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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 1 and 14, filed 12/14/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the first page of Remarks (pages aren’t numbered), filed 12/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claims 1-13 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 USC § 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see all pages of Remarks, filed 12/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 12/14/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1 states “wherein the focal plane is tilted around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.” The limitation “and/or” isn’t clear. Applicant needs to clarify if the limitation is “and” or “or”. For examination purposes, “and/or” will be taken as “or”.
Claims 2-13 are dependent on Claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 14 states “wherein the SM camera is configured to tilt its focal plane around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.” The limitation “and/or” isn’t clear. Applicant needs to clarify if the limitation is “and” or “or”. For examination purposes, “and/or” will be taken as “or”.
Claims 15-19 are dependent on Claim 14 and inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden et al., (hereafter Aschwanden) (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie et al., (hereafter Xie) (US 2018/0203358 A1), and Gray (EP2860574A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 1, Aschwanden teaches a method, comprising: providing an electronic mobile device (mobile phone, ¶[0178]) that includes a Wide camera (wide field of view camera, ¶[0178]) for capturing a Wide image (inherent for wide field of view cameras, ¶[0178]) with a respective Wide field of view FOVw (wide field of view, ¶[0178]), a super-Macro (SM) camera (zoom device, ¶[0178]) for capturing a SM image (inherent for zoom device, ¶[0178]) with a respective SM field of view FOVsm smaller than FOVw (¶[0178]).
Aschwanden fails to teach a processor, and configuring the processor to autonomously tilt the focal plane of the camera according to an analysis that uses Wide image data or SM image data, and to autonomously capture SM images at a given focal plane tilt.
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]), and configuring the processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]) to autonomously tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]) the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) of the camera according to an analysis that uses Wide image data (positional data, ¶[0062]) and/or SM image data (positional data, ¶[0062]), and to autonomously capture SM images (inherent for zoom device, ¶[0178]) at a given focal plane tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden having the method with the teachings of Xie having the processor to autonomously tilt the focal plane for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
Aschwanden in view of Xie fail to teach a processor in the device; wherein the focal plane is tilted around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.
Aschwanden in view of Xie teach the method of acquiring images and Gray teaches a method of acquiring images.
Gray teaches a processor (20, Figure 1) in the device (the device is Figure 1); wherein the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0023]) is tilted (¶[0023]) around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel (normal to the optical axis, ¶[0023]) to the Z-axis (optical axis 36, Figure 1; see also ¶[0023]) and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie having the method with the teachings of Gray having the processor and the focal plane is tilted around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis for the purpose of super-resolution enhancement of the captured object images, ¶[0023].
With respect to Claim 2, Aschwanden teaches the method of claim 1 where a captured an SM image (inherent for zoom device, ¶[0178]) is entirely in-focus (stabilizing an image, ¶[0005]).
Aschwanden fails to teach wherein the tilting of the focal plane is performed.
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) wherein the tilting of the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) is performed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden having the method with the teachings of Xie having tilting of the focal plane for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Niga et al., (hereafter Niga) (US 10,917,580 B2), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 3, Aschwanden in view of Gray teach the method of claim 1, the focal plane, and the SM image.
Aschwanden in view of Gray fail to teach wherein the tilting of the focal plane is performed.
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) wherein the tilting of the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) is performed.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Gray having the method with the teachings of Xie having tilting of the focal plane for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach a captured image has a specific amount of out-of-focus deblur.
Niga teaches a control apparatus (camera 1000, Figure 3) to evaluate an image (abstract) wherein a captured image (captured image, column 4, lines 38-42) has a specific amount of out-of-focus deblur (column 4, lines 38-42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden and Gray in view of Xie having the method with the teachings of Niga having a captured image has a specific amount of out-of-focus deblur for the purpose of evaluating the contrast of the image.
With respect to Claim 9, Aschwanden in view of Gray and Xie teach the method of claim 1 and the tilting of the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064], of Xie).
Aschwanden in view of Gray and Xie fail to teach wherein tilting of the focal plane is by 0-20 degrees.
Niga teaches a control apparatus (camera 1000, Figure 3) to evaluate an image (abstract) wherein tilting of the focal plane is by 0-20 degrees (0 degree, Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Gray and Xie having the method with the teachings of Niga having the tilting of the focal plane is by 0-20 degrees for the purpose of having the image in focus, column 4, lines 38-42.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lewis (US 3,841,763), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 4, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SM camera and effective focal length.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach an effective focal length of 7- 10mm.
Lewis teaches a photographic apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a lens with an effective focal length of 7- 10mm (7 to 56 mm, column 7, lines 24-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lewis having a lens with an effective focal length of 7- 10mm for the purpose of avoiding measurements in the poorly resolved boundaries between spaces, column 7, lines 22-25.
With respect to Claim 5, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SM camera and effective focal length.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach an effective focal length of 10- 20mm.
Lewis teaches a photographic apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a lens with an effective focal length of 10- 20mm (7 to 56 mm, column 7, lines 24-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lewis having a lens with an effective focal length of 10- 20mm for the purpose of avoiding measurements in the poorly resolved boundaries between spaces, column 7, lines 22-25.
With respect to Claim 6, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SM camera and effective focal length.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach an effective focal length of 20- 40mm.
Lewis teaches a photographic apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a lens with an effective focal length of 20- 40mm (7 to 56 mm, column 7, lines 24-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lewis having a lens with an effective focal length of 20- 40mm for the purpose of avoiding measurements in the poorly resolved boundaries between spaces, column 7, lines 22-25.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Duerksen (US 8,415,607 B2), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 7, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1, the SM camera (zoom device, ¶[0178], of Aschwanden), and the processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064], of Xie).
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm.
Duerksen teaches a detector assembly (title and abstract; see also column 22, lines 17-43) configuring the processor (processor, 1860, Figure 18, see also column 22, lines 30-32) to focus the camera (camera system, column 22, lines 19-23) to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm (5 cm -[Symbol font/0xA5], column 22, lines 26-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Duerksen configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm for the purpose of extending the depth of field imaging for objects, column 22, lines 26-30.
With respect to Claim 8, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1, the SM camera (zoom device, ¶[0178], of Aschwanden), and the processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064], of Xie).
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 15-50 cm.
Duerksen teaches a detector assembly (title and abstract; see also column 22, lines 17-43) configuring the processor (processor, 1860, Figure 18, see also column 22, lines 30-32) to focus the camera (camera system, column 22, lines 19-23) to object-lens distances of 15-50 cm cm (5 cm -[Symbol font/0xA5], column 22, lines 26-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Duerksen configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 15-50 cm for the purpose of extending the depth of field imaging for objects, column 22, lines 26-30.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1), and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lobachinsky (US 2020/0371311 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 10, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 1 and the SM camera.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach wherein the camera includes an optical path folding element (OPFE).
Lobachinsky teaches optical device alignment method (title and abstract) wherein the camera (camera, ¶[0101]) includes an optical path folding element (OPFE) (prism assembly 16, Figure 4A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lobachinsky having the camera include an optical path folding element (OPFE) for the purpose of increasing the optical path illumination.
With respect to Claim 11, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 10, the focal plane, and SM camera.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fails to teach wherein the tilting of the focal plane of the camera is obtained by rotating the OPFE.
Lobachinsky teaches optical device alignment method (title and abstract) wherein the tilting (displacing the position of the focal plane of the image projecting optical device is adjusted, ¶[0101]) of the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0101]) of the camera (camera, ¶[0101]) is obtained by rotating the OPFE (prism assembly 16, Figure 4A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lobachinsky having the tilting of the focal plane of the camera is obtained by rotating the OPFE for the purpose of increasing the optical path illumination.
With respect to Claim 12, Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray teach the method of claim 11, the focal plane, and SM camera.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray fail to teach wherein the tilting of the focal plane of the camera is along two axes and is obtained by rotating the OPFE along two axes.
Lobachinsky teaches optical device alignment method (title and abstract) wherein the tilting (displacing the position of the focal plane of the image projecting optical device is adjusted, ¶[0101]) of the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0101]) of the camera (camera, ¶[0101]) is along two axes (rotation of the OPFE is along two or more axes due to displacement of the prism assembly, ¶[0101]) and is obtained by rotating the OPFE (displacement of the prism assembly 16, Figure 4A) along two axes (rotation of the OPFE is along two or more axes due to displacement of the prism assembly, ¶[0101]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lobachinsky having the tilting of the focal plane of the camera is along two axes and is obtained by rotating the OPFE along two axes for the purpose of increasing the optical path illumination.
With respect to Claim 14, Aschwanden teaches an electronic mobile device, comprising: a super-Macro (SM) camera (zoom device, ¶[0178]) for capturing a SM image (inherent for zoom device, ¶[0178]) with a respective SM field of view FOVsm, (¶[0178]).
Aschwanden fails to teach wherein the camera has a focal plane and includes an image side optical path folding element (I-OPFE).
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) wherein the camera has a focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) and wherein the camera is configured to tilt its focal plane (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden having the method with the teachings of Xie having the focal plane tilt for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
Aschwanden in view of Xie fail to teach wherein a focal plane and includes an image side optical path folding element (I-OPFE) and wherein the camera is configured to tilt its focal plane by rotating the I-OPFE.
Lobachinsky teaches optical device alignment method (title and abstract) wherein the camera (camera, ¶[0101]) is configured to tilt its focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0101]) by rotating the I-OPFE (prism assembly 16, Figure 4A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie having the method with the teachings of Lobachinsky having the tilting of the focal plane of the camera is obtained by rotating the OPFE for the purpose of increasing the optical path illumination.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Lobachinsky fail to teach wherein a zero-tilt focal plane position of the focal plane is parallel to a X-Z plane, and wherein the camera is configured to tilt its focal plane around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.
Aschwanden in view of Xie and Lobachinsky teach the method of acquiring images and Gray teaches a method of acquiring images.
Gray teaches wherein a zero-tilt focal plane position of the focal plane (normal to the optical axis, ¶[0023]) is parallel to a X-Z plane (normal to the optical axis where z=0 and x=any number greater than zero, ¶[0023]), and wherein the camera is configured to tilt (¶[0023]) its focal plane around a first focal plane rotation axis (optical axis 36, Figure 1; see also ¶[0023]) that is parallel to the Z-axis (optical axis 36, Figure 1; see also ¶[0023]) and/or around a second focal plane rotation axis parallel to the X-axis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie and Lobachinsky having the method with the teachings of Gray having the camera configured to tilt its focal plane around a first focal plane rotation axis that is parallel to the Z-axis for the purpose of super-resolution enhancement of the captured object images, ¶[0023].
With respect to Claim 15, Aschwanden teaches the electronic mobile device of claim 14, wherein the electronic mobile device includes a processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]), and the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) of the SM camera (zoom device, ¶[0178]).
Aschwanden fails to teach a processor, wherein the processor is configured to autonomously tilt the focal plane of the camera according to an analysis that uses SM image data, and to autonomously capture images at a given focal plane tilt.
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]) is configured to autonomously tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]) the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) of the camera according to an analysis that uses SM image data (positional data, ¶[0062]), and to autonomously capture images at a given focal plane tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Lobachinsky having the method with the teachings of Xie having the processor processing focal plane tilt for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
With respect to Claim 16, Aschwanden the electronic mobile device of claim 14, wherein the electronic mobile device includes a Wide camera (optical zoom device, ¶[0178])) having a Wide camera field of view FOVw (wide field of view, ¶[0178]) > FOVsm ( ¶[0178]), wherein the electronic mobile device (mobile phone, ¶[0178]) includes a processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]), and the SM camera (zoom device, ¶[0178]).
Aschwanden fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to autonomously tilt the focal plane of the camera according to an analysis that uses Wide image data and to autonomously capture images at a given focal plane tilt.
Xie teaches an exposure apparatus (title and abstract) wherein the processor (host, ¶[0062]- [0064]) is configured to autonomously tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]) the focal plane (focal plane, ¶[0064]) of the camera according to an analysis that uses Wide image data (positional data, ¶[0062]) and to autonomously capture images (inherent for zoom device, ¶[0178]) at a given focal plane tilt (positional data measures tilt of each FoV with respect to an optimum focal plane, ¶[0064]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden having the method with the teachings of Xie having the processor processing focal plane tilt for the purpose of homogeneous exposure, ¶[0069].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1), and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Shabtay et al., (hereafter Shabtay) (US 2019/0155002 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 13, Aschwanden in view of Xie teach the method of claim 1 and the electronics mobile device (mobile phone, ¶[0178]).
Aschwanden in view of Xie fail to teach wherein the electronics mobile device is a smartphone.
Shabtay teaches folded camera lens (title and abstract) wherein the electronics mobile device is a smartphone (¶[0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie having the method with the teachings of Shabtay wherein the electronics mobile device is a smartphone for the purpose of having multiple apertures (allowing more and less light in for image processing).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1), Lobachinsky (US 2020/0371311 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Lewis (US 3,841,763), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 17, Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray teach the electronic mobile device of claim 14,
Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray fail to teach an effective focal length of 7- 40mm.
Lewis teaches a photographic apparatus (title and abstract) comprising a lens with an effective focal length of 7- 40mm (7 to 56 mm, column 7, lines 24-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray having the method with the teachings of Lewis having a lens with an effective focal length of 7- 40mm for the purpose of avoiding measurements in the poorly resolved boundaries between spaces, column 7, lines 22-25.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1), Lobachinsky (US 2020/0371311 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 14, above, in further view of Duerksen (US 8,415,607 B2), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 18, Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray teach the method of claim 1, the SM camera, and the processor.
Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray fail to teach configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm.
Duerksen teaches a detector assembly (title and abstract; see also column 22, lines 17-43) configuring the processor (processor, 1860, Figure 18, see also column 22, lines 30-32) to focus the camera (camera system, column 22, lines 19-23) to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm (5 cm -[Symbol font/0xA5], column 22, lines 26-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray having the method with the teachings of Duerksen configuring the processor to focus the camera to object-lens distances of 3.0-16 cm for the purpose of extending the depth of field imaging for objects, column 22, lines 26-30.
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden (US 2020/0301116 A1) in view of Xie (US 2018/0203358 A1), Lobachinsky (US 2020/0371311 A1) and Gray (EP2860574A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Shabtay (US 2019/0155002 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 19, Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray teach the electronic mobile device of claim 14.
Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray fail to teach wherein the electronic mobile device is a smartphone.
Shabtay teaches folded camera lens (title and abstract) wherein the electronics mobile device is a smartphone (¶[0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Aschwanden in view of Xie, Lobachinsky and Gray having the method with the teachings of Shabtay wherein the electronics mobile device is a smartphone for the purpose of having multiple apertures (allowing more and less light in for image processing).
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 TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights