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
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 3/2/2026.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 13 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 20 has/have been added; Claim(s) 1 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 § 103
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 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 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 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar (US 20210185198 A1) in view of Sinharoy et al (US 10638030 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Attar teaches A system comprising:
a first optical system comprising:
a first lens module (lens module 107) including one or more lenses;
a first reflector (reflector 105) configured to direct light from a first view of an external environment toward the first lens module, wherein the first reflector is configured to rotate about a first axis (axis 115) during operation (Figs. 1-2; para. 0044: “In some embodiments, motor 111 tilts the reflector 105 (e.g., by a few degrees in either direction) to compensate for motion (e.g., hand motion) while the image sensor 109 is capturing an image of a portion of the scene”; or rotating as shown in figs. 2’s);
a first motor (motor 111) configured to rotate the first reflector about the first axis (Figs. 1-2); and
a first image sensor (image sensor 109) arranged to receive light from the first lens module,
but fails to teach
the first image sensor tilted relative to a first optical path of light incident on the first image sensor, wherein the tilt angle of the first image sensor is based on an angular position of the first reflector about the first axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor Sinharoy teaches
the first image sensor tilted relative to a first optical path of light incident on the first image sensor, wherein the tilt angle of the first image sensor is based on an angular position of the first reflector about the first axis (col. 1, lines 58-67: “A lens or a sensor of the camera is rotated about an axis to a plurality of positions, and the rotation generates a rotation of a plane of sharp focus of the camera. At each of the plurality of positions, an image is captured. For each image, a substantially in-focus region is determined. The substantially in-focus regions are combined to generate a composite image”; col. 2, lines 58-67; Attar already teaches that the first image sensor 109 angled at a fixed angle about the second axis is based on rotation of the first reflector 105 about the first axis so that images can be captured properly. Sinharoy teaches that the first image sensor 109 can be rotated about the first axis as presented).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Sinharoy in Attar to have the first image sensor tilted relative to a first optical path of light incident on the first image sensor, wherein the tilt angle of the first image sensor is based on an angular position of the first reflector about the first axis for improving the plane of focus and depth of field of an image during or after image capture yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 14-15, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Sinharoy teaches
Claim 14: The system of claim 1, wherein the tilt angle of the first image sensor relative to the first optical path of light incident on the first image sensor is an oblique angle (Figs. 2; col. 1, lines 58-67; col. 2, lines 58-67).
Claim 15: The system of claim 14, wherein the tilt angle is between 0.1-5 degrees (Fig. 3, lines 4-29; “the camera 102 rotates either a lens or an image sensor about an axis… the rotation may be between two angles such as −10° to +10°. Other angles may be used without departing from the scope of the disclosure such as −15° to +15°, −5° to +5°, or others”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Sinharoy in the combination to have features of claims 14-15 for utilizing optimized tilting angles for acquiring better focused images yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Attar teaches further comprising a second reflector (mirror 811) configured to direct light from the first lens module to the first image sensor (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Attar teaches further comprising a lens field corrector (Fig. 1B; another one of the lenses).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Attar teaches wherein the first optical system includes a nonsymmetrical aperture (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Attar teaches wherein one or more lenses of the first lens module include a nonsymmetrical surface (para. 0042).
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar (US 20210185198 A1) in view of Sinharoy et al (US 10638030 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Georgiev et al (US 20150373262 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising: a second optical system comprising: a second lens module including one or more lenses; a second reflector configured to direct light from a second view of the external environment toward the second lens module; and a second image sensor arranged to receive light from the second lens module, the second image sensor tilted relative to a second optical path of light incident on the second image sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Georgiev teaches
further comprising:
a second optical system comprising: a second lens module including one or more lenses; a second reflector configured to direct light from a second view of the external environment toward the second lens module; and a second image sensor arranged to receive light from the second lens module, the second image sensor tilted relative to a second optical path of light incident on the second image sensor (Figs. 1B, 2, 4, 7; paras. 0039-0042, 0048-0053, 0065, 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Geogiev in the combination to have further comprising: a second optical system comprising: a second lens module including one or more lenses; a second reflector configured to direct light from a second view of the external environment toward the second lens module; and a second image sensor arranged to receive light from the second lens module, the second image sensor tilted relative to a second optical path of light incident on the second image sensor for utilizing multiple optical systems to improve image resolution and photographing speed in photographing a large scene yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 3-5, the combination of Attar, Sinharoy and Geogiev teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Geogiev teaches
Claim 3: The system of claim 2, further comprising a controller (220) coupled to the first image sensor and the second image sensor (Fig. 2), the controller configured to:
receive a first image of the first view captured by the first image sensor;
receive a second image of the second view captured by the second image sensor; and
combine the first image and the second image into a combined image (Figs. 2, 10; paras. 0051-0053).
Claim 4: the system of claim 3, further comprising:
a third optical system (Figs. 5; paras. 0066-0069; a third one of the four optical systems shown in figs. 5) comprising:
a third lens module including one or more lenses;
a third reflector configured to direct light from a third view of the external environment toward the third lens module; and
a third image sensor arranged to receive light from the third lens module, the third image sensor tilted relative to a third optical path of light incident on the third image sensor (Figs. 4, 7; paras. 0065, 0072; “the sensor may be positioned in a different position and at a different angle relative to the optical axis and a secondary light redirecting surface can be included to redirect the light into the sensor”).
Claim 5: the system of claim 4, wherein the controller is further coupled to the third image sensor and further configured to:
receive a third image of the third view captured by the third image sensor; and
combine the first image, the second image, and the third image into a combined image (Figs. 2, 10; paras. 0051-0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Geogiev in the combination to have features of claims 3-5 for utilizing multiple optical systems to improve image resolution and photographing speed in generating a larger scene image yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 6-11, the combination of Attar, Sinharoy and Geogiev teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Geogiev teaches
Claim 6: the system of claim 2, wherein the second view of the external environment includes at least some overlap with the first view (Fig. 1A; paras. 0038, 0052-0053).
Claim 7: the system of claim 2, wherein the first image sensor and the second image sensor are tilted such that the focal plane of the first optical system is substantially parallel to the focal plane of the second optical system (Figs. 1, 4-5; paras. 0059-0061, 0074-0077, 0084; “an array camera free of parallax and tilt artifacts due to arrangement of the various components according to the predetermined spatial relationships defined below”, “the corresponding sensor of each mirror is positioned at an angle 2a relative to the vertical axis of the array passing through the apex, and that the center of projection of the lens assembly associated with each sensor is positioned the same distance D from the apex as each of the other centers of projection”, “the vertical axis 325 denotes the vertical axis of symmetry of the array 300 and is also the virtual optical axis (e.g., the optical axis of the virtual camera 320 represented by virtual sensor 321 and virtual lens 322”; the focal planes are substantially parallel due to free of parallax and tilt artifacts design).
Claim 8: the system of claim 2, wherein: the first image sensor is tilted such that the focal plane of the first optical system is substantially parallel to a front surface of the system; and the second image sensor is tilted such that the focal plane of the second optical system is substantially parallel to the front surface of the system (Figs. 1, 4-5; paras. 0059-0061, 0074-0077, 0084; “an array camera free of parallax and tilt artifacts due to arrangement of the various components according to the predetermined spatial relationships defined below”, “the corresponding sensor of each mirror is positioned at an angle 2a relative to the vertical axis of the array passing through the apex, and that the center of projection of the lens assembly associated with each sensor is positioned the same distance D from the apex as each of the other centers of projection”; “the vertical axis 325 denotes the vertical axis of symmetry of the array 300 and is also the virtual optical axis (e.g., the optical axis of the virtual camera 320 represented by virtual sensor 321 and virtual lens 322”; the focal planes are substantially parallel due to free of parallax and tilt artifacts design).
Claim 9: the system of claim 2, wherein: the first image sensor is not substantially parallel to a front surface of the system; and the second image sensor is not substantially parallel to the front surface of the system (Figs. 4-5).
Claim 10: the system of claim 2, wherein the first image sensor and the second image sensor are tilted at substantially the same angle (Figs. 1, 4-5; paras. 0059-0061, 0074-0077, 0084; “an array camera free of parallax and tilt artifacts due to arrangement of the various components according to the predetermined spatial relationships defined below”, “the corresponding sensor of each mirror is positioned at an angle 2a relative to the vertical axis of the array passing through the apex, and that the center of projection of the lens assembly associated with each sensor is positioned the same distance D from the apex as each of the other centers of projection”; “the vertical axis 325 denotes the vertical axis of symmetry of the array 300 and is also the virtual optical axis (e.g., the optical axis of the virtual camera 320 represented by virtual sensor 321 and virtual lens 322”; tilted at substantially the same angle due to free of parallax and tilt artifacts design).
Claim 11: the system of claim 2, further comprising a front surface with a window, wherein: the first reflector is configured to direct light that passed through the window; and the second reflector is configured to direct light that passed through the window (Figs. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Geogiev in the combination to have features of claims 6-11 for utilizing an optimized optical configuration with reflector to improve image resolution, optical properties and photographing speed in generating a larger scene image yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Attar, Sinharoy and Geogiev teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Attar teaches wherein the second lens module includes a non-symmetric lens (para. 0042).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar (US 20210185198 A1) in view of Sinharoy et al (US 10638030 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (US 20170272658 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Attar and Sinharoy teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising a second motor configured to rotate the first image sensor about a second axis, wherein rotation of the first image sensor about the second axis is based on rotation of the first reflector about the first axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ito teaches
further comprising a second motor (one of voice coil motors [coils CZA, CZB and CZC; magnets MZA1, MZB1, MZC1]) configured to rotate the first image sensor about a second axis, wherein rotation of the first image sensor about the second axis is based on rotation of the first reflector about the first axis (Figs. 2-14; paras. 0100, 0004, 0014, 0059, 0069, 0075, 0088, 0093, 0098; three voice coil motors enable the image sensor to be rotated in x and y axes to obtain best focus for entire object(s) to be obtained in different angles [Ito] where the image sensor is capturing images based on/through the reflector [Attar]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Ito in the combination to have further comprising a second motor configured to rotate the first image sensor about a second axis, wherein rotation of the first image sensor about the second axis is based on rotation of the first reflector about the first axis for utilizing different tilt motors to freely tilt in different axes allowing best focus for entire object(s) to be obtained in different angles yielding a predicted result.
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 Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights