DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 05/06/2025 and 06/30/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
4. 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.
5. 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 imaging device; an image processing device; a spectroscopic element....in claim 9.
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
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyohara et al., (WO 2022176621 A1) (hereinafter Kiyohara) (cited by IDS) in view of Mizutani et al., (US 2024/0056690 A1) (hereinafter Mizutani).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyohara discloses an imaging device (e.g., see Fig. 3; abstract) comprising:
a spectroscopic element (e.g., see paraphs 0003, 0006, 0019: a spectroscopic element; Fig. 3: filter array 10, paragraphs 0062-0065) that disperses incident light into more than three plurality of wavelength bands (e.g., see paragraphs 0006: a filter array including a plurality of types of filters having different transmission spectra,… a processing circuit that generates hyperspectral image data including images corresponding to four or more bands included in a target wavelength range based on the image data; also see paragraphs 0036-0040: wavelengths of at least two of the four or more bands);
an image sensor (e.g., see Fig. 3: image sensor 20) that captures a subject image via the spectroscopic element to generate image data (e.g., see paragraphs 0062-0065; paragraphs 0002, 0019: generate an image using the spectroscopic element);
an input interface (e.g., see Figs. 8A-8B: GUI) that receives first selection information indicating a first wavelength band selected by a user from the plurality of wavelength bands (e.g., see Figs. 8A-8B; paragraph 0009, 0046, 0105, 0108: band selection can be made by user as depicted via GUI shown in Figures); and
a controller (e.g., see Fig. 3: processing circuit 60; paragraph 0068) that corresponds to the first wavelength band, the multispectral image data including pieces of image information corresponding to the plurality of wavelength bands (e.g., see paragraphs 0074, 0085, 0088: the processing circuit adjusts and generates hyperspectral image data; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0095, 0097; paragraphs 0036-0040: wavelengths of at least two of the four or more bands), respectively.
Kiyohara does not explicitly a controller that adjusts exposure based on a luminance value of a piece of image information that is included in multispectral image data.
However, Mizutani discloses a controller that adjusts exposure based on a luminance value of a piece of image information that is included in multispectral image data (e.g., see abstract, paragraph 0008, 0091: a control circuit that performs exposure control in accordance with the spectral characteristic of the desired object on the basis of a detection value (a luminance signal) of the detection circuit; Figs. 2-3, 9, paragraphs 0077, 0084, 0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Kiyohara to add the teachings of Mizutani as above, in order to provide an improved imaging apparatus that performs multi-spectral imaging (see paragraph 0002: Mizutani).
Regarding claim 2, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses wherein the multispectral image data is generated based on the image data, and the controller acquires the multispectral image data (e.g., see paragraphs 0074, 0085, 0088: the processing circuit generates hyperspectral image data; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0095, 0097).
Kiyohara does not explicitly disclose the controller adjusts the exposure based on the luminance value included in the multispectral image data.
However, Mizutani discloses the controller adjusts the exposure based on the luminance value included in the multispectral image data (e.g., see abstract, paragraph 0008, 0091: a control circuit that performs exposure control; Figs. 2-3, 9, paragraphs 0077, 0084, 0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Kiyohara to add the teachings of Mizutani as above, in order to provide an improved imaging apparatus that performs multi-spectral imaging (see paragraph 0002: Mizutani).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses further comprising a processing circuit that generates the multispectral image data based on the image data (e.g., see paragraphs 0074, 0085, 0088: the processing circuit generates hyperspectral image data; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0095, 0097).
Regarding claim 4, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses wherein the spectroscopic element is a filter array including a plurality of filters with different transmission spectra from each other (e.g., see paraphs 0003, 0006, 0019: a spectroscopic element; Fig. 3: filter array 10, paragraphs 0028, 0062-0065), and the multispectral image data is generated based on the image data and a restoration table determined based on a spatial distribution of the transmission spectra of the plurality of filters (e.g., see paragraphs 0009, 0025, 0028: restoration table and a filter array including a plurality of types of filters having transmission spectra; paragraphs 0006, 0023, 0054: the spatial distribution of the transmission spectra of the plurality of types of filters; also see paragraphs 0066, 0068, 0069).
Regarding claim 5, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses further comprising a display that displays a plurality of images indicated by the pieces of image information, respectively (e.g., see paragraphs 0009, 0046, 0048: display; Fig. 3, paragraphs 0062, 0067, 0068: display device 50).
Regarding claim 6, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses wherein, by receiving a user operation of selecting one or a plurality of images from the images displayed on the display, the input interface receives the first selection information indicating the first wavelength band selected by the user (e.g., see Figs. 8A-8B; paragraph 0009, 0046, 0105, 0108: band selection can be made by user via GUI).
Regarding claim 7, Kiyohara and Mizutani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Kiyohara discloses wherein the light is incident on the spectroscopic element via an optical system (e.g., see Figs. 3, 9A, 9B), the input interface receives second selection information indicating a second wavelength band selected by the user from the plurality of wavelength bands, and the controller controls a focus position of the optical system based on the piece of image information that is included in the multispectral image data and corresponds to the second wavelength band (e.g., see paragraphs 0017, 0024, 0025: optical system and properties; Fig. 3, paragraphs 0062, 0065, 0069: optical system 30).
Regarding claim 8, this claim is a method claim of a device version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the device performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is a system claim of a device version as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the system performs the same limitations cited in claim 1, the rejections of which are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights