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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims [4, 6 -8, 14 and 16-18] are objected to because of the following informalities, claims [4 and 6-8] depends directly or indirectly on cancelled claim [3], and claims [14, and 16-18] depends directly or indirectly on a cancelled claim [13]. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) [ 1-4-7, 9-11, 14-17 and 20-21] 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) [1, 4-5, 9, 11, 14-15 and 21] are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by He(US. 2009/0128664).
Reclaim [1], He discloses A multi-directional digital camera (see for example fig.1 and ¶0030, The lens assemblies may be oriented in different physical configurations.) comprising: a light sensor capable of converting incoming light beams into an electrical signal output representing an imaged scene (see 103 fig. 1); one or more multi-mode optical path controlling elements (see for example 105, fig. 1, see ¶0034, The switchable mirror 105 has electronically controllable states of varying reflectivity. For instance, in one embodiment, the switchable mirror 105 has both a reflective state and a pellucid state. In the reflective state, the switchable mirror 105 operates as a reflective surface and resembles a glass or metallic mirror. In the pellucid state, the switchable mirror 105 becomes translucently clear--essentially like glass--transmitting substantially all incident light 104), each having at least two operation modes including (a) a first operation mode in which the multi-mode optical path controlling element reflects the light beams directed thereon (see ¶0034, the reflective state, the switchable mirror 105 operates as a reflective surface) , and (b) a second operation mode in which the multi-mode optical path controlling element enables passage of the light beams directed thereon (see ¶0034, In the pellucid state, the switchable mirror 105 becomes translucently clear--essentially like glass--transmitting substantially all incident light 104); a controller configured to selectively change the imaged scene by selectively changing an optical path of the light beams (see 108 fig. 1, and ¶0035, The controller 108, in one embodiment, is configured to electronically alter the switchable mirror 105 to either a reflective state or a pellucid state), wherein changing the optical path is made by changing the operation modes of one or more of the multi-mode optical path controlling elements, at least one of the one or more multi-mode optical path controlling elements comprises an electrically switchable transflective mirror (see ¶0035, The controller 108, which may be any of a microprocessor, application specific circuit, programmable logic device, or equivalent, is capable of electronically switching the switchable mirror 105 to a desired state of reflectivity. The controller 108, in one embodiment, is configured to electronically alter the switchable mirror 105 to either a reflective state or a pellucid state. In accordance with embodiments of the invention, and where the controller 108); wherein said multi-directional digital camera further comprises at least two optical elements configured for forming an image of said imaged scene (see 102, 104 fig. 1); said at least two optical elements being distinctly oriented to each other (see 102 and 104 are adjacently oriented for example as depicted in fig. 1 and ¶0030, the lens assemblies may be oriented in different physical configurations); said one or more multi-mode optical path controlling elements is configured for translating optical beams along from said two or more optical elements to said light sensor (see ¶0044, When the switchable mirror 105 is in the pellucid state, light 104 from another of the first lens assembly 101 or the second lens assembly 102 passes through the switchable mirror 105 to the image sensor 103. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, when the switchable mirror 105 is in the pellucid state, light 104 reflects off the reflective surface 106 and then passes through the switchable mirror 105 to the image sensor 103 along optical path 107).
Reclaim [4], He further discloses, wherein the optical elements are one or more lenses, each positioned on an optical path of a respective light beam (see .101, 102, fig. 1).
Reclaim [5], He further discloses, further comprising one or more reflective elements (see 106 fig. 1), each positioned on the optical path of a respective light beam redirecting the respective light beam into a respective optical element or into the light sensor (see ¶0047, The reflective surface 106 is disposed so as to redirect light from the second lens assembly 102 to the image sensor 103 along optical path 107) .
Reclaim [9], He further discloses wherein the light sensor is a CMOS sensor (see ¶0032, . image sensors include charge coupled devices or CMOS sensors) .
Reclaim [11], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [1] above , and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [14], except its dependency has substantially same limitation as claim [4] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [15], except its dependency has substantially same limitation as claim [5] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [21], claim 21 is a program for performing a function of claim [1] and steps of claim [11], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) [6-7, 10, 16-17 and 20] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He(US. 2009/0128664) in view of Suda (US. 2004/0155976).
Reclaim [6] He doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to cause movement of the optical elements.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Suda discloses an image processing system as He (see for example Suda figs. 1-3). Suda further discloses a controller further configured to cause movement of optical elements (see ¶¶ 0081 and 0086, When the defocus amount is detected, this defocus amount is converted to an amount of driving of the focusing lens which is an element of the image taking optical system 103 and sent to the le system control circuit 141 through the camera system control circuit 135. [ by the virtu moving the focusing lens]).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivate to modify He before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , for example by incorporating the system of Suda in the system of He, since this would allow to capture a focused image, and thereby enhancing usability.
Reclaim [7] He doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to cause movement of the optical elements in synchronicity with a desired setup of the operational modes of the multi-mode optical path controlling elements.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Suda discloses an image processing system as He (see for example Suda fig. 2). Suda further discloses a controller is further configured to cause movement of the optical elements in synchronicity with a desired setup of the operational modes of the multi-mode optical path controlling elements (see Suda ¶¶ 0086, 0105, When the defocus amount is detected, this defocus amount is converted to an amount of driving of the focusing lens which is an element of the image taking optical system 103 and sent to the lens system control circuit 141 through the camera system control circuit 135. [when focusing is performed during the second optical path state as depicted in fig. 2]).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivate to modify He before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , for example by incorporating the system of Suda in the device of He since this would allow to capture a focused image, and thereby enhancing usability.
Reclaim [10] He doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses, further comprising one or more prisms, designed to redirect the light beam perpendicularly to a respective optical element.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Suda discloses an image processing system as He (see for example Suda fig. 2). Suda further discloses one or more prisms, designed to redirect the light beam perpendicularly to a respective optical element (see 12 fig. 3).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivate to modify He before the effective filling date of the claimed invention , for example by incorporating the system of Suda in the device of He since this would allow to capture a focused image, and thereby enhancing usability.
Reclaim [16], except its dependency has substantially same limitation as claim [6] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [17], except its dependency has substantially same limitation as claim [7] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [20], except its dependency has substantially same limitation as claim [10] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [8 and 18] 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639