CTFR 18/441,984 CTFR 93146 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-13 are pending and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Previous 35 USC 112 Rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 current measuring/measurement device” in claims 1 and 13. 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 § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 2-5, the limitation “in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source…increase…” (in claims 2-5) is not disclosed in the specification. Although the specification discloses the amount-of-light controller 34 drives each light source of the light source unit 20 with a drive current value larger than a target drive current value C0…so that the target integrated amount of light is obtained within the global exposure period ([0067]), the specification does not link the drive current value being larger than a target drive current value with increasing the amount of light emission (as described in [0070]). Therefore claims 2-5 fail to comply with the written description requirement. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-13 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitations “a current measuring device” and “a current measurement device” (in claims 1 and 13) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discusses a drive current measuring device that measures the drive current in [0054]. However, the specification does not disclose what the drive current measuring device is . Dependent claims 2-12 are rejected for depending on claim 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (US 2018/0330659), in view of Nishio (US 2018/0140173) . Regarding claim 1, Oki discloses an endoscope system (endoscopic device [0044]) comprising: a current measuring device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f; however, the specification does not disclose what the drive current measuring device is | light source drive circuit 310…adjusting a drive current to each of the light sources [0049]; the Examiner interpreted the drive circuit is capable of determining the drive current for each of the light source in order to adjust it) ; at least one light source (300, figure 1) having a semiconductor light emitting element (see 130, figure 1 | semiconductor laser, laser diode…[0047]); a photodetector (150, figure 1 | photodiode [0050]) that receives a part of light from the light source and detects received light ([0050]); and one or more processors (control unit 330, figure 1; process of…[0082]) configured to: set a target drive current value of the light source in advance (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062]); determine a drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source based on the drive current value received from the current measurement device (see s54, figure 9 | predetermined reference values…maximum drive currents [0068]; figure 4) ; cause the light source to emit illumination light with an amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value (drive currents…detection values [0066]). Oki is silent regarding set a target integrated amount of light in advance; in a light emission period of the light source that is shorter than a determined exposure period; acquire an amount of received light from the photodetector for each certain period a plurality of times within the light emission period based on the amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value; calculate a cumulative amount of light by summing the amount of light emission of the plurality of times for each certain period, based on the amount of received light; turn off the illumination light for a predetermined period in a case in which a total value of the cumulative amounts of light reaches the target integrated amount of light; acquire a captured image obtained by imaging an observation target during the light emission period; and generate one observation image from a plurality of the captured images acquired for each light emission period. Nishio teaches an endoscope system (10, figure 2a) with an observation system ([0029]) and a detector (65a, figure 2b). The control of the light amount of the illumination light is based on the integrated light amount ([0060] and [0063]). The integrated light amount is the product of the intensity of the pulse P1 and the output period and is calculated by an illumination controller ([0063]). If the integrated light amount is the maximum integrated light amount, the illumination controller increases/decreases the integrated light amount by increasing/decreasing the output period and thereby increasing/decreasing the integrated light amount ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the system of Oki to have an illumination controller (100, figure 2b) and detector (65a, figure 2b) that uses integrated light amounts to control the illumination light as taught by Nishio ([0060] and [0063]). Doing so would provide modulated illumination that keeps the intensity of the illumination light constant ([0054]). The modified system would have set a target integrated amount of light in advance (maximum integrated light amount…[0063]; Nishio) ; in a light emission period of the light source that is shorter than a determined exposure period (see point A1 and A2, figure 4a); acquire an amount of received light from the photodetector for each certain period a plurality of times within the light emission period based on the amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value (150, figure 1; Oki | detector 65a, figure 2b; detecting the luminance value [0042]; Nishio) ; calculate a cumulative amount of light by summing the amount of light emission of the plurality of times for each certain period (integrated light amount…output period…point A1 to the point A2 [0063]; Nishio), based on the amount of received light; turn off the illumination light for a predetermined period in a case in which a total value of the cumulative amounts of light reaches the target integrated amount of light (decreasing the output period [0063]; Nishio); acquire a captured image obtained by imaging an observation target during the light emission period (230, figure 1; [0079]; Oki); and generate one observation image from a plurality of the captured images acquired for each light emission period (generated image…[0079]; Oki). Regarding claim 3, Oki further discloses in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see s214, s234, or s254, figure 10 are maximum drive currents; Oki) , the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value increased from the target drive current value by a fixed value (output levels (1 to N)…may gradually increase…. [0086]; Oki | interpreted the increase can be a fixed value/number | interpreted increase in the drive current value to also be the determined drive current value). Regarding claim 6, Nishio further teaches the one or more processors are configured to set a light emission timing of the illumination light in accordance with an end of the determined exposure period (decreasing the output period [0063]; Nishio). Regarding claim 8, Oki further discloses the one or more processors are configured to: acquire a variation between a set value of the target drive current value and an actual measurement value of a drive current transmitted to the light source (see s54 and s56, figure Oki); and sets a lower limit value of the drive current value based on the variation (s58, figure 9 | minimum value…[0086]). Regarding claim 9, Oki further discloses the one or more processors are configured to determine a method of increasing the drive current value with respect to the target drive current value according to the lower limit value (see figure 9; output levels may gradually increase….[0086]; Oki). Regarding claim 10, Oki further discloses the one or more processors are configured to control exposure of light incident into an imaging sensor (230, figure 1; Oki | CCD [0079]). Oki and Nishio are silent regarding through a shutter control in a state where the light source continues to emit light. Nishio further teach the system has an imaging controller (63, figure 2b) that executes exposure control by the rolling shutter. It would have been obvious to modify the system with the imaging controller (63, figure 2b) as taught by Nishio. Doing so would provide exposure control through a rolling shutter ([0040]). The modified system would have through a shutter control in a state where the light source continues to emit light ([0040]; Nishio). Regarding claim 11, Oki further discloses the semiconductor light emitting element is a laser diode or a light emitting diode (laser diode [0047]; Oki). Regarding claim 12, Oki further discloses the one or more processors are configured to cause first illumination light and second illumination light (130, figure 1; Oki), which are light beams having different wavelengths (different colors; see 130, figure 1), to be emitted according to the respective drive current values (for each of the light sources…[0088]). Regarding claim 13, Oki discloses a method of operating an endoscope system (endoscopic device [0044]) including a current measurement device (this element is interpreted under 35 USC 112f; however, the specification does not disclose what the drive current measuring device is | light source drive circuit 310…adjusting a drive current to each of the light sources [0049]; the Examiner interpreted the drive circuit is capable of determining the drive current for each of the light source in order to adjust it) , at least one light source (300, figure 1) having a semiconductor light emitting elements (see 130, figure 1 | semiconductor laser, laser diode…[0047]) and a photodetector (150, figure 1 | photodiode [0050]) that receives a part of light from the light source and detects received light ([0050]), the method comprising: setting a target drive current value of the light source; determining a drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source based on the drive current value received from the current measurement device; causing the light source to emit illumination light with an amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value. Oki is silent regarding set a target integrated amount of light in advance; in a light emission period of the light source that is shorter than a determined exposure period; acquiring an amount of received light from the photodetector for each certain period a plurality of times within the light emission period based on the amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value; calculating a cumulative amount of light by summing the amount of light emission of the plurality of times for each certain period, based on the amount of received light; turning off the illumination light for a predetermined period in a case in which a total value of the cumulative amounts of light reaches the target integrated amount of light; acquiring a captured image obtained by imaging an observation target during the light emission period; and generating one observation image from a plurality of the captured images acquired for each light emission period. Nishio teaches an endoscope system (10, figure 2a) with an observation system ([0029]) and a detector (65a, figure 2b). The control of the light amount of the illumination light is based on the integrated light amount ([0060] and [0063]). The integrated light amount is the product of the intensity of the pulse P1 and the output period and is calculated by an illumination controller ([0063]). If the integrated light amount is the maximum integrated light amount, the illumination controller increases/decreases the integrated light amount by increasing/decreasing the output period and thereby increasing/decreasing the integrated light amount ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the method of Oki to utilize an illumination controller (100, figure 2b) and detector (65a, figure 2b) that uses integrated light amounts to control the illumination light as taught by Nishio ([0060] and [0063]). Doing so would provide modulated illumination that keeps the intensity of the illumination light constant ([0054]). The modified method would comprise set a target integrated amount of light in advance (maximum integrated light amount…[0063]; Nishio) ; in a light emission period of the light source that is shorter than a determined exposure period (see point A1 and A2, figure 4a); acquiring an amount of received light from the photodetector for each certain period a plurality of times within the light emission period based on the amount of light emission corresponding to the drive current value (150, figure 1; Oki | detector 65a, figure 2b; detecting the luminance value [0042]; Nishio) ; calculating a cumulative amount of light by summing the amount of light emission of the plurality of times for each certain period (integrated light amount…output period…point A1 to the point A2 [0063]; Nishio), based on the amount of received light; turning off the illumination light for a predetermined period in a case in which a total value of the cumulative amounts of light reaches the target integrated amount of light (decreasing the output period [0063]; Nishio); acquiring a captured image obtained by imaging an observation target during the light emission period (230, figure 1; [0079]; Oki); and generating one observation image from a plurality of the captured images acquired for each light emission period (generated image…[0079]; Oki) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (US 2018/0330659) and Nishio (US 2018/0140173) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Komazaki (US 2017/0245746) . Regarding claim 2, Oki and Nishio disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source, the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value increased from the target drive current value by a constant magnification. Komazaki teaches a light quantity control by an illumination light controller (50, figure 1). A correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) calculates the drive electric current correction value to increase the light output P by a percentage to correspond to the light guiding loss rate ([0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Oki and Nishio to have a correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) to increase the drive current and light output by a percentage ([0083]) that corresponds to the difference between a drive current value and target drive current value as taught by Komazaki. Doing so would correct and correspond to the rate of light loss ([0083]; interpreted as also the difference in current and target drive current values) . The modified system would have in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see s214, s234, or s254, figure 10 are maximum drive currents; Oki), the drive current value increased from the target drive current value by a constant magnification (% [0083]; Komazaki | interpreted increase in the drive current value to also be the determined drive current value). Regarding claim 4, Oki and Nishio disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source, the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value that is increased by a first magnification in a case in which the target drive current value is equal to or larger than a threshold value and is increased by a second magnification higher than the first magnification in a case in which the target drive current value is less than the threshold value. Komazaki teaches a light quantity control by an illumination light controller (50, figure 1). A correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) calculates the drive electric current correction value to increase the light output P by a percentage to correspond to the light guiding loss rate ([0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Oki and Nishio to have a correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) to increase the drive current and light output by a percentage ([0083]) that corresponds to the difference between a drive current value and target drive current value as taught by Komazaki. Doing so would correct and correspond to the rate of light loss ([0083]; interpreted as also the difference in current and target drive current values) . The modified system would have in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see s214, s234, or s254, figure 10 are maximum drive currents; Oki) , the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value (interpreted increase in the drive current value to also be the determined drive current value) that is increased by a first magnification (% [0083]; Komazaki) in a case in which the target drive current value is equal to or larger than a threshold value (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see s214, s234, or s254, figure 10; Oki) and is increased by a second magnification higher than the first magnification in a case in which the target drive current value is less than the threshold value (% [0083]; Komazaki | interpreted the greater difference in drive current, i.e., lower value or below the threshold value, the greater the magnification for increasing the drive current value). Regarding claim 5, Oki and Nishio disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source, the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value that is increased by a constant magnification in a case in which the target drive current value is equal to or larger than a threshold value and is increased by a fixed value in a case in which the target drive current value is less than the threshold value. Komazaki teaches a light quantity control by an illumination light controller (50, figure 1). A correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) calculates the drive electric current correction value to increase the light output P by a percentage to correspond to the light guiding loss rate ([0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Oki and Nishio to have a correction quantity calculation circuit (53, figure 1) to increase the drive current and light output by a percentage ([0083]) that corresponds to the difference between a drive current value and target drive current value as taught by Komazaki. Doing so would correct and correspond to the rate of light loss ([0083]; interpreted as also the difference in current and target drive current values) . The modified system would have in response to determining the drive current value that is larger than the target drive current value of the light source (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see s214, s234, or s254, figure 10 are maximum drive currents; Oki) , the one or more processors are configured to cause the illumination light to be emitted at the drive current value (interpreted increase in the drive current value to also be the determined drive current value) that is increased by a constant magnification (% [0083]; Komazaki) in a case in which the target drive current value is equal to or larger than a threshold value (sets a drive current…for each of the light sources [0062] | see maximum drive currents s214, s234, or s254, figure 10; Oki) and is increased by a fixed value in a case in which the target drive current value is less than the threshold value (output levels (1 to N)…may gradually increase…. [0086]; Oki | interpreted the increase can be a fixed value/number) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki (US 2018/0330659) and Nishio (US 2018/0140173) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Avni (US 2006/0184039) . Regarding claim 7, Oki and Nishio disclose all of the features in the current invention as shown above in claim 1. They are silent regarding the certain period is 0.5 µs or more and 100 µs or less. Avni teaches a CMOS pixel array with a scan rate of 3 microseconds or even less ([0103]). It would have been obvious to modify the system of Oki and Nishio with a CMOS sensor as taught by Avni ([0103]). Doing so would shorten the time required for scanning the pixels and for transmitting data ([0103]). The modified system would have the certain period is 0.5 µs or more and 100 µs or less (3 microsecond…[0103]; Avni). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 PAMELA F WU whose telephone number is (571)272-9851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 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, Michael Carey can be reached at 571-270-7235. 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. PAMELA F. WU Examiner Art Unit 3795 June 11, 2026 /RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 2 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 3 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 4 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 5 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 6 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 7 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 8 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 9 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 10 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 11 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 12 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 13 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 14 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 15 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 16 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 17 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 18 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 19 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 20 Art Unit: 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/441,984 Page 21 Art Unit: 3795
Prosecution Insights