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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: “identification unit” and “control unit” in claim 1 and “tracking unit” in claim 7.
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 § 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 2-6 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “identifies a region, among regions of subjects detected in the first image”. The language is duplicative of language in claim 1 and it is unclear whether the recitations are related or not.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “identifies a region, among regions of subjects identified by the identification unit”. As “a region” and “among regions of subjects” were previously recited it is unclear whether the previous recitations instant claim recitations are related or not.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “based on a region, among regions identified by the identification unit” and “a region of a subject”. As “a region”, “among regions of subjects”, and “a region of a subject” were previously recited it is unclear whether the previous recitations instant claim recitations are related or not.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “based on a region, among regions identified by the identification unit” and “a region of a subject”. As “a region”, “among regions of subjects”, and “a region of a subject” were previously recited it is unclear whether the previous recitations instant claim recitations are related or not.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “that average luminance value”. It is unclear whether “that average luminance value” is referring to “an average luminance value” or something else.
Claim 8 recites “a region on which exposure control has been performed by the control unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Pub. No. KR102513818B1.
Regarding claim 1, the Korean Pub. discloses:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
an identification unit configured to identify a region, among regions of subjects detected in a first image obtained by imaging in which invisible light is used, that does not correspond to a region of a subject detected in a second image obtained by imaging in which visible light is used (brightness control unit 500 sets a certain area around the detected object as an area of interest to the area of interest , where brightness control unit 500 recognizes an object by detecting a heat source in a thermal image captured by the thermal image sensor 100, and sets a certain area around the detected object as an area of interest to the area of interest, where an image includes pedestrians around the crosswalk in addition to vehicles on the road, where 2D image sensor 300 (2D image sensor 300 may capture a general image in the visible ray region) may capture the same area as the thermal image sensor 100, page 3 8th, 5th, 4th, and 3rd to last paragraphs); and
a control unit configured to control, based on the region identified by the identification unit, exposure for imaging in which visible light is used (brightness control unit 500 automatically adjusts an exposure value using a thermal image and a region of interest and automatic exposure value adjustment of the 2D image sensor 300 may be performed based on the brightness value of the area, page 3 3rd to last paragraph).
The Korean Pub. is silent with regards to the units being circuits or a processor/CPU (claim interpretation explained in the claim interpretation section above requires the units being circuits or a processor/CPU). Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include implementing functional units in circuits or a processor/CPU using a program stored in a flash memory or ROM/RAM. This is advantageous in that a processor/CPU can control order of execution of operations of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the units being circuits or a processor/CPU.
Regarding claim 7, the Korean Pub. further discloses:
a tracking unit configured to track the region identified by the identification unit (brightness control unit 500 can variably change the region of interest according to the movement of the object. The 2D image sensor may capture images in real time, and objects may move in real time in the corresponding images. Since the ambient brightness of an object may change in real time according to the movement of the object, continuous change of the region of interest is required. Accordingly, the brightness control unit 500 of the present invention can change the region of interest in real time as the object moves, page 4 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the Korean Pub. further discloses:
tracking unit tracks a region on which exposure control has been performed by the control unit (2D image sensor may capture images in real time where automatic exposure value adjustment of the 2D image sensor 300 may be performed based on the brightness value of the area, and objects may move in real time, where brightness control unit 500 of the present invention can change the region of interest in real time as the object moves, page 3 3rd to last paragraph and page 4 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, the Korean Pub. further discloses:
first image and the second image are captured by a single imaging apparatus including a visible light sensor and an invisible light sensor (camera 10 may include a thermal image sensor 100, a 2D image sensor 300 (2D image sensor 300 may capture a general image in the visible ray region), page 3 10th to last paragraph and 5th to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, the Korean Pub. is silent with regards to first image and the second image are captured by an imaging apparatus including pixels for visible light and pixels for invisible light on one sensor. Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include integrating infrared pixels and visible light pixels on one sensor in an imaging device. This is advantageous in that imaging device size can be smaller than one that requires multiple image sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include first image and the second image are captured by an imaging apparatus including pixels for visible light and pixels for invisible light on one sensor.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitations of claims 11 and 12 were shown.
Conclusion
Regarding claim(s) 2-6 and 8, taking into consideration the indefiniteness described in the 35 USC 112 rejection(s) above, no prior art could be found and applied as a prior art rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20240219241 – directed to generating a first image by detecting visible light from a scene, generating a second image by detecting infrared light from the scene, setting a reference area for an object selected by a user based on pixel values in the second image.
U.S. Pub. No. 20190045139 and Pat. No. 10694118 – directed to infrared light photometric target can be set by calculating an average of the infrared light photometric weights for the average of the visible light image signals for each region output from the visible light image.
U.S. Pub. No. 20210044736 and Pat. No. 11457155 – directed to an area to be used as the reference for exposure adjustment may be an area having a high proportion of the entire image when an infrared and visible image are captured.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights