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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed 17 November 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinkel et al., US 9749532 B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hinkel”).
Regarding claim 1, Hinkel discloses an imaging apparatus (Hinkel: image capture device 1202. Fig. 12) comprising: a liquid crystal panel (Hinkel: liquid crystal display apertures. Col. 11:61-64), an optical assembly (Hinkel: optical assembly. Col. 32:54-66), an imaging element (Hinkel: charge-coupled device image sensor array 300. Fig. 3, Col. 7:20-50), a storage unit (Hinkel: storage. Col 36:48-67), and a control unit (Hinkel: processor. Col. 32:61-66), wherein the liquid crystal panel receives control from the control unit, selectively forms a first geometric pattern and a second geometric pattern (Hinkel: Aperture Patterns. Figs. 1 and 4), and limits a transmission region of light from a subject, wherein the optical assembly forms an image of the light from the subject on a light-receiving surface of the imaging element, wherein the imaging element converts the light from the subject that has passed through the liquid crystal panel and the optical assembly into an electrical signal to obtain image data (Hinkel: Col. 3:53-Col. 14, Col. 23:23-51), and wherein the control unit controls the liquid crystal panel and the imaging element such that exposure and reading of the image data into the storage unit in the imaging element are started in synchronization with a time point when a first time period has elapsed from a start of switching of the geometric pattern in the liquid crystal panel, and switching of the geometric pattern in the liquid crystal panel is started in synchronization with completion of the reading of the image data into the storage unit (Hinkel: Fig. 15, an aperture of an image capture device may be set to the aperture shape 1502, and subsequently an image capture event may begin—such as by opening a shutter or activating a charge-coupled device sensor. During the first exposure 1504, light may pass through the aperture shape 1502 onto an image recording component of the image capture device. At the end of the exposure period, a first image may be finalized and recorded, which in some embodiments may include reading the rows of a charge-coupled device image sensor array or advancing the film. Cols. 28:65-67 – 29:1-12. At this point, the aperture may be changed to a different shape, such as aperture shape 1506, and the second exposure 1508 for a second image may be started. Note that in some embodiments, the aperture may be changed to the different shape immediately, whereas, in other embodiments, the aperture shape may be changed in a smooth, continuous transition. That is, the aperture may change according to a function that has continuous derivatives over the range of the change from a point at or after the start of the first exposure to a point at or before the end of the second exposure. At the conclusion of the second exposure 1508, which has been exposed to light passing through the second aperture shape 1506, the second image may be finalized and recorded in the same way as the first image was finalized and recorded. Col. 29:13-31. and Fig. 15, Fig. 5, steps 502-512).
Regarding claim 2, Hinkel discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an arithmetic processing unit (Hinkel: processor. Col. 32:61-66), wherein the arithmetic processing unit generates third image data by performing image data processing based on first image data corresponding to the first geometric pattern and second image data corresponding to the second geometric pattern, the first image data and the second image data being most recently obtained and read into the storage unit (Hinkel: Generate image, step 1416, based on the output of a first image and a second image. Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, Hinkel discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first time period is a time required from a start to completion of switching of the geometric pattern (Hinkel: At the end of the exposure period, a first image may be finalized and recorded, which in some embodiments may include reading the rows of a charge-coupled device image sensor array or advancing the film. Cols. 28:65-67 – 29:1-12. At this point, the aperture may be changed to a different shape, such as aperture shape 1506, and the second exposure 1508 for a second image may be started. Note that in some embodiments, the aperture may be changed to the different shape immediately, whereas, in other embodiments, the aperture shape may be changed in a smooth, continuous transition. That is, the aperture may change according to a function that has continuous derivatives over the range of the change from a point at or after the start of the first exposure to a point at or before the end of the second exposure. At the conclusion of the second exposure 1508, which has been exposed to light passing through the second aperture shape 1506, the second image may be finalized and recorded in the same way as the first image was finalized and recorded. Col. 29:13-31. and Fig. 15, Fig. 5, steps 502-512).
Regarding claim 4, Hinkel discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the arithmetic processing unit performs the image data processing in parallel while exposure and reading of image data with the first geometric pattern, switching from the first geometric pattern to the second geometric pattern, exposure and reading of image data with the second geometric pattern, and switching from the second geometric pattern to the first geometric pattern are being performed (Cols. 28:65-67 – 29:1-43).
Regarding claim 6, Hinkel discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first geometric pattern and the second geometric pattern correspond to a first aperture and a second aperture having openings at mutually different positions with respect to the imaging element (Hinkel: Figs. 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 7, The imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the third image data represents a depth map of the subject (Hinkel: determine depth map of scene from differences between first and second images 1118. Such depth map information may be useful in generating stereoscopic images Fig. 11, Col. 25:25-31).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1. (Hinkel: Col. 38:1-14)
Regarding claim 10, claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 3 is substantially similar to claim11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1 (Hinkel: Col. 38:1-14).
Regarding claim 18, claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 2.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinkel in view of Sonada US 20110085074 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sonada”).
Regarding claim 5, Hinkel does not explicitly disclose the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first geometric pattern and the second geometric pattern correspond to a first coded aperture and a second coded aperture that are different from each other (Hinkel: liquid crystal display apertures. Col. 11:61-64).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sonada discloses the first geometric pattern and the second geometric pattern correspond to a first coded aperture and a second coded aperture that are different from each other (Sonada: Coded Apertures ¶ [0006], [0127], Figs. 17A-C).
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 teachings of Hinkel with the first geometric pattern and the second geometric pattern correspond to a first coded aperture and a second coded aperture that are different from each other, as taught by Sonada, in order to detect blur state from a sensed image with higher precision. Sonada, ¶¶ [0011].
Regarding claim 13, claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 5.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinkel in view of Matsunaga US 20210072398 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Matsunaga”).
Regarding claim 8, Hinkel does not explicitly disclose the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, the imaging apparatus is mounted on a vehicle, and the subject is located in front of the vehicle.
However, Matsunaga discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, the imaging apparatus is mounted on a vehicle, and the subject is located in front of the vehicle (Matsunaga: ¶ [0002], Figs. 10 and 11).
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 teachings of Hinkel with the imaging apparatus is mounted on a vehicle, and the subject is located in front of the vehicle, as taught by Matsunaga, in order to improve image capture while in motion.
Regarding claim 16, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights