DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites a distance that lies substantially within a range, then later recites that the range is approximately ½ to approximately 1.1. Use of the term substantially already allows for some ambiguity. Use of the term approximately also introduces some ambiguity. While the examiner understands use of such terms may be used to account for things such as manufacturing tolerances, it is unclear what the use of both terms of ambiguity (double ambiguity) are meant to encompass.
Claim 11 recites a distance that lies substantially within a range, then later recites that the range is approximately ½ to approximately 1.1. Use of the term substantially already allows for some ambiguity. Use of the term approximately also introduces some ambiguity. While the examiner understands use of such terms may be used to account for things such as manufacturing tolerances, it is unclear what the use of both terms of ambiguity (double ambiguity) are meant to encompass.
Claim 17 recites a distance that lies substantially within a range, then later recites that the range is approximately 1.3 to approximately 1.5. Use of the term substantially already allows for some ambiguity. Use of the term approximately also introduces some ambiguity. While the examiner understands use of such terms may be used to account for things such as manufacturing tolerances, it is unclear what the use of both terms of ambiguity (double ambiguity) are meant to encompass.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “accessory” appears to be missing after “at least one optical”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng (WO2024/250302). Zheng teaches an underwater image capture system for use with an image capture apparatus (shooting device) defining an optical axis (centerline in fig. 2), the underwater image capture system comprising: an underwater housing (10) configured to receive the image capture apparatus; and at least one optical accessory 12 configured to shift a field-of-view of the image capture apparatus outwardly along the optical axis so as to define at least one blind area configured to receive the underwater housing so as to inhibit detection of the at least one blind area (see line 13 in figs. 2, 5) and the underwater housing by at least one image sensor of the image capture apparatus when the image capture apparatus is positioned within the underwater housing.
Regarding claim 18, the at least one optical accessory is formed integrally with the underwater housing such that the at least one optical accessory and the underwater housing are non-removably connected. (“the light-transmitting portion 12 is provided with a raised portion 121 connected to the shell structure 11, and the raised portion 121 can be integrally formed with the main structure of the light-transmitting portion 12”)
Regarding claim 20, the underwater housing includes a non-reflective section (rubber seal). The language “to inhibit stray light from entering the image capture apparatus” is considered intended use and not being given patentable weight. Rubber is non reflective.
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) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (WO2024/250302). Zheng teaches an image capture system comprising: an image capture apparatus (shooting device) including: a body; and at least one lens supported by the body; and at least one optical accessory 10 configured to overlie the at least one lens and thereby shift a field-of-view of the image capture apparatus outwardly away from the body (figs. 2, 5) so as to define at least one blind area. Zheng does not teach that the field-of-view is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a field-of-view which is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range to maximize the panorama. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Zheng teaches “the light-transmitting portions 12 may also satisfy the conditional formula: 1.458≤Nd≤1.712; wherein Nd is the refractive index of the light-transmitting portion 12. When the above conditional formula is satisfied, the light-transmitting portion 12 has sufficient refractive power, and can adapt to the application environment in which the refractive index of water is much higher than that of air during underwater shooting.”
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.0 to approximately 1.1 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range for use in air and to configure for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.3 to approximately 1.5 for use in water. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, a sleeve area 11 is shown in fig. 5. “The shell structure 11 is provided with a receiving cavity, and the shooting device is accommodated in the receiving cavity.”
Regarding claim 10, the at least one optical accessory is formed integrally with the underwater housing such that the at least one optical accessory and the underwater housing are non-removably connected. (“the light-transmitting portion 12 is provided with a raised portion 121 connected to the shell structure 11, and the raised portion 121 can be integrally formed with the main structure of the light-transmitting portion 12”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (WO2024/250302) in view of St Clair (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0192144). Zheng teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for accessory includes a single lens. St. Clair teaches that using an accessory with a single lens is a known alternative to using an accessory with more than one lens. The applicant is directed to review paragraphs 6-7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a single lens panoramic system of St. Clair for the purpose of lowering manufacturing costs.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (WO2024/250302) in view of Lu (CN11308835). Zheng teaches the salient features of the claimed invention. Lu teaches “incident surface and the exit surface are plated with broadband anti-reflection coating, the inner reflector to use PMMA organic glass is easy to generate, so as to improve the imaging quality.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Lu for the purpose of improving image quality.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133095). Cotoros teaches an image capture system comprising: an image capture apparatus including: a body 410; and at least one lens L4/411 supported by the body; and at least one optical accessory L1/432/472 configured to overlie the at least one lens and thereby shift a field-of-view of the image capture apparatus outwardly away from the body (see fig. 4A as well as ¶¶ 35, 37 and 108) so as to define at least one blind area (360, 362 in fig. 3B. see also ¶ 89) configured such that the field-of-view is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance. Cotoros does not teach that the field-of-view is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a field-of-view which is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range to maximize the panorama. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, at least one optical accessory includes a single lens L1/432/472.
