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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed on 6/4/2026 with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
If the Applicant requests a telephonic interview, the Applicant could schedule a phone interview with the Examiner.
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 1-5, 11-14 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. JPH08111798, in view of Kasahara JP2014199241.
In regard to claim 1, note Masao discloses an optical device (camera device 1 as shown in Fig 3) comprising: an optical system configured to cause incident first light (front window 15) to focus on an specified light reception area of an imaging element (CCD image receiving section 13); and an optical element (left mirrors 20 & 21 or right mirrors 22 &23) configured to guide second light (left window 16 or right window 17) to the specified light reception area (13) , the second light having a principal ray that is incident on the optical system and angle between which and an optical axis of the optical system differs from angle between a principal ray of the first light and the optical axis of the optical system (See [0009] and Figs 3-7).
However, Masao but fails to explicitly disclose the second light is superimposed on an image formed by the first light and captured by the imaging element, wherein the imaging element is configured to output an image signal in which an image formed by the first light and an image formed by the second light are superimposed.
In analogous art, Kasahara discloses an optical device comprising the second light is superimposed on an image formed by the first light and captured by the imaging element (104 shown in Fig 1 or 202 shown in Fig 4), wherein the imaging element is configured to output an image signal in which an image formed by the first light and an image formed by the second light are superimposed (by superimposing module 101) as shown in Figs 1-4 (See the copy English translation pages 1-2 and 17 Aspect 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference Masao such that the second light is superimposed on an image formed by the first light and captured by the imaging element, wherein the imaging element is configured to output an image signal in which an image formed by the first light and an image formed by the second light are superimposed, in order to superimpose the otpical paths of two images having parallaxes.
In regard to claim 2, Masao and Kasahara disclose the optical device according to claim 1, wherein Masao discloses wherein the angle between the principal ray of the second light (from left side window 16 or right side window 17) and the optical axis is larger than the angle between the principal ray of the first light (from front window 15) and the optical axis (See Fig 3).
In regard to claim 3, Masao and Kasahara disclose the optical device according to claim 1, wherein Masao discloses wherein the optical element is a mirror (left mirrors 20 & 21 or right mirrors 22 &23) configured to reflect the second light and guide the reflected second light to the specified area (imaging lens 12) as shown in Fig 3.
In regard to claim 4, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein Masao discloses an imaging element comprises a light reception area overlapping the specified area as show in Fig 5.
In regard to claim 5, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein Masao discloses wherein the optical element is a mirror configured to reflect the second light and guide the reflected second light to the specified area as shown in Fig 3.
In regard to claim 11, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 5, wherein Masao discloses wherein the mirror (21 or 23) is located outside an exit pupil of the optical system as viewed in direction of the optical axis of the optical system as shown in Fig 3.
In regard to claim 12, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 5, wherein Masao discloses wherein angle of a principal ray of any light flux in the optical system relative to the optical axis is larger than
PNG
media_image1.png
28
27
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as shown in Fig 3.
In regard to claim 13, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein Masao discloses further comprising a controller (43, Fig. 9) configured to separate an image corresponding to an image signal generated by image capturing of the imaging element into first image components associated with object points within a direct field angle of the optical system, the direct field angle matching the light reception area of the imaging element, and second image components associated with object points outside the direct field angle as shown in Fig 5 (See [0021]).
In regard to claim 14, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein Masao discloses further comprising wherein the optical element performs optical processing on light flux incident on the optical element and emits resultant light flux as shown in Figure 3.
In regard to claim 17, Masao and Kasahara disclose the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein Masao discloses the imaging device according to claim 14, adding distortion (adding left and right image with front image together) to an image to be formed by the incident light flux in the light reception area as shown in Fig 5.
4. Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. JPH08111798, Kasahara JP2014199241 in view of Konrad et al. (US Pub. 2022/0137425).
In regard to claim 6, note Masao and Kasahara discloses the imaging device according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose a reflection surface of the mirror is parallel to the optical axis of the optical system.
In analogous art, Konrad discloses the reflection surface of the mirror (13) is parallel to the optical axis of the optical system as shown in Fig 1 (See [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference Masao such that the reflection surface of the mirror is parallel to the optical axis of the optical system in order to guide more wide light beams enter in the camera system and get an image appears larger.
In regard to claim 7, note Masao, Kasahara and Konrad disclose the imaging device according to claims 5- 6, wherein the light reception area is rectangular, and a reflection surface of the mirror is parallel to one side of the rectangular light reception area of the imaging element as shown in Konrad’s Fig 1.
In regard to claim 8, note Masao, Kasahara and Konrad disclose the imaging device according to claims 5- 7, and wherein the mirror comprises a plurality of plane mirrors (two sides mirror 13), and at least one set of two plane mirrors out of the plurality of plane mirrors comprises reflection surfaces parallel to each other as shown in Konrad’s Fig 1 (see [0030]).
In regard to claim 10, note Masao, Kasahara and Konrad disclose the imaging device according to claim 8, and wherein each plane mirror (13) is in close contact with an outer edge of the light reception area of the imaging element in a normal direction of the plane mirror (see Konrad [0048]).
5. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao et al. JPH08111798, Kasahara JP2014199241 in view of Ono (US Pub. 2018/01364337).
In regard to claims 15-16, note Masao and Kasahara discloses the imaging device according to claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical processing is changing bandwidth of the incident light flux; adding, to the incident light flux, a brightness difference pattern according to incident position of the incident light flux.
In analogous art, Ono discloses the optical processing is changing bandwidth of the incident light flux (different wavelength) adding to the incident light flux, a brightness (amount lights) difference pattern according to incident position of the incident light flux (See [0353]- [0354]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference Masao such that the optical processing is changing bandwidth of the incident light flux; adding, to the incident light flux, a brightness difference pattern according to incident position of the incident light flux in order to easily adjust the light amount and individually preforming focus adjustment on optical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 9, the prior art recod – taken alone or in combination – fails to disclose or render obvious wherein distance H between the optical axis of the imaging element and each of the reflection surfaces of the two plane mirrors parallel to each other is equal, and CRA < tan1(H/B) is satisfied, where CRA is angle of a principal ray of light flux from an object point at an angle of twice a direct field angle of the optical system, the direct field angle matching the light reception area of the imaging element, and B is backfocus of the optical system with all the limitations recited on claims1, 4, 5 and 8.
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 Lin Ye whose telephone number is (571)272- 7372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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 TC director, James Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-6783. 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.
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights