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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 has been entered.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1 and 9 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 4 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 regarding Kajimura and Bagaria have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, the Applicant is arguing in the remarks that “In contrast, the present invention does not make the depths of field of the first and second optical systems equivalent, but improves focusing accuracy by making the depth of field of one optical system serving as a focusing reference shallower than that of the other optical system, specifically by setting the F-number of one optical system smaller than that of the other optical system. Thus, both the purpose and the manner of differentiating the F-numbers are completely different from those of Shintani. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is allowable over Shintani for at least the reasons noted above.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Shintani sets different apertures for two optical systems 11 & 21 to perform a depth synthesis process. Thus, two different apertures would result in the depth of field of one is shallower than the other. Therefore, Shintani does teach wherein the control unit sets a F-number in one of the first optical system and the second optical system, which serves as a focus reference optical system (Fig. 12; page 8, lines 2-22; step S116 determines whether optical system 11/21 is the reference optical system that is going to be used for focusing at S120), to be smaller than a F-number in the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system, such that a depth of field of the one of the first optical system and the second optical system serving as the focus reference optical system is shallower than a depth of field of the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system (Figs. 3, 7-8; page 9, line 22 – page 10, line 14; set different apertures for two optical systems 11 & 21 to perform a depth synthesis process; two different apertures would result in the depth of field of one is shallower than the other) as claimed in claim 1 and also claim 9.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shintani (JP 2016143915 A; IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Shintani teaches An optical apparatus (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a first optical system including a first aperture stop and a lens that moves during focusing (Fig. 2; page 15, lines 45-53);
a second optical system including a second aperture stop and a lens that moves during focusing (Fig. 2; of 21 & 11);
at least one processor (17, 25); and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to function as: a control unit configured to control an F-number of the first optical system and second optical system (Fig. 3; set different apertures for two optical systems 11 & 21 to perform a depth synthesis process),
wherein an optical axis of the first optical system and an optical axis of the second optical system are separated from each other (Fig. 2), and
wherein the control unit sets a F-number in one of the first optical system and the second optical system, which serves as a focus reference optical system (Fig. 12; page 8, lines 2-22; step S116 determines whether optical system 11/21 is the reference optical system that is going to be used for focusing at S120), to be smaller than a F-number in the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system, such that a depth of field of the one of the first optical system and the second optical system serving as the focus reference optical system is shallower than a depth of field of the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system (Figs. 3, 7-8; page 9, line 22 – page 10, line 14; set different apertures for two optical systems 11 & 21 to perform a depth synthesis process; two different apertures would result in the depth of field of one is shallower than the other).
Regarding claim 2, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determines whether the first optical system is the focus reference optical system (Fig. 12; page 8, lines 2-22; step S116 determines whether optical system 11/21 is the reference optical system that is going to be used for focusing at S120).
Regarding claim 3, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit changes a difference between the F-numbers of the first optical system and the second optical system during moving image capturing (Figs. 3, 7-8; page 9, line 22 – page 10, line 14; set different apertures for two optical systems 11 & 21 to perform a depth synthesis process based on AF processing).
Regarding claim 5, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls a movement of the lens in each of the first optical system and the second optical system so as to make positions of the lenses different from each other (page 10, lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 10, Shintani teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 2; page 16, lines 36-55) storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 9 (as presented above).
Regarding claim 11, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the optical apparatus includes an image processing unit that generates moving image data having a wider dynamic range than each of first moving image data and second moving image data, by using the first moving image data generated by imaging through the first optical system and the second moving image data generated by imaging through the second optical system (page 12, line 48 – page 13, line 36; HDR live view processing).
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 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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani (JP 2016143915 A; IDS) in view of Koishi (US 20150022712 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shintani teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the control unit corrects a position of the lens in the other optical system based on data about a focus moving amount against a change in the F-number.
However, in the same field of endeavor Koishi teaches
wherein the control unit corrects a position of the lens in the other optical system based on data about a focus moving amount against a change in the F-number (paras. 0243-0244).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Koishi in Shintani to have wherein the control unit corrects a position of the lens in the other optical system based on data about a focus moving amount against a change in the F-number for optimizing focus adjustment at different depth of field yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani (JP 2016143915 A; IDS) in view of Murakami et al (US 20210088893 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shintani teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the optical apparatus is attachable to and detachable from an image pickup apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor Murakami teaches
wherein the optical apparatus is attachable to and detachable from an image pickup apparatus (Fig. 6; paras. 0039-0041; lens apparatus 200 is an interchangeable lens that can be attached to and detached from the camera body 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Murakami in Shintani to have wherein the optical apparatus is attachable to and detachable from an image pickup apparatus for enabling interchangeable capability to switch different lens system with different capabilities improving system flexibilities yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shintani (JP 2016143915 A; IDS) in view of Murakami et al (US 20210088893 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shintani teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising an image sensor that performs imaging through the first optical system and the second optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Murakaimi teaches
further comprising an image sensor that performs imaging through the first optical system and the second optical system (Fig. 6; para. 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Murakaimi in Shintani to have further comprising an image sensor that performs imaging through the first optical system and the second optical system for utilizing one shared image sensor to perform imaging through two optical systems optimizing space and connections yielding a predicted result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parulski et al (US 20080218611 A1): the secondary still image is used to enhance the depth of field of the primary image, for instance, where the secondary still image is used to provide an enhancement signal that can be used to sharpen portions of the primary still image that are positioned near the secondary focus distance (Fig. 14; para. 0118).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights