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 filed on March 20, 2026 in response to the previous Office Action (10/21/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6 – 7, 10, 12 – 13 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanimoto (JP 2007-248904 A machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Tanimoto discloses an imaging system comprising: an image sensor (115) (fig. 8; ¶22); an aperture shifter (fig. 2; ¶12); a strip (5a) with a plurality of apertures (11/12/13) coupled with the aperture shifter (fig. 1-2; ¶12), a portion of the strip located along an optical pathway (7), the optical pathway to pass light from an external environment through an aperture of the plurality of apertures to the image sensor (fig. 2; ¶22), wherein the aperture of the plurality of apertures is downstream of the external environment along the optical pathway and upstream of the image sensor along the optical pathway (figs. 1-2, 6); and a controller coupled with the image sensor and the aperture shifter, the controller identifying an amount of light for the image sensor and transmitting signals to the aperture shifter to align one of the apertures of the strip with the optical pathway (¶20-22; cl.4).
Regarding claim 2, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto also teaches wherein the aperture shifter is configured to slide the portion of the strip in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical pathway (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto also teaches wherein each aperture of the strip has a different shape, a different size, a different optical filter, or some combination thereof relative to each of the other apertures (fig. 2; ¶12).
Regarding claim 7, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto also teaches wherein edges of the apertures of the strip are spaced apart from each other by at least a threshold distance (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto also teaches wherein at least one of the apertures of the strip is nonsymmetrical (fig. 2).
Claim 12 – 13 and 17 – 18 are rejected as applied to claims 1 – 2, above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Tanimoto.
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) 3 – 5, 14 – 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Zeng (CN 2337583 Y).
Regarding claim 3, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the aperture shifter includes: a first spool (33a) on a first side of the optical pathway, wherein at least a first subset of the strip is wound around the first spool; and a second spool on a second side of the optical pathway, wherein at least a second subset of the strip is wound around the second spool.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zeng teaches an improved mechanism for switching the camera lens aperture, wherein a linear diaphragm film 40 is wound around tumblers 43 and an adjusting knob 10 (cl.2-3; fig. 1). In light of the teaching of Zeng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Zeng’s teaching in Tanimoto’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in low-cost reconfigurable aperture imaging system with simple structure and easy operation.
Regarding claim 4, Tanimoto in view of Zeng discloses the limitations of claim 3. Zeng also teaches wherein the second side of the optical pathway is on the opposite side of the first side (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanimoto in view of Zeng discloses the limitations of claim 3. Zeng also teaches wherein, to move the strip relative to the optical pathway, the aperture shifter is configured to rotate the first spool and/or the second spool (cl. 4: a rotatable adjusting knob that can make a drive rack of a gear, in order to spur a diaphragm slice and move).
Claim 14 – 16 rejected as applied to claims 3 – 5, above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Tanimoto in view of Zeng.
Claim 19 – 20 rejected as applied to claims 3 – 4, above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Tanimoto in view of Zeng.
Claim(s) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto In view of Liang et al. (US 2022/0268632).
Regarding claim 8, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first aperture of the strip includes an optical filter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Liang teaches a polarization imaging system that includes a spectral-polarization filter comprising an array of multiple spectral filters and an array of multiple polarizers that are positioned in cascade to modify both spectral content and polarization of the light that enters the spectral-polarization filter; wherein the light that exits the spectral-polarization filter is directed to a sensor positioned to detect filtered light from the spectral-polarization filter at an image plane of the polarization imaging system (cl.1). In light of the teaching of Liang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Liang’s teaching in Tanimoto’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in ow-cost reconfigurable polarization imaging system with improved spatial resolution.
Regarding claim 9, Tanimoto in view of Liang et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8. Liang also teaches wherein the first aperture of the strip includes at least one of: a vertical polarizer, a horizontal polarizer, a circular polarizer, an apodization filter, neutral density filter, a linear gradient filter, or a radial gradient filter (figs. 1; ¶22-23: circular, linear polarizers).
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Hyundai (KR 95-0019878A).
Regarding claim 11, Tanimoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanimoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein, to move the strip, the aperture shifter includes at least one of: a rotary motor or a linear actuator.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hyundai a shutter that can be applied to various cameras, including a shutter having a motor driving a belt formed with two transparent parts (cl.1; fig. 1). In light of the teaching of Hyundai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hyundai’s teaching in Tanimoto’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a shutter with a new structure that can reduce the manufacturing cost and reduce the manufacturing cost.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights