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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 are currently pending. Claim 1 is currently amended.
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:
“blocking member” in claims 9, and 11, corresponding to blocking member as illustrated in instant fig. 2, (i.e., a partition).
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.
Section 112(f) interpretation of “mounting component” as applied to claim 8-9 is withdrawn, as examiner deems the structure to be sufficient for functionality recited.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3, 5, and 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 which incorporates the limitations of claims 11-12) of U.S. Patent No. US 11864699 B2 in view of Nam (US 20170336798 A1), and Liu (US 20170038203 A1).
Instant Application
Referenced Patent
1. (Currently amended) A cleaning apparatus, comprising: a device body; a bumper connected to the device body and comprising a bumper opening, the bumper opening comprising a photography opening and an illuminator opening; a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening, the camera configured to pick up an image of the environment for object recognition; and an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening, the illuminator configured to emit light to illuminate at least part of a recognition area of the camera, wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening, and the photography opening is disposed outside of the camera, a camera cover through which the camera picks up an image is disposed at the photography opening, and the illuminator cover is located below the camera cover, wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support, the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support, the camera support is provided with a support wall, and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support.
11. A cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a device body; a bumper, connected to the device body and comprising a bumper opening; a camera, mounted on the device body; and an illuminator, disposed below the camera and mounted on the device body;
wherein both the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening, wherein a mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member.
2. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the illuminator opening is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of the recognition area of the camera.
12. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the mounting component is provided with an illuminator opening, which is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of a recognition area of the camera.
3. the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator.
13. The cleaning apparatus according to claim 12, wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening, and the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator.
The difference in instant claim 1 with the instant limitation “the bumper opening comprising a photography opening and an illuminator opening” from the referenced patent is obvious from the arrangement recited in the referenced patent of “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening”, “mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member” and “the mounting component is provided with an illuminator opening, which is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of a recognition area of the camera” as it can be considered that there is a separate illuminator opening with a cover as part of the mounting component outside the device body, and because the illuminator and camera are arranged through a bumper opening.
The difference in instant claim 1 regarding “a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening, the camera configured to pick up an image of the environment for object recognition” is obvious over the referenced patent because the referenced patent recites “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening”, and because the camera would functionally be able to pick up an image of the outside environment as it is oriented towards the outside.
Regarding the difference in instant claim 1 of “the photography opening is disposed outside of the camera” this is implied by the structure of “the camera and the illuminator are oriented outside of the device body through single bumper opening” of the reference patent, and as noted above, the presence of a separate illuminator opening.
Regarding, the limitation in instant claim 1 of “a camera cover through which the camera picks up an image is disposed at the photography opening, and the illuminator cover is located below the camera cover”, Nam, which is in the same field of endeavor, relating to image sensors for robotic cleaners, teaches of a camera cover through which the camera picks up an image is disposed at the photography opening (camera cover 133b3, fig. 5 with camera 132c; for camera 132c; [0149,0154]). Nam teaches that this provides a clean appearance with a transparent window ([0149]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the camera cover of Nam, to provide for a clean appearance. The illuminator cover would have been placed below the camera cover, as claimed, as the reference patent provides for “an illuminator, disposed below the camera”, and also because this also depends on the relative orientation of the device.
Regarding, the limitation in instant claim 1 of wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support, the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support, the camera support is provided with a support wall, and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support, Liu, in the same field of endeavor, related to robotic cleaners ([0002]) teaches of wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support (camera support 50, fig. 5, supports a camera 34 as in [0030], which connects to the device through mount 80, fig. 2; [0029]), the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support (illuminator support 10, fig. 2; [0030], holds a illuminator 20), the camera support is provided with a support wall (surface of the illuminator support facing illuminator support 10, fig. 5), and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support (fig. 1 and 5 shows abutting arrangement). Liu teaches that this arrangement ensures accurate measurements ([0005-0006])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with camera and illuminator support of Liu, for the purpose of ensuring accurate measurements.
Regarding claim 5, the reference patent in claims 11-13 does not explicitly disclose wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart, the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera. Nam teaches of wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart (camera 132c, fig. 5; [0076]), the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera (132a, 132b, figs. 5-6 are further protruding than camera 132c, [0076]). Nam teaches that this arrangement provides for illuminators which can illuminate different regions with intersecting linear beams ([0080-0081]), and provides for positioning that does not interfere with photography ([0108]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Nam regarding a camera and illuminator disposed apart, illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera, because this arrangement provides for different regions of illuminating, and positioning that does not interfere with photography.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the illuminator is a surface mounted illuminator, this limitation is implied by the limitation in the reference patent claim 13, with “an illuminator, disposed below the camera and mounted on the device body” as the device body, being physically existing has a surface (on which the illuminator is directly or indirectly mounted).
Claim 7-9 and 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11864699 B2 in view of Nam (US 20170336798 A1), Liu (US 20170038203 A1), and further in view of Kim (US 20140304937 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the reference patent in claims 11-13 does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; the overall arrangement providing a mounting component where the camera and illuminator are disposed within). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Kim, and have placed the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other, to prevent light from the illuminator from causing error in sensing by the camera.
Regarding claim 8, the reference patent modified by Kim, teaches of mounting component provided with an opening of the first chamber, which forms the photography opening (Kim, camera 311, separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, the camera has an opening/photography opening to be able to sense; it is noted that in claim 13 of the reference patent).
Regarding claim 9, the reference patent modified by Kim, teaches of wherein the mounting component is provided with a blocking member which forms separation between the first chamber and the second chamber (Kim, wall 32, fig. 5; [0065-0066]; 112(f) equivalent to instant blocking member as partition).
Regarding claim 11, the reference patent provides for “a mounting component is disposed outside of the device body and provided with a blocking member” in claim 11; however, does not explicitly describe that the “blocking member which forms separation between the camera and the illuminator”. Kim, in the same field of endeavor, relating to camera structures for robotic cleaners, teaches of wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in different chambers which are separated from each other by a wall/blocking member (see camera 311, in a separate chamber with an opening, separate from illuminator 310, fig. 5, divided by wall 32; wall 32 is 112(f) equivalent to instant blocking member as partition). Kim teaches that providing a partitioning the camera from the illuminator would shield the light from the sensor and prevent error in sensing ([0065-0066], the illuminator provided in slit 321, formed by wall 32).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference patent with the teachings of Kim, such that the blocking member “blocking member forms [a] separation between the camera and the illuminator”, to prevent error in sensing.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140304937 A1) in view of Jin (KR 20130119601 A)
PNG
media_image1.png
461
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 5 (Kim)
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses:
A cleaning apparatus (cleaning robot as described in abstract, however since the body of the claim is structurally complete, the preamble is not limiting - see MPEP 2111.02), comprising:
a device body (20, fig. 1; [0047]);
a bumper connected to the device body (30, fig. 1, fig .4; [0061], this arrangement is structurally a bumper consistent with the instant disclosure in that it forms/is adjacent to a periphery of the robot) and comprising a bumper opening (assembly of hole 320, fig .4; [0069], and opening 321, figs 4-5, consistent with how the instant disclosure provides for interconnected openings that are separated by a barrier; the openings share an outer transparent cover 11 as shown in fig. 5, and described in [0066]; arrangement is part of same sensor assembly as in [0061]), the bumper opening comprising a photography opening (assembly of hole 320, fig. 4; see ann. fig. 5, above for illustration as labeled in fig. 5) and an illuminator opening (opening 321, figs 4-5; [0065-0066]),
a camera oriented towards outside of the device body through the photography opening, the camera configured to pick up an image of an environment for object recognition (camera 311; figs. 4-5, [0062], the camera is oriented towards outside [which includes upwards as assembled in figs. 1-3], even though the camera may be obstructed by other structure of the cleaner, it’s direction it is facing is still towards the outside, the camera is oriented through the photography opening which provides a reflector 340, fig. 5, that enables the camera to view the outside); and
an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening (illuminator 310, fig. 5; [0076]), the illuminator configured to emit light to illuminate at least part of a recognition area of the camera (incident on point p, fig. 5, which the camera views; [0076])
wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening (illuminator cover 312; fig. 5; [0063]) and the photography opening is disposed outside of the camera (photography opening is external and around camera, ann. fig. 5, above), and the illuminator cover is located below the camera cover (ann. fig. 5, see positioning of camera cover and illuminator cover 312),
a camera cover through which the camera picks up an image is disposed at the photography opening (camera cover 11, fig. 5; [0057], at the photography opening in fig. 5 above), and the illuminator cover is located below the camera cover (the illuminator cover 310 is located in the illuminator 321, fig. 5; [0035] and the chamber extends below/under the camera cover 11 or a portion of it)
wherein the camera is mounted on the device body through a camera support (ann. fig. 5 above, mounted indirectly to rest of device body 20, fig. 1 through assembly), the illuminator is mounted on the device body through an illuminator support (ann. fig. 5, above, upper surface/wall of base frame 31; [0061]), the camera support is provided with a support wall (the structure of the camera support is of a wall shape), and the support wall abuts against the illuminator support (at the inverted T intersection between the camera support and illuminator support; interpretation is consistent with how instant illuminator support 125 branches off the camera support 122 in fig. 2. Fig. 4 shows the detail of sensor assembly 30, fig. 3 as in [0036-0037;0055], which is attached to the body on one side as in [0055], therefore the camera and illuminator mounts above [indirectly] attach the camera and illuminator to the device body though the rest of sensor assembly 30. Fig. 4 thus shows that the sensor assembly is not made of a single component. Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 discusses that making components integral/separable is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the camera support and illuminator support as separate parts).
While disclosing of an arrangement where an illuminator is oriented outside through an illuminator opening with a cover, as explained in the rejection immediately above, Kim does not explicitly disclose an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening, wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening, and also does not explicitly disclose
PNG
media_image2.png
411
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (Jin)
Jin, in the same filed of endeavor, relating to camera and illumination arrangements for robotic cleaners, teaches of an illuminator oriented outside of the device body through the illuminator opening (illuminator 120, with lens 130, attached integrally at the front [0026-0028]), wherein an illuminator cover is disposed at the illuminator opening (lens [illuminator cover] 130 is integral with the front of the illuminator 130, as in [0028] so it would be placed at the illuminator opening when assembled), and where wherein the illuminator opening is a stepped ring opening (ann. fig. 2). Jin teaches that this lens is useful for spreading out light ([0027]), which helps avoid obstacles ([0005]), and provides easy and simplified manufacturing ([0043]), in a durable way (paragraph after [0013] and before [0021] in the translation)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kim with the illuminator opening arrangement of Jin, for the purpose of spreading out light to avoid obstacles, in an easy to manufacture way, that is durable.
With respect to claim 2, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the illuminator opening is disposed in front of the illuminator such that light emitted by the illuminator and passing through the illuminator opening illuminates at least part of the recognition area of the camera (Kim, the illuminator opening, as 321 shown in fig. 5, has a volume located in front of the illuminator, which permits light to be emitted to illuminate part of at least part of a recognition area of the camera, as light, indicated by the line from the illuminator is incident on point p, fig. 5, which the camera views; [0076]).
With respect to claim 3, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: the illuminator cover is made of a material transparent to the light emitted by the illuminator (Jin, lens 130, [0026-0028], spreads out light, so it is transparent, see also fig. 4 of Jin for how the light ids spread).
With respect to claim 5, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the illuminator and the camera are disposed apart, the illuminator is disposed farther from the device body with respect to the camera (Kim, illuminator 310 is further out from camera 311, as shown in a left to right direction in fig. 5, see also the arrangement in figs. 3-4 with respect to camera 311 and illuminator 310, relative to a radial direction of the [partially] circular body 20, the camera and illuminator are also disposed apart in separate locations as shown in fig. 5).
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the illuminator is a surface mounted illuminator (Kim, illuminator 310 is mounted on surface of 31, fig. 5; [0063]).
With respect to claim 7, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses: wherein the camera and the illuminator are respectively disposed in a first chamber and a second chamber which are separated from each other (Kim, the camera 11 and illuminator 310 are mounted in separate chambers, separated by a partition 32, such that light does not interfere with the camera to cause erroneous sensing, [0065-0066])
With respect to claim 8, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 7 above, and further discloses: a mounting component provided with an opening of the first chamber, which forms the photography opening (Kim, a portion of the base frame 31, fig. 5 [mounting component], is provided with the first chamber, a separate chamber which the camera is located in, the first chamber being an opening/volume which defines/forms the volume photography opening, see ann. fig, 5 above, [0061]).
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and further discloses: wherein the mounting component is provided with a blocking member which forms separation between the first chamber and the second chamber (Kim, blocking member/ partition 32, fig, 5; such that light does not interfere with the camera to cause erroneous sensing, [0065-0066]; blocking member 32 is 112(f) equivalent as a partition between the illuminator and camera chambers).
With respect to claim 11, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 5 above, and further discloses: a blocking member which forms separation between the camera and the illuminator (Kim, blocking member/ partition 32, fig, 5; such that light does not interfere with the camera to cause erroneous sensing, [0065-0066]; blocking member 32 is 112(f) equivalent as a partition between the illuminator and camera chambers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the examiner maintains that the instant claims are obvious over claims of a prior patent US 11864699 B2. The applicant indicated (response page 6) that a terminal disclaimer has been filed, however the examiner has not been able to identify the terminal disclaimer in the file wrapper of the instant application.
Regarding the amended claim 1 (response pages 8-10), the examiner respectfully submits the arrangement with the camera support and illuminator support is already found in Kim, which has a vertical support wall next to the camera base, and a horizonal support wall holding the illuminator, with the walls abutting at an inverted T intersection. This structure, while not specifically discussed in the disclose of Kim (as the applicant noted, Kim discusses some aspects of the support for the camera is evident in fig. 5. Regarding Jin, the examiner did not rely on the Jin for the argued new limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723