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
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 11/12/2025.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1-9 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 11 has/have been added; Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 1/13/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title is withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 6).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case that the claim term "image processing unit" invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”, the Applicant merely concludes “fails to establish a prima facie case” without providing any particular reasons to support the argument. Thus, the claim term "image processing unit" invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is maintained for the reasons presented in the claim interpretation section.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant is arguing that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the allowable subject matter of claim 5 together with the intervening subject matter of claim 4. Thus, claim 1 is allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 5.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 is not rewritten in dependent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as required. Thus, claim 1 as filed is not allowable and Bagaria still teaches the features as claimed in current claim 1 (please see in the rejections below for details). The above argument is also applied to claim 9 since claim 9 recites features corresponding to claim 1.
Moreover, the Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) on 1/13/2026 also prompts the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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:
“image processing unit” in claim(s) 11.
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 § 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) 1-5 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 (Fig. 2);
a second optical system including a second aperture stop (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 driving of the first optical system and second optical system (Fig. 3),
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 (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).
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 4, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes a lens that moves during focusing (Fig. 2; page 15, lines 45-53).
Regarding claim 5, Shintani teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 4, 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(s) 1, 4-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kajimura (JP-2015060048-A; IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kajimura teaches An optical apparatus (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a first optical system including a first aperture stop (Fig. 2);
a second optical system including a second aperture stop (Fig. 2; 2a/2b);
at least one processor (11); 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 driving of the first optical system and second optical system (page 6, line 55 – page 7, line 4),
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. 2; page 7, lines 36-49; one/both is served to focus on targets), to be smaller than a F-number in the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system (page 6, line 55 – page 7, line 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kajimura teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes a lens that moves during focusing (Figs. 2, 5-6; page 2, line 54 – page 3, line 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kajimura teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 4, 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 (Figs. 2, 5-6; page 2, line 54 – page 3, line 7; page 5, line 38 – page 6, line 57; optical systems 2a-2d have different focal lengths and different focus states; thus, positions of the focus lenses different from each other).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 10, Kajimura teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 2; page 10, lines 22-35) storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 9 (as presented above).
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagaria et al (US 20190138259 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bagaria teaches An optical apparatus (Figs. 3-8; para. 0039: “different LDR images for HDR imaging may be captured by different camera sensors of a multiple camera module (such as a dual camera)”) comprising:
a first optical system including a first aperture stop (para. 0025: “adjust an exposure value (and thus the amount of light measured by a camera sensor) by adjusting the camera shutter speed, adjusting the camera sensor sensitivity (e.g., measured in ISO), and/or adjusting the camera aperture size”);
a second optical system including a second aperture stop (para. 0066);
at least one processor; 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 driving of the first optical system and second optical system, wherein an optical axis of the first optical system and an optical axis of the second optical system are separated from each other (para. 0039: “different LDR images for HDR imaging may be captured by different camera sensors of a multiple camera module (such as a dual camera)”), 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 (one/both is served to focus on targets), to be smaller than a F-number in the other one of the first optical system and the second optical system (para. 0066: “if the exposure value for capturing the reference LDR image is stop or f-value 0, the device may use a static difference of 6 stops to determine the exposure value for capturing an underexposed LDR image (such as stop or f-value −6) and to determine the exposure value capturing an overexposed LDR image (such as stop or f-value+6)”; para. 0049: “instead of the second exposure value being a static number of stops away from the first exposure value, the second exposure value may be based on a difference between the initial exposure value and the first exposure value”).
Regarding claim 3, Bagaria 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 (Fig. 6; paras. 0042, 0047-0051; the aperture difference is based on preview video images).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 10, Bagaria teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (para. 0042) storing a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 9 (as presented above).
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagaria et al (US 20190138259 A1) in view of Shintani (JP 2016143915 A; IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Bagaria teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the control unit determines whether the first optical system is the focus reference optical system.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shintani teaches
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).
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 Shintani in Bagaria to have wherein the control unit determines whether the first optical system is the focus reference optical system for optimizing AF processing on multiple subjects utilizing multiple optical systems allowing all the subjects to be in focus in obtained images yielding a predicted result.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagaria et al (US 20190138259 A1) in view of Koishi (US 20150022712 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bagaria 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 Bagaria 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 Bagaria et al (US 20190138259 A1) in view of Murakami et al (US 20210088893 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bagaria 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 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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagaria et al (US 20190138259 A1) in view of Murakami et al (US 20210088893 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bagaria 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 Bagaria 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.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bagaria and Murakami teaches everything as claimed in claim 8. In addition, Bagaria teaches 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 (Fig. 5; paras. 0039, 0042, 0047).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/13/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 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