg. 5 ¶10 to pg. 6 ¶3)
the selection of the region of the captured images, and setting of the number of the pairs of captured images to be introduced into the image processing per unit time are performed, without changing an imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules. (The image processing device 14 changes the rate at which the captured images are processed and the frame rate of the cameras is not changed, pg. 5 ¶1.)
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (JP 5454983) in view of Tsunashima (US 2019/0180463).
Consider claim 5, Naoto clearly teaches a parallax image creation unit adapted to create a parallax image from the pair of captured images.
However, Naoto does not explicitly teach a plurality of equivalent parallax image creation units adapted to create a parallax image from the pair of captured images.
In an analogous art, Tsunashima, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches a plurality of equivalent parallax image creation units adapted to create a parallax image from the pair of captured images. (Fig. 3: Stereo image processing apparatus 130 includes a plurality of stereo image processing units 131, [0070]-[0072].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Naoto by a plurality of equivalent parallax image creation units adapted to create a parallax image from the pair of captured images, as taught by Tsunashima, for the benefit of increasing the processing speed of the parallax image creation unit.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto (JP 5454983) in view of Eckman (US 2019/0370567).
Consider claim 11, Naoto clearly teaches the captured images.
However, Naoto does not explicitly teach captured images in at least one unused imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules are discarded.
In an analogous art, Eckman, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches captured images in at least one unused imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules are discarded. (Vehicle system 402 receives stereoscopic images from camera system 406 at a frame rate of the camera and skips frames to adjust the provided frame rate, [0030].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Naoto by captured images in at least one unused imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules are discarded, as taught by Eckman, to achieve the predictable result of changing the frame rate of the processed images.
Consider claim 12, Naoto clearly teaches captured images in at least one unused imaging cycle of the pair of camera modules are ignored and not inputted into the image processing device. (Vehicle system 402 receives stereoscopic images from camera system 406 at a frame rate of the camera and skips frames to adjust the provided frame rate, [0030] Eckman.)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights