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
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received August 5, 2026, amending Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 16 and 18. Claims 7 and 19 were cancelled.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “structured light module” in Claims 1-18, “autonomous mobile device” in Claims 10, 16, 18, and 20, “module controller” in Claims 10, 11, 16, , “device body” in Claim 16, “structured light components” in Claim 18, and “target machine” in Claims 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 10, and therefore dependent Claim 11, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the autonomous mobile device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since "an autonomous mobile device" has not been previously claimed.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. US 2022/0390947 (hereafter Yu et al.) in view of Dong et al. CN 113593199 A (hereafter Dong et al.).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Yu et al. teaches:
1. A structured light module (assembly shown in Figure 2) comprising:
a first camera (first camera 120), line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) distributed on both sides of the first camera (Figure 2), and a second camera (second camera 130), wherein, the line laser emitters are for emitting line lasers, the first camera is for collecting a first environmental image (first environment image) detected by the line lasers during their emission (Paragraph [0078] - “The first camera 120 may capture a first environment image of environment illuminated by the line lasers.”), and the second camera is for collecting a second environmental image (second environment image) within its field of view; the first environmental image includes a laser image with laser stripes produced when the line lasers encounter an object, and the second environmental image is a visible light image that does not include laser stripes (Figure 9 – second environment images do not include laser light);
wherein the structured light module comprises an indicator light (see discussion below, Dong et al. – indicator light 2) for indicating a working state of the second camera (second camera 130, Dong et al. – camera body 11), and a mount (module body 140); the mount comprises: a main body (main body 141 - larger rectangular body in middle shown in Figure 2) and ends (connecting portion 143) located on both sides of the main body (shown in Figure 2); and wherein, the indicator light (Dong et al. – indicator light 2), the first camera (first camera 120), and the second camera (second camera 130) are assembled on the main body (shown in Figure 2), and the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) are assembled on the ends (shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Yu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera. The reference Dong et al. discloses an indicator light 2 that is turned on when the camera 11 is in a working state and the indicator light is turned off when the camera is not in a working state as claimed with the motivation to remind a user of the state of the camera to improve personal privacy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yu et al. device to add an indicator light that operates as taught by Dong et al. with the motivation taught by Dong et al. to alert a user that the camera is in operation so that they can take steps to protect their privacy.
The combined Yu et al. in view of Dong et al. device would obviously include an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera that would alert the user that the camera is capturing video. The combination does not disclose the exact location of the indicator light, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the indicator light adjacent the mounted camera aperture as shown in Dong et al. Figure 2 so that it is visible to the user during operation. That being said, it would have been obvious to mount the indicator light on the main body 141 adjacent the mounted camera aperture such that a user would concurrently see both the camera and indicator light, similar to how it is located on the Dong et al. device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the indicator light on the main body 141 near the cameras with the motivation to allow the indicator lamp to be viewed by an occupant when within the cameras field of view, since applicant has not disclosed that the locations solves any non-obvious problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well when mounted adjacent the camera on the main body 141 of the Yu et al. device.
Regarding Amended Claim 2, Yu et al. teaches:
2. The structured light module according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the indicator light is on indicating that the second camera is in a working state (Dong et al., Abstract “According to the indicating lamp device and the electronic equipment comprising the same, the indicating lamp is turned on when the camera module is in the working state, the indicating lamp is turned off when the camera module is not in the working state, the indicating lamp can be turned on to remind a user of the state of the camera when the camera module is turned on, the situation that the user reveals personal privacy unknowingly can be effectively avoided, and the use safety is improved.”).
Yu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera. The reference Dong et al. discloses an indicator light 2 that is turned on when the camera 11 is in a working state and the indicator light is turned off when the camera is not in a working state as claimed with the motivation to remind a user of the state of the camera to improve personal privacy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yu et al. device to add an indicator light that operates as taught by Dong et al. with the motivation taught by Dong et al. to alert a user that the camera is in operation so that they can take steps to protect their privacy.
Regarding Claim 3, Yu et al. teaches:
3. The structured light module according to claim 2, wherein the indicator light (see discussion below, Dong et al. – indicator light 2) and the second camera (second camera 130, Dong et al. – camera body 11) are symmetrically arranged on both sides of the first camera (first camera 120).
The combined Yu et al. in view of Dong et al. device discussed in Claim 2 an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera that would alert the user that the camera is capturing video. The combination does not disclose the exact location of the indicator light, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light must be located so that it is visible to the user during operation. That being said, it would have been obvious to mount the indicator light adjacent to the mounted camera aperture as taught in Dong et al. Figure 2 such that a user would concurrently see both the camera and indicator light. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the indicator light and second camera symmetrically arranged on both sides of the first camera with the motivation to achieve a desired cosmetic symmetry, since applicant has not disclosed that the symmetric arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any desired arrangement on the main body 141 of the Yu et al. device.
Regarding Claim 4, Yu et al. teaches:
4. The structured light module according to claim 1, wherein an optical axis (first optical axis) of the first camera (first camera 120) is tilted downward at a first angle relative (first optical axis is inclined downward 7 degrees, Paragraph [0034]) to a horizontal plane parallel to the ground, and an optical axis of each of the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) is tilted downward at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane (azimuth angle and/or rotation angle can be adjusted, Paragraphs [0072] and [0086]-[0093]), with the second angle being smaller than the first angle (see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses that the line laser emitters 110 are configured with an adjustable azimuth angle and rotation angle allowing the device to be optimized for the specific configuration. Yu et al. does not provide a measurement or range of measurements for the second angle allowing it to be compared to the angle of the first camera. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle would be dependent on the shape of the housing, mounting height, light dispersion angle, and camera field of view. Therefore, it would have been obvious that under a typical configuration, the second angle would be smaller than the first angle as claimed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu et al. teaches:
5. The structured light module according to claim 4, wherein the optical axis (second optical axis) of the second camera (second camera 130) is parallel to the horizontal plane (inclined upward 5 degrees, Paragraph [0034])(see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses that the second camera 130 is inclined upwards at a 5 degree angle. Therefore, Yu et al. discloses a scenario that is substantially parallel to the horizontal plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle would be dependent on the mounting height, light dispersion angle, and camera field of view. Therefore, it would have been obvious that under a typical configuration where the camera is mounted higher off the ground, the angle would be closer to being horizontal as claimed with the motivation to collect images closer to the front of the device since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu et al. teaches:
6. The structured light module according to claim 3, wherein, at an installation position (shown in Figures 2 and 3), the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110), the indicator light (Dong et al. – indicator light 2), the first camera (first camera 120), and the second camera (second camera 130) are located at the same height (all components are mounted at roughly the same height as shown in Figures 2 and 3).
Yu et al. discloses in Figures 2 and 3 that the line laser emitters 110 and cameras are installed at roughly the same height. Yu et al. does not provide a drawing view that allows for confirmation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the cited parts at the same height with the motivation to minimize the overall height dimension of the assembly, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, Yu et al. teaches:
8. The structured light module according to claim [[7]] 1,
wherein, an end face of each end is oriented towards a reference surface, so that a centerline of the line laser emitter on that end intersects with a centerline of the first camera at a point; the reference surface is a plane perpendicular to an end face of the main body or a tangent plane of the end face of the main body (shown in Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu et al. teaches:
9. The structured light module according to claim 8, wherein three grooves (mounting holes for fist camera 120, second camera 130 shown in Figure 2, and obviously needed mounting hole for Dong et al. – indicator light 2) are provided at a middle position of the main body (main body 141 - larger rectangular body in middle shown in Figure 2), the indicator light, the first camera, and the second camera are installed in the corresponding grooves (shown in Figures 2 and 3); mounting holes (shown in Figures 1 and 2) are provided on the ends (connecting portion 143), and the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) are installed in the mounting holes.
Regarding Amended Claim 10, Yu et al. teaches:
10. The structured light module according to claim [[7]] 1, further comprising: a module controller (first image processing module 011), wherein the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110), the first camera (first camera 120), and the indicator light (Dong et al. – indicator light 2 which electrically mimics the second camera 130 operation) are electrically connected to the module controller respectively (Figure 9); and the module controller and the second camera (second camera 130) are electrically connected to a main controller (main control unit 003) of [[the]] an autonomous mobile device respectively (Figure 9);
the main controller is used to send working state information of the second camera to the module controller; the module controller is used to control the on/off state of the indicator light based on the working state information of the second camera (see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses a main control unit 003 that controls the working state information of the second camera. The main control unit 003 communicates with the first image processing module 011, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the main control unit and first image processing module 011 to communicate status details and information, such as the working state of the camera, that would allow the device to operate efficiently. Since, the obvious Yu et al. in view of Dong et al. device would include an indicator light that turns on when the camera is on and turns off when the camera is off, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first image processing module or the main control unit control the illuminator lamp operation, since applicant has not disclosed that control via the module controller solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well, and in the same way, with either the module controller or main controller.
Regarding Claim 11, Yu et al. teaches:
11. The structured light module according to claim 10, further comprising: a fixed cover (cover of device body 200, best shown in Figure 3) assembled above the mount (module body 140, shown in Figure 3); wherein a cavity (inside cavity of device body 200) is formed between the fixed cover and the mount to accommodate connection wires between the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110), the first camera (first camera 120), and the module controller (first image processing module 011), and the connection wires between the module controller and the second camera (second camera 130) and the main controller (main control unit 003)(see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses an autonomous mobile device with a device body 200 within which all the cited elements are mounted as shown in Figures 2, 3, and 9. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to route the connection wires necessary for power, control, and data communication inside the cavity space inside the device body with the motivation to provide the disclosed operation within a single device that does not include wires external to the device body 200.
Regarding Claim 12, Yu et al. teaches:
12. The structured light module according to claim 1, wherein each of the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) includes an optical shaping lens (concave lens, Paragraph [0075]), which is a cylindrical lens or a wave lens (wavy mirror is a concave lens, Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yu et al. teaches:
13. The structured light module according to claim 12, wherein, when the optical shaping lens (concave lens, Paragraph [0075]) of each of the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) is a wave lens (wavy mirror is a concave lens, Paragraph [0075]), within an angular range of [-30, 30] degrees relative to the optical axis of the line laser emitter, the light intensity of the line laser is the strongest (inherent property of divergent light disclosed in Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yu et al. teaches:
14. The structured light module according to claim 12, wherein, when the optical shaping lens (concave lens, Paragraph [0075]) of each of the line laser emitter (line laser emitters 110) is a cylindrical lens (circular as shown in Figure 1), within an angular range of [-10, 10] degrees relative to the optical axis of the line laser emitter, the light intensity of the line laser is the strongest (inherent property of divergent light disclosed in Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yu et al. teaches:
15. The structured light module according to claim 1, wherein the angle between the optical axis of each of the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) and a baseline of the structured light module ranges from [50, 60] degrees (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding Amended Claim 16, Yu et al. teaches:
16. An autonomous mobile device (autonomous mobile device, Title), comprising: a device body (device body 200), on which a main controller (main control unit 003) and a structured light module (assembly shown in Figure 2) are installed, the main controller being electrically connected to the structured light module (Figure 9);
wherein, the structured light module comprises: a first camera (first camera 120), line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) distributed on both sides of the first camera, a second camera (second camera 130), and a module controller (first image processing module 011);
wherein, the module controller controls the line laser emitters to emit line lasers externally and controls the first camera to collect a first environmental image (first environment image) detected by the line lasers during their emission, and sends the first environmental image to the main controller (Figure 9); the main controller controls the second camera to collect a second environmental image (second environment image) within its field of view and performs functional control (obstacle avoidance) of the autonomous mobile device based on the first and second environmental images (Paragraph [0101] and Figure 9); wherein, the first environmental image includes a laser image with laser stripes produced when the line lasers encounter an object (Paragraph [0078] - “The first camera 120 may capture a first environment image of environment illuminated by the line lasers.”), and the second environmental image is a visible light image that does not include laser stripes (Figure 9 – second environment images do not include laser light);
wherein the structured light module comprises an indicator light (see discussion below, Dong et al. – indicator light 2) for indicating a working state of the second camera (second camera 130, Dong et al. – camera body 11), and a mount (module body 140); the mount comprises: a main body (main body 141 - larger rectangular body in middle shown in Figure 2) and ends (connecting portion 143) located on both sides of the main body (shown in Figure 2); and wherein, the indicator light (Dong et al. – indicator light 2), the first camera (first camera 120), and the second camera (second camera 130) are assembled on the main body (shown in Figure 2), and the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) are assembled on the ends (shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Yu et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for disclosing an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera. The reference Dong et al. discloses an indicator light 2 that is turned on when the camera 11 is in a working state and the indicator light is turned off when the camera is not in a working state as claimed with the motivation to remind a user of the state of the camera to improve personal privacy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yu et al. device to add an indicator light that operates as taught by Dong et al. with the motivation taught by Dong et al. to alert a user that the camera is in operation so that they can take steps to protect their privacy.
The combined Yu et al. in view of Dong et al. device would obviously include an indicator light tied to the operation of the second camera that would alert the user that the camera is capturing video. The combination does not disclose the exact location of the indicator light, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the indicator light adjacent the mounted camera aperture as shown in Dong et al. Figure 2 so that it is visible to the user during operation. That being said, it would have been obvious to mount the indicator light on the main body 141 adjacent the mounted camera aperture such that a user would concurrently see both the camera and indicator light, similar to how it is located on the Dong et al. device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the indicator light on the main body 141 near the cameras with the motivation to allow the indicator lamp to be viewed by an occupant when within the cameras field of view, since applicant has not disclosed that the locations solves any non-obvious problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well when mounted adjacent the camera on the main body 141 of the Yu et al. device.
Regarding Claim 17, Yu et al. teaches:
17. The structured light module according to claim 16, wherein an optical axis (first optical axis) of the first camera (first camera 120) is tilted downward at a first angle relative (first optical axis is inclined downward 7 degrees, Paragraph [0034]) to a horizontal plane parallel to the ground, and an optical axis of each of the line laser emitters (line laser emitters 110) is tilted downward at a second angle relative to the horizontal plane (azimuth angle and/or rotation angle can be adjusted, Paragraphs [0072] and [0086]-[0093]), with the second angle being smaller than the first angle (see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses that the line laser emitters 110 are configured with an adjustable azimuth angle and rotation angle allowing the device to be optimized for the specific configuration. Yu et al. does not provide a measurement or range of measurements for the second angle allowing it to be compared to the angle of the first camera. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angle would be dependent on the shape of the housing, mounting height, light dispersion angle, and camera field of view. Therefore, it would have been obvious that under a typical configuration, the second angle would be smaller than the first angle as claimed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the method as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the method is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and found them satisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed August 5, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1, 4, 5, and 12-17 under Yu et al. US 2022/0390947 and Claims 2, 3, and 6-11 under Yu et al. US 2022/0390947 in view of Dong et al. CN 113593199 A, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, all rejections have been modified to be under Yu et al. US 2022/0390947 in view of Dong et al. CN 113593199 A rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed August 5, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 18 and 20 under Yu et al. US 2022/0390947, have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of Claims 18 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument as to the location of the indicator light, Dong et al. discloses an indicator light mounted on a flex circuit of the camera as shown in Figure 1. Dong et al. then discloses how the camera and indicator light are mounted adjacent to each other in Figure 2 such that the both the camera aperture and the indicator light are concurrently visible to the user. Yu et al. discloses in Figure 2 that the first and second cameras are mounted to the main body 141. Therefore, if the camera is mounted to the main body, it would have been obvious to mount the indicator light on the main body such that it is located near the camera aperture such that both the camera and indicator light are concurrently visible to the user. Even if the indicator light were connected to a flex cable of the camera like in the Dong et al. device, the flex cable, and therefore the indicator light, would both obviously be mounted on the main body close to the camera to place both within view of the user. Additional comments have been added to the rejection to further address this argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
