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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claim 1 in the submission dated 06/16/2026 in response to the office action mailed 04/24/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a) The applicant argues that Kirejevas and Inoko, whether taken alone or in proper combination do not teach or suggest the features of the amended claim 1, specifically "wherein the objective lens configuration introduces a front color artifact from color variant vignetting and lateral color at the truncated polygonal lens edges and a first lateral color artifact at the first image at least in part to control chromatic spherical aberration at the first image, and wherein the relay optical system compensates the first lateral color artifact such that the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact to reduce shading artifacts near edges of the magnified image." (Remarks, para 3 on page 8 of 13 through para 2 on page 9 of 13)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, vignetting, including color variant vignetting, is a phenomenon that occurs in optical systems with a large field of view. Gross teaches that transmission of the objective lens is a function of both the field size and wavelength (pages 191-193, section 30.16, Figs. 30-111 through 30-114). Both Kirejevas and Inoko teach optical systems having wide angle objective lenses, thus both systems would result in color variant vignetting at the lens edges.
In response to applicant's argument that Kirejevas and Inoko fail to teach or suggest the objective lens configuration introduces a front color artifact from color variant vignetting… at the truncated polygonal lens edges, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Second, Gross teaches (pages 377-378) that moving a stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (page 378 suggestion 12, and page 378 section 33.1.4 operation 8). Moving the stop position changes the path of the chief ray and influences the oblique field aberrations (page 378 suggestion 12) while leaving the focal power of the system unchanged (section 33.1.4 “zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross further teaches (pages 220-221, section 31.1.6, Fig. 31-5) that stop positioning influences can further influence the vignetting. Gross teaches that moving the stop position can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
The stop as taught by Inoko (para [0064]) is positioned such that the stop corrects the aberration introduced by the objective lens, thus moving the stop position to further reduce shading artifacts would be within the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance as taught by Gross.
In response to applicant's argument that Kirejevas and Inoko fail to teach or suggest that the relay optical system reduces shading artifacts near edges of the magnified image, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
(b) The applicant argues that Inoko fails to teach or suggest first lateral color artifact at the first image, because Inoko teaches spherical aberration, astigmatism, and distortion. The applicant further argues that Inoko is silent on the first lateral color artifact and that the relay optical system reduces the first lateral color artifact such that the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact. (Remarks, para 3 on page 9 of 13 through para 2 on page 10 of 13)
First, chromatic spherical aberration has both lateral and longitudinal components, thus by reducing chromatic spherical aberration as taught by Inoko (Figs. 2-3, paras [0038]-[0041]), the lateral chromatic aberration component is reduced. This is further evidenced by Tan et al., (US 2022/0019062 A1; of record), which defines lateral aberrations as spherical aberrations (para [0035]).
Second, applicant's assertion that lateral color is distinct from spherical chromatic aberration is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 716.01(c).
Third, applicant’s assertion that Inoko is silent on the relay optical system reducing the first lateral color artifact is incorrect. In the office action dated 1/16/2026 (para 3, page 7) the examiner provides Inoko’s teachings that the relay optical system reduces the first lateral color artifact such that the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact. Specifically, “the spherical aberration is corrected by the second lens unit 2, which is a relay lens unit, and good image forming performance illustrated in Fig. 2 is obtained in the final image plane, the spherical aberration graph in figure 2 shows the aberration of three wavelengths 656.27 (red), 587.56 (green), and 486.13 (blue) in a lateral range from -0.150 mm to 0.150 mm, thus the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact, paras [0038]-[0041], Fig. 2.” The reduction shown in Fig. 2 becomes obvious when comparing the scale of Fig. 2 to the scale of Fig. 3 which illustrates aberration graphs at the in-lens conjugate point 3.
(c) The applicant argues that dependent claims 5, 6, and 17 are allowable for the same reasons provided above. Dependent claims are also not patentable for at least the same reasons as the base claims (Remarks, paras 3-4, page 10 of 13).
(d) The applicant argues that the additional prior art references fail to cure the deficiencies of Kirejevas and Inoko and that dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, 18-20, 23, and 24 are allowable for the same reasons provided above. Dependent claims are also not patentable for at least the same reasons as the base claims (Remarks, para 5 on page 10 of 13 through para 2 on page 12 of 13).
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirejevas et al., US 2019/0235214 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kirejevas; of record), and further in view of Inoko, US 2014/0036142 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Inoko; of record).
As to claim 1, Kirejevas teaches (Figs. 1-7) an imaging system for use in a low parallax (10, 100, “the present lens assembly and camera lens system enable capture of panoramic spherical or at least semi-spherical moving pictures with reduced or no parallax error,” paras [0011], [0083] and [0093], Figs. 1 and 3) multi-lens imaging device (150, “the camera system 150 comprises a camera lens system 100 with first lens assembly 10A, second lens assembly 10B, third lens assembly 10C (not shown), fourth lens assembly 10D (not shown), and fifth lens assembly 102,” para [0102], Fig. 7), the imaging system comprising:
an objective lens (10, “the lens assembly 10,” para [0083], Fig. 1) comprising a first lens element group having an outer lens element (22, “a first primary lens 22,” para [0083], Fig. 1), a pre-aperture stop second lens element group (24, “a first secondary lens 24,” which is located before the aperture stop 26, para [0083], Fig. 1), and a post aperture stop third lens element group (42, “a second lens group 42,” located after the aperture stop 26, para [0088], Fig. 1), wherein the first lens element group, the second lens element group, and the third lens element group direct incident light within a field of view towards a first image plane as an image (16, “a first image plane of the first lens assembly,” the image is formed on the image side 16, paras [0075] and [0083], Fig. 1), and wherein the outer lens element is a polygonal shaped outer lens element (22, 52, 54, 56, 58, “the first primary lens 22 has a first side surface 52, a second side surface 54, a third side surface 56, and optionally a fourth side surface 58. The side surfaces 52, 54, 56, 58 are plane surfaces with respective first side normal, second side normal, third side normal, and fourth side normal,” thus the outer lens element has a square shape, para [0086], Figs. 1-2), with truncated polygonal lens edges (52, 54, 56, 58, the surfaces of the lens 52, 54, 56, 58 are planer and normal, thus are truncated polygonal edges, para [0086], Figs. 1-2); and
wherein the objective lens configuration provides a front color artifact from color variant vignetting and lateral color at the truncated polygonal lens edges (10, the first lens assembly 10 has a vertical and horizontal field of view from 45 degrees to 135 degrees, namely about 92 degrees, thus experience wavelength dependent vignetting, it is known in the art that vignetting is a phenomenon that occurs in optical systems with large field of view because transmission is a function of the field size and wavelength as evidenced by Gross below, para [0084], Fig. 1). Thus, the first lens assembly of Kirejevas having a large field of view would result in color variant vignetting.
Kirejevas does not teach the imaging system comprising:
a relay optical system configured to magnify the image onto a secondary image plane as a magnified image,
wherein the objective lens is configured to direct incident light that enters the outer lens element of the first lens element group such that projections of chief rays included in the incident light converge toward a low-parallax volume located behind the first image plane,
wherein the objective lens configuration provides a front color artifact and a first lateral color artifact at the first image at least in part to control chromatic spherical aberration at the first image, and
wherein the relay optical system compensates the first lateral color artifact such that the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact to reduce shading artifacts near edges of the magnified image.
Kirejevas and Inoko are related as imaging optical systems.
However, Inoko teaches (Figs. 1-3) an imaging system (“the imaging optical system is a wide-angle lens,” para [0031], Fig. 1) comprising:
an objective lens (1, “the first lens L1 through the tenth lens L10 constitute the first lens unit 1,” para [0033], Fig. 1) comprising a first lens element group (L1, L2, the first two lenses L1 and L2 are considered the first lens element group; note the reference label for lens element L2 is omitted, Fig. 1) having an outer lens element (L1, “a first lens L1,” para [0033], Fig. 1), a pre-aperture stop second lens element group (L3, L4, L5, the lenses L3, L4, and L5 are considered the second lens element group; note the reference labels for lens elements L3, L4, and L5 are omitted, Fig. 1), and a post aperture stop third lens element group (L6, L7, L8, L9, L10, the lenses L6, L7, L8, L9, and L10 are considered the post aperture stop third lens element group; note the object side surface of the sixth lens L6 is considered the aperture stop, Fig. 1), wherein the first lens element group, the second lens element group, and the third lens element group direct incident light within a field of view towards a first image plane as an image (3, “the intermediate image formed at the in-lens conjugate point 3… the wide-angle lens has a wider angle of view,” para [0043], Fig. 1); and
a relay optical system (2, “the eleventh lens L11 through the final lens L20 constitute the second lens unit 2,” the second lens unit 2 is a relay lens unit, paras [0033] and [0041], Fig. 1) configured to magnify the image (2, “the second lens unit can have a magnification close to the unit magnification,” para [0064], Fig. 1) onto a secondary image plane as a magnified image (2, “the final image plane,” the final image plane is located at the liquid crystal panel 5, para [0041], Fig. 1),
wherein the objective lens is configured to direct incident light that enters the outer lens element of the first lens element group such that projections of chief rays included in the incident light converge toward a low-parallax volume located behind the first image plane (3, figure 1 shows via the ray diagram that the objective lens 1 direct the incident light such that the incident light converges toward a low-parallax volume behind the first image plane 3, the low-parallax volume is the volume of
wherein the objective lens configuration provides a front color artifact (“Fig. 3 illustrates longitudinal aberration graphs at the in-lens conjugate point 3 according to the present embodiment,” the spherical aberration graph showing the aberration of three wavelengths 656.27 nm (red), 587.56 nm (green), and 486.13 nm (blue) shows a front color artifact, para [0040], Fig. 3) and a first lateral color artifact at the first image (“Fig. 3 illustrates longitudinal aberration graphs at the in-lens conjugate point 3 according to the present embodiment,” the spherical aberration graph showing the aberration of three wavelengths 656.27 (red), 587.56 (green), and 486.13 (blue) in a lateral range from -0.5 mm to 0.5 mm shows a first lateral color artifact, para [0040], Fig. 3) at least in part to control chromatic spherical aberration at the first image (3, in the wide-angle lens, spherical aberration, still remains at the in-lens conjugate point 3, the relay lens unit is configured to have an aberration opposite the remaining aberration so that the aberration is cancelled, paras [0040]-[041], Figs. 1-3), and
wherein the relay optical system compensates the first lateral color artifact such that the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact (the spherical aberration is corrected by the second lens unit 2, which is a relay lens unit, and “good image forming performance illustrated in Fig. 2 is obtained in the final image plane,” the spherical aberration graph in figure 2 shows the aberration of three wavelengths 656.27 (red), 587.56 (green), and 486.13 (blue) in a lateral range from -0.150 mm to 0.150 mm, thus the magnified image has a second lateral color artifact lower than the first lateral color artifact, paras [0038]-[0041], Fig. 2) to reduce shading artifacts near edges of the magnified image (the stop is positioned so that off-axis aberration such as coma or curvature of field can be corrected, it is known that the stop positioning also reduces the shading artifacts as evidenced by Gross below, para [0064], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the objective lens having a relay optical system configured to magnify the image and reduce the front color artifacts introduces by the objective lens of Inoko, because it is possible to provide an imaging optical system which forms an intermediate image, the imaging optical system having a reduced size while sufficiently correcting distortion, and a projection-type image display apparatus and an image pickup apparatus using the imaging optical system (para [0015]).
As to claim 5, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein the front color is limited to an extent of less than or equal to about 0.5 mm.
Kirejevas and Inoko are related as imaging optical systems.
However, Inoko teaches an imaging system (“the imaging optical system is a wide-angle lens,” para [0031], Fig. 1) wherein the front color is limited to an extent of less than or equal to about 0.5 mm (“Fig. 3 illustrates longitudinal aberration graphs at the in-lens conjugate point 3 according to the present embodiment,” the spherical aberration graph showing the aberration of three wavelengths 656.27 (red), 587.56 (green), and 486.13 (blue) in a lateral range from -0.5 mm to 0.5 mm shows a first lateral color artifact, para [0040], Fig. 3).
Therefore, 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 Kirejevas with the imaging system where the front color is limited to an extent of less than or equal to about 0.5 mm of Inoko, because it provides an imaging optical system which forms an intermediate image, the imaging optical system having a reduced size while sufficiently correcting distortion, and a projection-type image display apparatus and an image pickup apparatus using the imaging optical system (para [0015]).
As to claim 6, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein the design of the objective lens and the relay optical system are further designed to sacrifice one or more optical performance attributes, including spherical, coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distortion, chromatic aberrations and telecentricity, at the first image plane so as to benefit performance at the secondary image plane.
Kirejevas and Inoko are related as imaging optical systems.
However, Inoko teaches an imaging system (“the imaging optical system is a wide-angle lens,” para [0031], Fig. 1) wherein the design of the objective lens and the relay optical system are further designed to sacrifice one or more optical performance attributes, including spherical, coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distortion, chromatic aberrations and telecentricity, at the first image plane so as to benefit performance at the secondary image plane (“Fig. 3 illustrates longitudinal aberration graphs at the in-lens conjugate point 3,” Fig. 2 illustrates longitudinal aberration graphs representing an image forming performance of the wide-angle lens and shows that distortion, spherical aberration, and astigmatism are corrected well, thus Fig. 3 shows the sacrifice of the optical performance of spherical aberration, astigmatism, and distortion at the first image plane which benefits the performance of the spherical aberration, astigmatism, and distortion at the final image plane as shown in Fig. 2, paras [0038]-[0040], Figs. 2-3).
Therefore, 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 Kirejevas with the imaging system where the design of the objective lens and the relay optical system are further designed to sacrifice one or more optical performance attributes at the first image plane so as to benefit performance at the secondary image plane of Inoko, because it is possible to provide an imaging optical system which forms an intermediate image, the imaging optical system having a reduced size while sufficiently correcting distortion, and a projection-type image display apparatus and an image pickup apparatus using the imaging optical system (para [0015]).
As to claim 17, Kirejevas further teaches the system as in Claim 1 further comprising an outer dome having concentric spherical surfaces through which light enters the objective lens (34A-E, “the first primary lens 22 has a convex and spherical first surface 34,” a first lens assembly 10A, a second lens assembly 10B, a third lens assembly 10C, a fourth lens assembly 10D, and a fifth lens assembly 102 each having a first primary lens with a convex and spherical first surface 34A-34E, respectively. Figures 3 and 4 show the arrangement of the lens assemblies creates a dome having concentric spherical surface through which light enters the objective lens, paras [0085] and [0093]-[0098], Figs. 3-5).
Claims 2-4, 7-10, 18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirejevas et al., US 2019/0235214 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kirejevas; of record), in view of Inoko, US 2014/0036142 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Inoko; of record), and further in view of Ohashi, US 2005/0088762 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ohashi; of record).
As to claim 2, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein parallax is corrected by limiting a transverse component of a spherical aberration at an entrance pupil that favors image light from peripheral fields.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches (Figs. 1-10) an imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) for use in a low parallax (11, IR, IL, “image planes IR and IL are formed on the image pickup plane 11 in longitudinal alignment by the right- and left-optical path superwide-angle lens optical systems OSR and OSL having mutual parallaxes,” para [0110], Fig. 6) multi-lens imaging device (OSR, OSL, “two superwide-able lens optical systems set up as shown typically in Fig. 1 are assembled into a stereo-imaging unit as shown in Fig. 4… superwide-angle lens optical systems for the right and left optical paths are indicated at OSR and OSL,” para [0106]-[0107], Fig. 4), wherein parallax is corrected by limiting a transverse component of a spherical aberration at an entrance pupil that favors image light from peripheral fields (11, IR, IL, the relay lens group ensures efficient correction of aberrations of off-axis light beams, figure 3(a) shows the corrected spherical aberration, “image planes IR and IL are formed on the image pickup plane 11 in longitudinal alignment by the right- and left-optical path superwide-angle lens optical systems OSR and OSL having mutual parallaxes,” thus the parallax is corrected by correcting the off-axis spherical aberrations, paras [0034], [0096], and [0110], Figs. 3(a) and 6).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the system where parallax is corrected by limiting a transverse component of a spherical aberration at an entrance pupil that favors image light from peripheral fields of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 3, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach teaches the system wherein parallax is corrected by limiting a longitudinal width of the low-parallax volume.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches an imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein parallax is corrected by limiting a longitudinal width of the low-parallax volume (11, IL, IR, the image plane I is sized such that the longitudinal direction is 1.84 mm and the diameter of an image circle is 3.3 mm, image planes IR and IL are formed on the image pickup plane 11 in longitudinal alignment by the right- and left-optical path superwide-angle lens optical systems OSR and OSL having mutual parallaxes, thus the low-parallax volume is limited in a longitudinal width and parallax is corrected, paras [0093] and [0010], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the system where parallax is corrected by limiting a longitudinal width of the low-parallax volume of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 4, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach teaches the system wherein the field of view of the objective lens and a magnification of the relay optical system provide a target optical resolution at the secondary image plane.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches an imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein the field of view of the objective lens and a magnification of the relay optical system provide a target optical resolution at the secondary image plane (Ob, R1, the objective lens of the superwide-angle lens provides “an angle of view of about 120° in the horizontal direction and 90° in the vertical direction,” the condition 1<α<2 where α is the relay magnification of said relay lens group indicated the relay optical system is configured to magnify the image, an image plane I is the secondary image plane onto which the magnified image is magnified, and the image plane I is sized such that the lateral direction x the longitudinal direction is 2.75 mm x 1.84 mm, thus the a target optical resolution at the secondary image plane is provided, paras [0059]-[0060], [0090], [0093], and [0119], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the system where the field of view of the objective lens and a magnification of the relay optical system provide a target optical resolution at the secondary image plane of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 7, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein the relay optical system further includes a beam splitter configured to split incident light into a plurality of lights paths and a plurality of optical sensors, individual of the optical sensors being associated with individual of the plurality of light paths.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein the relay optical system further includes a beam splitter configured to split incident light into a plurality of lights paths (HM, a half-silvered mirror HM transmits light to rear lens subgroup RG21 and reflects light to rear lens subgroup RG22, para [0128], Fig. 10) and a plurality of optical sensors (101, 102, image pickup device 101 and image pickup device 102, para [0128], Fig. 10), individual of the optical sensors being associated with individual of the plurality of light paths (101, 102, the image pickup device 101 is an optical sensor associated with the light path through the rear lens subgroup RG21 and the image pickup device 102 is an optical sensor associated with the light path through the rear lens subgroup RG22, para [0128], Fig. 10).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system where the relay optical system further includes a beam splitter and a plurality of optical sensors of Ohashi, because doing so obtains a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 8, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and further in view of Ohashi teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein the relay optical system further includes one or more of zooming optics, focusing optics, galvo scanners, wavefront modulators, or optical filters.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein the relay optical system further includes one or more of zooming optics, focusing optics, galvo scanners, wavefront modulators, or optical filters (F, “just before the image plane I, there is located a filter F,” para [0090], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system where the relay optical system further includes the optical filter of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 9, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and further in view of Ohashi teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein the plurality of optical sensors comprise at least one of a visible image sensor, an infrared image sensor, an event sensor, a neuromorphic sensor, or a light field sensor.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein the plurality of optical sensors comprise at least one of a visible image sensor, an infrared image sensor, an event sensor, a neuromorphic sensor, or a light field sensor (101, 102, the image pickup device is a VGA, thus the image pickup device 101 and the image pickup device 102 are VGA image sensors. Note: VGA image sensors are CMOS sensors which fall under the category of visible image sensor or infrared image sensor, para [0120], Fig. 10).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system where the plurality of optical sensors comprise at least one of a visible image sensor or an infrared image sensor of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 10, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and further in view of Ohashi teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein a field of view for one of the plurality of optical sensors substantially matches a field of view for the image sensor, with respect to a field of view captured by the objective lens.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein a field of view for one of the plurality of optical sensors substantially matches a field of view for the image sensor, with respect to a field of view captured by the objective lens (101, 102, the image pickup device 101 is an optical sensor and the image pickup device 102 is an optical sensor, thus, because the image sensor is the optical sensor, the field of view of the optical sensors is substantially matched to the field of view of the image sensor, para [0128], Fig. 10).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system where a field of view for one of the plurality of optical sensors substantially matches a field of view for the image sensor of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 18, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kirejevas further teaches the system, wherein the objective lens is a first objective lens (22A, the objective lens 22 is a first objective lens 22A, para [0093], Fig. 7), comprising a first image channel (10A, “first lens assembly 10A,” para [0102], Fig. 7), the system further comprising: a second image channel adjacent the first image channel (10B, “second lens assembly 10B,” para [0102], Fig. 7) and comprising a second objective lens (22A, the second lens assembly 10B comprises a second objective lens 22A, para [0093], Fig. 7), the first and second image channels each coupled to a housing (“the camera lens system may comprise a frame or frame assembly supporting the different lenses in the camera lens system. The frame may comprise one or more walls, e.g. for optically separating at least parts of different lens assemblies,” thus the walls for optically separating at least parts of different lens assemblies are considered the housing, para [0064], Fig. 7), wherein the first housing and the second housing are separated by a seam width (as shown in the annotated figure 7 below the separation between the lens assemblies is a seam width, Fig. 7).
Kirejevas does not teach the relay optical system is a first relay optical system and a second relay optical system.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2), wherein the objective lens is a first objective lens (ObR, objective lens group on the right ObR, para [0125], Fig. 8), the relay optical system is a first relay optical system (R1R, relay lens group on the right R1R, para [0125], Fig. 8), and the first objective lens and the first relay optical system comprise a first image channel (OSR, the lens optical system on the right OSR is the first image channel, para [0125], Fig. 8), the system further comprising: a second image channel adjacent the first image channel (OSL, the lens optical system on the left OSL is the second image channel which is adjacent to the first image channel OSR, para [0125], Fig. 8) and comprising a second objective lens (ObL, the objective lens group on the left ObL, para [0125], Fig. 8) and a second relay optical system (R1L, relay lens group on the left R1L, para [0125], Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the relay optical system is a first relay optical system and a second relay optical system of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the imaging system wherein an aperture stop of the objective lens is imaged nominally to an aperture stop of the relay optical system.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) wherein an aperture stop of the objective lens is imaged nominally to an aperture stop of the relay optical system (S, FS, the objective lens group OB has an aperture stop S and a secondary field stop FS where the primary image-formation plane is formed by the objective lens group, para [0089], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system where an aperture stop of the objective lens is imaged nominally to an aperture stop of the relay optical system of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
As to claim 24, Kirejevas in view of Inoko teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Kirejevas does not teach the imaging system further comprising a display device proximate the secondary image plane, for displaying the magnified image as a projection display.
Kirejevas and Ohashi are related as imaging optical systems having a relay lens group.
However, Ohashi teaches the imaging system (“superwide-angle lens optical system,” para [0089], Figs. 1-2) further comprising a display device proximate the secondary image plane, for displaying the magnified image as a projection display (“a superwide-angle electronic imaging unit incorporating such an imaging unit, and a display unit comprising any one of the aforesaid superwide-angle lens optical systems and a display device located on its image side,” the arrangement comprising three inventive superwide-able lens optical systems of Example 1 has display devices located in place of three such image pickup devices making it possible to achieve a triple projection optical system, paras [0072, and [0146]-[0149], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 imaging system of Kirejevas with the imaging system further comprising a display device proximate the secondary image plane, for displaying the magnified image as a projection display of Ohashi, because it is thus possible to obtain a super-latitude camera having an enlarged dynamic range (para [0128]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirejevas et al., US 2019/0235214 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kirejevas; of record), in view of Inoko, US 2014/0036142 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Inoko; of record), in view of Ohashi, US 2005/0088762 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ohashi; of record), and further in view of Geerds, US 2014/0267596 A1 (hereinafter referred to Geerds; of record).
As to claim 19, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and further in view of Ohashi teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18.
Kirejevas does not teach the system, further comprising: a polygonal-shaped frame having a hollow center, wherein the first housing is coupled to a first face of the polygonal-shaped frame and the second housing is coupled to a second face of the polygonal-shaped frame, the second face being adjacent to the first face.
Kirejevas and Geerds are related as imaging systems having frames.
However, Geerds teaches a camera system (“camera system,” para [0066], Fig. 10) comprising: a polygonal-shaped frame having a hollow center (100, “the camera mounting frame may take the form of a polyhedron,” 100 is the mounting frame, comprised of six individual panels 101-106, “the mounting frame takes the form of an external support structure,” paras [0019], [0049], and [0066], Figs. 1 and 10), wherein the first housing is coupled to a first face of the polygonal-shaped frame (101, 110, 901, 910, 911, the individual panel 101 is the first face of the polygonal-shaped frame, “the individual cameras 110 are mounted according to the same pattern as Fig. 1,” thus camera 110 located at the first face 101 is the first housing coupled to the first face 101 of the frame via two prongs 910 and 911 that slide into the three prong holder 901, paras [0049] and [0066]-[0067], Figs. 1 and 10) and the second housing is coupled to a second face of the polygonal-shaped frame (102, 110, 901, 910, 911, the individual panel 102 is the second face of the polygonal-shaped frame, “the individual cameras 110 are mounted according to the same pattern as Fig. 1,” thus camera 110 located at the second face 102 is the second housing coupled to the second face 102 of the frame via two prongs 910 and 911 that slide into the three prong holder 901, paras [0049] and [0066]-[0067], Figs. 1 and 10), the second face being adjacent to the first face (101, 102, the individual plane 102 representing the second face of the frame is adjacent to the individual plane 101 representing the first face of the frame, para [0049], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 Kirejevas with the system comprising: a polygonal-shaped frame having a hollow center of Geerds, because the disclosed camera system is capable of providing a lightweight and compact solution to capture spherical and/or panoramic images and/or video, and the small, compact size decreases or reduces parallax errors to a manageable minimum (para [0070]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirejevas et al., US 2019/0235214 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kirejevas; of record), in view of Inoko, US 2014/0036142 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Inoko; of record), in view of Ohashi, US 2005/0088762 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ohashi; of record), in view of Geerds, US 2014/0267596 A1 (hereinafter referred to Geerds; of record), and further in view of Wallace, US 2017/0059966 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wallace; of record).
As to claim 20, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and Ohashi, and further in view of Geerds teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19.
Kirejevas does not teach the system wherein at least one of the first housing is coupled to the first face or the second housing is coupled to the second face using at least one of magnets, vee groves, flats, and alignment balls.
Kirejevas and Wallace are related as housing for an array of imaging systems.
However, Wallace teaches a camera system (100, 102, para [0029], “apparatus 100 comprises a camera array 102,” para [0029], Fig. 1A) wherein at least one of the first housing is coupled to the first face or the second housing is coupled to the second face using at least one of magnets, vee groves, flats, and alignment balls (152, 154, 156, camera retaining element 152 is moveably and detachably coupled to an adjacent camera retaining element 154 via a coupling element 156… various coupling elements such as but not limited to magnetic elements, snap fit, dove tail, ball and socket and the like can be used to attached the adjacent camera retaining elements to each other,” para [0035], Fig. 1).
Therefore, 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 Ohashi with the system where at least one of the first housing is coupled to the first face or the second housing is coupled to the second face using at least one of magnets, vee groves, flats, and alignment balls, because doing so provides adaptable, shape-changeable structures that can be used for assembling camera arrays which can be employed for generating images of a real-world environment (para [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 11, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and further in view of Ohashi teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7.
However, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the imaging system wherein the relay optical system further includes a depth sensing optical system including a laser range finding system including both a laser light source, one of the plurality of optical sensors, and beam shaping optics, in combination with the other limitations of claim 7.
In particular, Kirejevas teaches the imaging system for use in a low parallax multi-lens imaging device.
Although Inoko and Ohashi teach the relay optics, there is insufficient structural similarities between Kirejevas, Inoko, and Ohashi to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to include a depth sensing optical system including a laser range finding system including in the optical system of Kirejevas using the relay optics of Inoko or Ohashi.
Claims 12-16 are dependent on claim 11 and are allowable over the prior art of record for at least the same reasons as claim 11.
As to claim 21, Kirejevas in view of Inoko and Ohashi, and further in view of Geerds teach all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19.
However, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the imaging system, wherein the first relay optical system extends at least partially into the hollow center and through an opening in a face of the polygonal-shaped frame opposite the first face, in combination with the other limitations of claim 21.
In particular, Kirejevas teaches the imaging system for use in a low parallax multi-lens imaging device.
Although Inoko and Ohashi teach the relay optical system, and Geerds teaches the polygonal-shaped frame, there is insufficient structural similarities between Kirejevas, Inoko, Ohashi, and Geerds to motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to extends the relay optical systems of Inoko or Ohashi at least partially into and through an opening in a face of the polygonal shaped frame of Geerds.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 21 and is allowable over the prior art of record for at least the same reasons as claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems.”
Gross teaches (pages 191-193, section 30.16, Figs. 30-111 through 30-114) that vignetting is phenomenon that occurs in optical systems with large field of view because transmission is a function of the field size and wavelength.
Gross further teaches (pages 377-378) that moving a stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (page 378 suggestion 12, and page 378 section 33.1.4 operation 8). Moving the stop position changes the path of the chief ray and influences the oblique field aberrations (page 378 suggestion 12) while leaving the focal power of the system unchanged (section 33.1.4 “zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross further teaches (pages 220-221, section 31.1.6, Fig. 31-5) that stop positioning influences can further influence the vignetting. Gross teaches that moving the stop position can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Yoshikawa (US 2006/114332 A1) teaches an image apparatus with multiple image pickup units that overlap images without causing parallax. However, Yoshikawa does not teach the laser range finding system or the first relay optical system extending into a hollow center of a frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights