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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding the term “partial optical lens” as recited throughout the claims, the examiner is interpreting a partial optical lens to be a lens that has had a substantial portion removed from it, based on Fig. 5B, wherein the first and second magnification modules are comprised of lens that have had a substantial portion removed from it. This interpretation is reasonable and well within the grasp of the ordinarily skilled and consistent the broadest reasonable interpretation as is required be the MPEP §2111.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. The amendments to the claims were sufficient to overcome the 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) and interpretation(s) of claims 5-6 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and § 112(f) have been fully considered and are appreciated, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the amendments provide clear structural context and remove any ambiguities regarding the claimed features. However, it is still unclear what is meant by generating image data representing each magnification arranged side-by-side – it is unclear if the image data are images being displayed or if the image data is pixel values being stored in a spreadsheet, and in the case that the image data are images being displayed, it is unclear what is displaying the images, see 112(b) rejection below. Additionally, regarding the function of “selecting” among the first and second magnifications, the term “processor” is still a generic term, therefore, claims 4 and 18 still recite means-plus-function limitations. However, with the interpretation of claims 5-6 and 19 in the 112(b) rejection below, a 112(f) interpretation is not currently being applied to claims 5-6 and 19.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Baumann have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Baumann. Applicant argues that Baumann does not disclose the “common magnification module is arranges to receive light simultaneously from the first magnification module and the second magnification module” and that instead, Baumann discloses “the field of view sectors can be imaged quickly, one after the other, on the total area of the detector” and that a beam deflecting element “successively deflects beams from different pupil areas”. However, besides the beam deflecting element, which is the only element causing the light to not arrive at the common magnification module simultaneously, the rest of the structure is the same. It has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before only involves routine skill in the art. Ex parte Wu 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1989); In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A). In the instant case, omitted element would not be required in that its removal solely eliminates its function of successively deflecting beams from each of the first and second magnification module onto the common magnification module, which is not desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to omit the beam deflecting element.
The examiner would like to note that according to Fig. 5B and ¶0042-¶0048 of the instant application disclosure, it is inferred that the light passing through each of the first and second magnification modules simultaneously arrives at the sensor as two images on two different, non-overlapping portions of the sensor, especially when noting “due to use of approximately half of the sensor imaging area for each optical magnification image” in ¶0048. While Baumann can be modified such that the light from both magnification modules arrive at the common magnification module simultaneously through the omission of the beam deflecting element, Baumann is still directed towards each field of view sector being imaged on the total area of the detector (col. 1 lines 49-54). Therefore, if the independent claims 1 and 15 were amended in such a way to convey that the light passing through each of the first and second magnification modules simultaneously arrives at the sensor as two images on two different, non-overlapping portions of the sensor, the current rejection under Baumann would be overcome and any further modification to Baumann to read on this aspect of the invention would cause the device of Baumann to no longer function as intended.
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 5-6 and 18-19 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 claims 5-6 and 19, the limitations “the processor is further configured to generate image data representing the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object arranged side-by-side vertically/horizontally,” and “the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are output as image data arranged side-by-side vertically or horizontally,” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what is meant by the image data being arranged side-by-side vertically or horizontally – it is unclear if this means two images are being displayed, or if rows and columns of pixel values are being recorded in a spreadsheet such as Excel, etc. In the case that the two images are being displayed, it is unclear what they are being displayed on – are they being displayed on a display screen, or are they being printed out? In claim 19, there is a further lack of clarity about what is outputting the first and second magnifications of the object as image data, since there is no processor claimed. The claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what structural elements are displaying the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object. Since the recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e. the processor, sensor, and magnification modules are not inherently display elements or data storage elements, it is unclear whether the image data being arranged requires some other structure or is simply a result of the arrangement of components. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. It has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g).
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the processor is further configured to display, on a display screen, an image of the first magnification of the object and an image of the second magnification of the object” in claims 5-6, and “the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are displayable, on a display screen, side-by-side vertically or horizontally” in claim 19.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are provided as respective image data signals that are selectable for output” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what is selecting the first and second magnifications of the object, providing them as image data signals, and outputting the image data signals. The claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what structural elements are performing these functions. Since the recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e. the sensor and magnification modules are not inherently elements that can perform functions of selecting, providing as signals, and outputting signals, it is unclear whether these functions require some other structure or is simply a result of the arrangement of components. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. It has been held “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see MPEP 2173.05(g).
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are provided as respective image data signals that are selectable for output by a processor.”
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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:
“a processor…to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object” in claim 4
“the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are selectable for output by a processor” in claim 18
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
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) 1-3, 7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6005721 A), hereinafter Baumann.
Regarding independent claim 1, Baumann discloses a camera assembly, comprising:
a first magnification module (44; Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a first set of at least one partial optical lens (Fig. 4);
a second magnification module (46; Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a second set of at least one partial optical lens (Fig. 4), wherein the first set of the at least one partial optical lens and the second set of the at least one partial optical lens are aligned along their respective cut lines (Fig. 4);
a common magnification module (40; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a third set of at least one complete optical lens (Figs. 1, 4), wherein the common magnification module (40) is arranged to receive light from the first magnification module (44) and the second magnification module (46) (Fig. 4); and
a sensor (42; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) to receive light from the common magnification module (40) (Figs. 1, 4).
Baumann does not disclose the common magnification module is arranged to receive light simultaneously from the first magnification module and the second magnification module.
However, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before only involves routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to omit the beam deflecting element 36. The omitted element would not be required in that its removal solely eliminates its function of successively deflecting beams from each of the first and second magnification module onto the common magnification module. Ex parte Wu 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1989); In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to omit the beam deflecting element for the purpose of having the light from each magnification module reach the image sensor simultaneously and since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Baumann further discloses a biprism (any two sides of 14; Fig. 1; col. 2 line 57 – col. 3 line 2) to adjust fields of view (FOVs) of the first magnification module (44) and the second magnification module (46) to capture at least a portion of a common scene (inherent, the light arriving at the biprism would necessarily come from the same scene; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Baumann further discloses the first set of the at least one partial optical lens (44; Fig. 4) and the second set of the at least one partial optical lens (46; Fig. 4) comprise half-cut optical lenses (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Baumann further discloses the first set of the at least one partial optical lens (44), the second set of the at least one partial optical lens (46), and the third set of the at least one complete optical lens (40) each comprise a concave optical lens, a convex optical lens, a piano-concave optical lens, a piano-convex optical lens, or a concave-convex optical lens (Fig. 4).
Regarding independent claim 15, Baumann discloses a lens assembly, comprising:
a first magnification module (44; Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a first set of at least one partial optical lens (Fig. 4);
a second magnification module (46; Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a second set of at least one partial optical lens (Fig. 4), wherein the first set of the at least one partial optical lens and the second set of the at least one partial optical lens are aligned along their respective cut lines (Fig. 4); and
a common magnification module (40; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) comprising a third set of at least one complete optical lens (Figs. 1, 4), wherein the common magnification module (40) is arranged to receive light from the first magnification module (44) and the second magnification module (46) (Fig. 4), and to provide the light to a camera sensor (42; Figs. 1, 4; col. 4 lines 3-23).
Baumann does not disclose the common magnification module is arranged to receive light simultaneously from the first magnification module and the second magnification module.
However, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before only involves routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(II)(A). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to omit the beam deflecting element 36. The omitted element would not be required in that its removal solely eliminates its function of successively deflecting beams from each of the first and second magnification module onto the common magnification module. Ex parte Wu 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1989); In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to omit the beam deflecting element for the purpose of having the light from each magnification module reach the image sensor simultaneously and since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Baumann discloses the lens assembly of claim 15, as set forth above. Baumann further discloses a biprism (any two sides of 14; Fig. 1; col. 2 line 57 – col. 3 line 2) to adjust fields of view (FOVs) of the first magnification module (44) and the second magnification module (46) to capture at least a portion of a common scene (inherent, the light arriving at the biprism would necessarily come from the same scene; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Baumann discloses the lens assembly of claim 15. Baumann further discloses the first set of the at least one partial optical lens (44; Fig. 4) and the second set of the at least one partial optical lens (46; Fig. 4) comprise half-cut optical lenses (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 6005721 A) in view of Photoshop ("Adobe Photoshop Help." Adobe, 2019.).
Regarding claim 4, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above, Baumann further discloses the first magnification module (44) provides a first magnification of an object (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23), the second magnification module (46) provides a second magnification of the object (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23), and the camera assembly further comprises a processor configured to receive image data from the sensor (42) (inherent from col. 3 lines 46-50).
Baumann does not disclose the processor is configured to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object, since with the omission of beam deflecting element 36, the light received simultaneously from the first magnification module and the second magnification module would be superimposed at the image sensor.
However, Photoshop teaches multiple photo editing tools. A processor can separate two superimposed images into separate images through the use of these tools by utilizing blend modes, such as Difference and Subtract, or selection tools, such as Lasso or Selection Brush, in a photo editing software (Chapters 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate a processor with software as taught by Photoshop that can separate superimposed images such that the processor is configured to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object for the purpose of having two separate images of each magnification.
Regarding claim 18, Baumann discloses the lens assembly of claim 15, as set forth above. Baumann further discloses wherein the first magnification module (44) provides a first magnification of an object (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23), and the second magnification module (46) provides a second magnification of the object (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 3-23) and further comprises a processor (inherent from col. 3 lines 46-50).
Baumann does not disclose such that the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are selectable for presentation by the processor, since with the omission of beam deflecting element 36, the light received simultaneously from the first magnification module and the second magnification module would be superimposed at the image sensor.
However, Photoshop teaches multiple photo editing tools. A processor can separate two superimposed images into separate images through the use of these tools by utilizing blend modes, such as Difference and Subtract, or selection tools, such as Lasso or Selection Brush, in a photo editing software (Chapters 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate a processor with software as taught by Photoshop that can separate superimposed images such that the processor is configured to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object for the purpose of having two separate images of each magnification.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 6005721 A) in view of Photoshop ("Adobe Photoshop Help." Adobe, 2019.) and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 20210405322 A1), hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Baumann in view of Photoshop discloses the camera assembly of claim 4, including the processor being able to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object, as set forth above. Baumann and Photoshop do not explicitly state the processor is further to display on a display screen the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object side-by-side arranged vertically, as required by claim 5, or the processor is further to display on a display screen the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object side-by-side arranged horizontally.
However, Zheng teaches a camera assembly comprising a lens assembly (Fig. 1) and a display screen (110; Fig. 1; ¶0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann in view of Photoshop to incorporate a display for the purpose of being able to display the images taken with the camera assembly.
Neither Baumann nor Zheng disclose the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are displayed side-by-side vertically. However, there are only a few possibilities as to how to display the first and second magnifications of the object – either one at a time, side-by-side vertically, or side-by-side horizontally1. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object side-by-side vertically, as required by claim 5, or horizontally, as required by claim 6, since there are only a few possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp for the purpose of efficiently displaying the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object.
Regarding claim 19, Baumann in view of Photoshop discloses the lens assembly of claim 18, including the processor being able to select among the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object, as set forth above. Baumann and Photoshop do not explicitly state the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are displayable side-by-side vertically or horizontally.
However, Zheng teaches a camera assembly comprising a lens assembly (Fig. 1) and a display (110; Fig. 1; ¶0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann in view of Photoshop to incorporate a display for the purpose of being able to display the images taken with the camera assembly.
Neither Baumann nor Zheng disclose the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object are displayable side-by-side vertically or horizontally. However, there are only a few possibilities as to how to display the first and second magnifications of the object – either one at a time, side-by-side vertically, or side-by-side horizontally. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object side-by-side vertically or horizontally since there are only a few possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp for the purpose of efficiently displaying the first magnification of the object and the second magnification of the object.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 6005721 A) in view of Ye et al. (US 20220299734 A1), hereinafter Ye.
Regarding claim 8, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Baumann does not disclose at least one of the first magnification module, the second magnification module, or the common magnification module comprise at least one of an optical filter, a polarizer, or a quarter wave plate.
However, Ye teaches a camera assembly with a common magnification module (Fig. 1) comprising at least one complete optical lens (Fig. 1) and further comprising an optical filter (E6; Fig. 1; ¶0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate the optical filter of Ye for the purpose of correcting the color deviation (¶0070 of Ye).
Regarding claim 9, Baumann discloses the camera assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Baumann does not explicitly state the third set of the at least one complete optical lens is to provide at least one of spherical aberration correction, chromatics aberration correction, distortion correction, or flattening.
However, Ye teaches a camera assembly with a common magnification module (Fig. 1) comprising at least one complete optical lens (Fig. 1), wherein at least one complete optical lens is to provide spherical aberration correction (¶0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate the spherical aberration correction of Ye for the purpose of providing good image quality (¶0056 of Ye).
Regarding claim 20, Baumann discloses the lens assembly of claim 15, as set forth above. Baumann does not explicitly state the third set of the at least one complete optical lens is to provide at least one of spherical aberration correction, chromatics aberration correction, distortion correction, or flattening.
However, Ye teaches a lens assembly with a common magnification module (Fig. 1) comprising at least one complete optical lens (Fig. 1), wherein at least one complete optical lens is to provide spherical aberration correction (¶0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumann to incorporate the spherical aberration correction of Ye for the purpose of providing good image quality (¶0056 of Ye).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 27th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Further, the terms “horizontally” and “vertically” are not interpreted to mean a particular direction since no frame of reference is established, however “horizontally” and “vertically” are interpreted to mean perpendicularly to each other.