Regarding claim 3, the image capture apparatus further includes a mounting structure 480 connected to the body.
Regarding claim 4, the at least one optical accessory is configured for direct connection to the mounting structure. See fig. 4B.
Regarding claim 5, ¶¶ 4, 14, 25 and 39 teach the at least one optical accessory is configured for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.0 to approximately 1.1. (The index of refraction of air is between 1.0 and 1.1.)
Regarding claim 6, fig. 3B teaches a sleeve 302 configured to receive the image capture apparatus such that the sleeve is located within the at least one blind area.
Regarding claim 7, ¶¶ 13, 25 and 39 teach the at least one optical accessory is configured for use
in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.3 to approximately 1.5. (The index of refraction of water is between 1.3 and 1.5.)
Regarding claim 8, an underwater housing 302 configured to receive the image capture apparatus such that the underwater housing is located within the at least one blind area. See fig. 3B.
Regarding claim 9, at least one optical accessory 732/472 is configured for removable connection to the underwater housing. See figs. 4A-4B and ¶97.
Regarding claim 11, Cotoros teaches an image capture apparatus including: a body 410; and at least one lens 411 supported by the body; at least one first optical accessory 432 including first optical properties (configured for water); and at least one second optical accessory 472 including second optical properties (configured for air) different than the first optical properties, wherein the at least one first optical accessory and the at least one second optical accessory are each configured to overlie the at least one lens and thereby shift a field-of-view of the image capture apparatus outwardly away from the body (¶¶ 99 and 112) such that the field-of-view is spaced from the body by a distance (see fig. 3B). Cotoros does not teach that the field-of-view is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design a field-of-view which is spaced from the body of the image capture apparatus by a distance that lies substantially within a range of approximately ½ mm to approximately 5 mm for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range to maximize the panorama. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, ¶¶ 4, 14, 25 and 39 teach the at least one optical accessory is configured for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.0 to approximately 1.1. (The index of refraction of air is between 1.0 and 1.1.)
Regarding claim 13, fig. 3B teaches a sleeve 302 configured to receive the image capture apparatus such that the sleeve is located within the at least one blind area.
Regarding claim 14, ¶¶ 13, 25 and 39 teach the at least one optical accessory is configured for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.3 to approximately 1.5. (The index of refraction of water is between 1.3 and 1.5.)
Regarding claim 15, an underwater housing 302 configured to receive the image capture apparatus such that the underwater housing is located within the at least one blind area. See fig. 3B.
Regarding claim 16, Cotoros teaches an underwater image capture system for use with an image capture apparatus defining an optical axis, the underwater image capture system comprising: an underwater housing 302 configured to receive the image capture apparatus 410; and at least one optical accessory 432/472 configured to shift a field-of-view of the image capture apparatus outwardly along the optical axis (¶¶ 99 and 112) so as to define at least one blind area configured to receive the underwater housing so as to inhibit detection of the at least one blind area and the underwater housing by at least one image sensor of the image capture apparatus when the image capture apparatus is positioned within the underwater housing (fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 17, ¶¶ 13, 25 and 39 teach the at least one optical accessory is configured for use in an environment defining an index of refraction that lies substantially within a range of approximately 1.3 to approximately 1.5. (The index of refraction of water is between 1.3 and 1.5.)
Regarding claim 19, the at least one optical accessory is configured for removable connection to the underwater housing. See figs. 4A-4B and ¶97.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133095). Cotoros discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one optical accessory is formed integrally with the underwater housing such that the underwater housing and the at least one optical accessory are non-removably connected. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the accessory as one piece with the housing, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133095) in view of Au (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0218136). Cotoros teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the underwater housing includes a non-reflective section to inhibit stray light from entering the image capture apparatus. Au teaches in ¶ 146 that it was known to use an anti reflective coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Au for the purpose of mitigating glare.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng (CN220064578) teaches that single lens systems and dual lens systems are known alternative embodiments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852