DETAILED ACTION
713.09 Interviews Between Final Rejection and Notice of Appeal [R-08.2017]
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. See MPEP § 714.13.
Interviews may be held after the expiration of the shortened statutory period and prior to the maximum permitted statutory period of 6 months without an extension of time. See MPEP § 706.07(f).
A second or further interview after a final rejection may be held if the examiner is convinced that it will expedite the issues for appeal or disposal of the application.
For interviews after notice of appeal, see MPEP § 1204.03.
Interview time will be revised to a limit of 1 hour per new application or RCE (utility)/CPA (design), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. When more than one interview is needed in an application supervisors will have the flexibility to approve additional time and ensure that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution.
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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
In response to the claims amendment, in view of the Remarks 03/26/2026, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
In response to the claims amendment, in view of the Remarks, the 112 rejection have been withdrawn.
In response to the claims amendment, in view of the Remarks, the double patenting rejection have been withdrawn.
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 (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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record, Bergeron et al., (US 2017/0366293 A1) (hereinafter “Bergeron”) in view of Driscoll, Jr. et al., (US 6,356,296 B1) (hereinafter “Driscoll”).
Regarding claim 1, Bergeron discloses; an electronic device that encrypts image information [i.e., an encryption system (see ref. 100 of figure 1), (see ref. 150 of figure 1A), (page 2, para 0024 and 00389)], the electronic device comprising:
a camera module including at least one lens configured to capture an image [i.e., the encryption system 100 includes a lens system 104 and camera sensor 112 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0024 and 0032) i.e., a person and/or landscape being imaged (page 3, para 0039)]; and
an optical element [i.e., optical phased array 106 (see figure 1) i.e., second OPA 140 is the same as the OPA 106 (page 3, para 0037), (see figure 1A)] coupled to be movable [i.e., the OPA 106 is positioned/disposed at different position before or after any lens [emphasis added] (page 3, para 0038)] in an area in front of the at least one lens in such a manner that an object within the image is encrypted by being optically blurred or defocused to an extent that the object cannot be visually identified [i.e., the second OPA 140 is in front of Lens systems 142 to encrypt optical signal (see figure 1A), (page 3, para 0038 and 0040), i.e., encrypting the optical signal in the optical phase array by phase shifting the plurality of beams from the first arrangement to a second arrangement (see ref. 404 of figure 4), (page 5, para 0064) i.e., as shown in FIG. C, the optical signal has been encrypted to change the appearance of the image from how it appeared in the first arrangement 170 to the second arrangement 172 (see figures 1B and 1C), (page 3, para 0042)].
Bergeron does not disclose;
wherein one surface of the optical element facing the at least one lens is formed in a shape of a parabola, and wherein a distance between the one surface and the at least one lens varies according to a position within an image capture area.
However, Driscoll discloses;
wherein one surface of an optical element facing at least one lens [i.e., set of lens (see ref. 120, 130 and 140 of figure 1), (col. 2, lines 56 – 57)] is formed in a shape of a parabola [i.e., the main reflecting mirror consists of a paraboloid share (col. 1, lines 43 – 45), (col. 2, lines 55 – 58), (see figure 1)], and wherein a distance between the one surface and the at least one lens varies according to a position within an image capture area [i.e., figure 1 depicts a paraboloid reflector extending around the optical axis (see figure 1), (col. 2, lines 55 – 60) Note; since the reflecting surface is paraboloid, different locations on the reflecting surface lie at different distances from the image capturing lens. The different positions across the reflector correspond to different reflector to lens spacing and satisfies varying distance between one surface of the optical element and the lens].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bergeron by adapting the teachings of Driscoll to have a camera system that would capture the light from all directions such that a full 360-degree panoramic image can be captured (See Driscoll; col. 1, lines 29 – 31).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2;
the prior art of record, Bergeron and Driscoll discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the camera module comprises: a plurality of lenses; an image sensor arranged to be separated from a first lens arranged rearmost among the plurality of lenses, and configured to convert an analog signal, associated with the image acquired through the plurality of lenses, into a digital signal;
However, Bergeron, Driscoll, Osborne and Attar do not disclose “and the optical element arranged in front of a second lens arranged frontmost among the plurality of lenses such that the distance between the one surface of the optical element and the at least one lens is the same as a distance between the one surface of the optical element and the second lens, wherein the optical element is arranged in an exposure area of an iris adjusting an image capture area in such a manner as to adjust an amount of light to be introduced into the plurality of lenses”.
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior arts of record and would not have been obvious. They in combination with other elements cited present subject matter that is novel and nonobvious. Thus, claim 2 is objected being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending 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.
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 SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights