Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/674,893

IMAGING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 26, 2024
Examiner
TRAN, HAI V
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
818 granted / 1041 resolved
+10.6% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1070
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1041 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Application This Office Action is a response to Applicant’s communication (or preliminary’s amendment) filed on 05/26/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-13 are currently presented in the instant application. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority documents received on 06/24/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner. If applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.97 to disclose the same. Drawings The drawing submitted on 05/26/2024 is accepted as part of the formal application. 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. Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara et al (US 9354673), hereinafter Sakakibara, in view of Nakano et al (US 20160198070), hereinafter Nakano. Regarding claim 1, Sakakibara discloses an imaging apparatus (a display panel unit 2, Fig 5) comprising: a wireless module (an antenna 31, Fig 5) in which a wireless antenna (an antenna main body 31b, Fig 7) is installed; a flat cable (a flat cable 85, Fig 12); and a housing (a housing 20, Fig 12; col 4, lines 37-39) in which the wireless module and the flat cable are provided, in which the wireless antenna is disposed at a position where the wireless antenna does not overlap with the flat cable as seen along a first direction (a horizontal direction x1-x2, Fig 12), and the wireless antenna is disposed at a position where the wireless antenna overlaps with a flat cable connector C85 (Fig 12), the flat cable connector C85 being formed in the housing. Sakakibara does not teach the flat cable connector C85 comprises a through hole for the flat cable. However, it’s well known in the art that a flat cable connector comprises a through hole for a flat cable (Mori, US 6027366, a flat cable 10, a flat cable connector 50, a through hole H, Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wireless antenna being disposed at a position where the wireless antenna overlapping with a through-hole of a flat cable connector for a flat cable, the through-hole being for a flat cable, and being formed in a housing in Sakakibara, in order to increase the reception sensitivity of the antenna module. Sakakibara as modified does not teach the housing 20 is a metal housing. However, Nakano teaches an imaging apparatus (a camera module 11, Fig 3) comprising a metal housing (a metal housing 50, Fig 3) in which a wireless module (an RFIC 24, Fig 3) and a flat cable are provided (a cable 6f, Fig 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an imaging apparatus comprising a metal housing in which a wireless module and a flat cable being provided in Sakakibara, as taught by Nakano, in order to provide stable communication characteristics between a camera module and an antenna. [AltContent: textbox (Sakakibara (US 9354673))] PNG media_image1.png 730 651 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Sakakibara (US 9354673))] PNG media_image2.png 338 654 media_image2.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (C85)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C85)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (20)][AltContent: textbox (Sakakibara (US 9354673))] PNG media_image3.png 752 657 media_image3.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (H)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mori (US 6027366))] PNG media_image4.png 312 620 media_image4.png Greyscale [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Horizontal direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SF2)][AltContent: textbox (SF1)][AltContent: textbox (Nakano (US 20160198070))] PNG media_image5.png 320 624 media_image5.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Nakano (US 20160198070))] PNG media_image6.png 224 626 media_image6.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Sakakibara teaches the wireless module (an antenna 32, Fig 12) is disposed at a position where the wireless module overlaps with the through-hole as seen along the first direction (Fig 12). Regarding claim 3, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Nakano teaches in a case where a surface of an apparatus main body (a surface SF1 of a main body of a camera module 11, Fig 3) in which an imaging lens (a lens 1, Fig 3) is disposed is a first surface, the first direction is a direction (a horizontal direction, Fig 3) as seen from the first surface. Regarding claim 4, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Nakano teaches in a case where a surface of an apparatus main body in which an imaging lens is disposed is a first surface (a surface SF1 of a main body of a camera module 11, Fig 3) and a surface of the apparatus main body that faces the first surface is a second surface (a surface SF2, Fig 3), the first direction is a direction (a horizontal direction, Fig 3) as seen from the second surface. Regarding claim 7, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Nakano teaches the flat cable is connected to the wireless module (Fig 3). Regarding claim 8, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 7. Nakano teaches the wireless module includes a substrate (a circuit board 21. Fig 3) on which a wireless antenna (a feeding coil 5, Fig 3) is mounted, and the flat cable is connected to the wireless module via the substrate (Fig 3). Regarding claim 9, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Nakano teaches the flat cable has a shape that does not cover a wireless antenna (a feeding coil 5, Fig 3) as seen along a first direction (a horizontal direction, Fig 3). Regarding claim 13, Sakakibara as modified in view of Nakano discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1. Nakano teaches a wireless module (an RFIC 24, Fig 3) has a rectangular shape and is disposed to be inclined with respect to a wiring direction of the flat cable (Fig 3). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 5, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “in a case where a surface of an apparatus main body in which an imaging lens is disposed is a first surface, a surface of the apparatus main body that faces the first surface is a second surface, and a surface of the apparatus main body that connects the first surface and the second surface to each other and on which an operation member is not disposed is a third surface, the first direction is a direction as seen from the third surface”. Dependent claim 6 is considered to be allowable because of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 5. Regarding claim 10, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “a cutout for avoidance of the wireless antenna is formed at the flat cable”. Dependent claims 11-12 are considered to be allowable because of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 10. Conclusion The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-7893. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 05, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597702
ANTENNA MODULE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597695
ANTENNA FOR A GLASS ROOF OF A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592485
ANTENNA SYSTEM, RF COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592498
ARRAY ANTENNA WITH DUAL POLARIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586920
ANTENNA LENS SWITCHED BEAM ARRAY FOR TRACKING SATELLITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+18.8%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1041 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month