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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed August 19, 2025. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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 claim 1, it is unclear where Applicant originally discloses “the optical element is configured to execute an imaging process” and where the first and second imaging element perform photoelectric conversion on “the reflected light” from the second mirror.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear where Applicant originally discloses an embodiment having three imaging elements and a half mirror configuration as claimed.
The other claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what it means for “the optical element is configured to execute an imaging process.” It is unclear how an optical element “executes” and what the imaging process is. In addition, it is unclear what it means that “image data corresponds to learning data of machine learning” or “image data corresponds to the learning data of machine learning.”
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what it means when light is incident “on at least one of an imaging element of the first imaging element or an imaging element of the second imaging element.” It is unclear how there can be an imaging element of another imaging element.
The other claims are indefinite based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0221342).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, Kim et al. disclose (Fig. 5) a camera system comprising: an imaging optical system including an optical element (210) for imaging; a first mirror (230) configured to split light incident via the imaging optical system; a first imaging element (430); a second imaging element (430’); a second mirror (240) configured to reflect the light that is directed by the first mirror to at least one of the first or second imaging element, wherein the second mirror is different from the first mirror, the first imaging element is configured to: perform photoelectric conversion on light and output, based on the photoelectric conversion, first captured image data used as learning data (“training data”) of machine learning (neural network 60; [0035]); the second imaging element is configured to: perform the photoelectric conversion on the light; and output, based on the photoelectric conversion, second captured image data used as the learning data. Kim et al. also disclose (Fig. 5) a first filter (410) and second filter (410’) as 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, 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rephaeli et al.
Regarding claim 7, Rephaeli et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Rephaeli et al. do not disclose a light emitting unit emitting in synchronization with the second imaging element. However, it is known in depth sensors (i.e. LIDAR) to provide a light emitting unit as claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a light emitting unit in the apparatus of Rephaeli et al. to provide active depth sensing for improved detection with less noise as known and predictable.
Claim(s) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Masuda et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0051011).
Regarding claims 12, 14, Kim et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Kim et al. do not disclose the first and second imaging element being different in: one having a phase difference pixel and the other not having a phase difference pixel; or the one element has a higher frequency of crosstalk and higher sensitivity, as claimed. Masuda et al. teach (abstract) providing a device where the first and second imaging elements having the same field of view but have different characteristics. Further, imaging elements having phase pixels, no phase pixels, higher or lower sensitivities or higher or lower crosstalk are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide different imaging elements in such characteristics in the apparatus of Kim et al. in view of Masuda et al. to obtain a variety of different image data for more thorough imaging as known and predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Kim et al., Applicant asserts that Kim et al. does not disclose “a second mirror configured to reflect the light that is incident through the first mirror….” However, no such language is found in the claims. Further, as set forth above, the original application does not appear to support an embodiment in which “the reflected light” from the second mirror is incident on both imaging elements.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 rejections, without changing the scope of the claims and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878