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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10-12, 17, and 20 are original; and claims 3-7, 9, 13-16, and 18-19 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 16 January 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because the limitation “the shallow sloped faces” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 6, 13-16, and 18-19 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.
Re: claim 6, the meaning of the limitation “three or more such wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited earlier in the claim or to some other prisms. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the one or more wedge prisms comprise at least three wedge prisms that are disposed around the fisheye lens…”
Re: claim 13, the meaning of the limitation “one or more right angle wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether this limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited in claim 11 or whether some other prisms are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the one or more wedge prisms comprise at least one right angle wedge prism with a sloped face…”
Re: claim 14, the meaning of the limitation “one or more right angle wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether this limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited in claim 11 or whether some other prisms are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the one or more wedge prisms comprise at least one right angle wedge prism with a vertical face…”
Re: claim 15, the meaning of the limitation “one or more isosceles wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether this limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited in claim 11 or whether some other prisms are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the one or more wedge prisms comprise at least one isosceles wedge prism with shallow sloped faces…”
Re: claim 16, the meaning of the limitation “three or more such wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited earlier in the claim or to some other prisms. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “the one or more wedge prisms comprise at least three wedge prisms around the fisheye lens…”
Re: claim 18, the meaning of the limitation “one full conical wedge prism, two half-conical wedge prisms or four quarters-conical wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited in claim 11 or whether some other prisms are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed to mean “disposing the one or more wedge prisms, where the one or more wedge prisms comprise one full conical wedge prism, two half-conical wedge prisms, or four quarters-conical wedge prisms around the fisheye lens…”
Re: claim 19, the meaning of the limitation “two wedge prisms” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the one or more wedge prisms recited in claim 11 or whether some other prisms are being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed to mean “disposing the one or more wedge prisms, where the one or more wedge prisms comprise two wedge prisms…”
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, 9, 11-12, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toriumi (US 20200348481).
Re: claim 1, Toriumi discloses a fisheye lens AF, BF (Figs. 1, 2) configured to provide a substantially 360° azimuthal angle view with a forward direction at 0° radial angle and with a maximum radial angle Θm (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2 & para. 59 “Each of the wide-angle lens systems A and B has an angle view of greater than 180 degrees;” para. 60 “The front group AF/BF is capable of capturing light rays with wide angles of view of 180 degrees or more;” see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim); a sensor AI, BI configured to record an image through the fisheye lens (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2 & para. 59 “The imaging system 1 may be configured as a spherical imaging system that combines two images formed by the image sensors AI and BI to obtain an image with a solid angle of 4π steradian;” see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim) and one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 disposed adjacent the fisheye lens (disposition disclosed in Figs. 2, 3) and each configured such that a ray incident at more than Θm radial angle is deflected to be captured through the fisheye lens onto the sensor (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 2, 3 & paras. 59 & 60; see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.).
Re: claim 11, Toriumi discloses a fisheye lens AF, BF configured to provide a substantially 360° azimuthal angle view with a forward direction at 0° radial angle and with a maximum radial angle Θm (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2 & para. 59 “Each of the wide-angle lens systems A and B has an angle view of greater than 180 degrees;” para. 60 “The front group AF/BF is capable of capturing light rays with wide angles of view of 180 degrees or more;” see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim), and a sensor AI, BI configured to record an image through the fisheye lens (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2 & para. 59 “The imaging system 1 may be configured as a spherical imaging system that combines two images formed by the image sensors AI and BI to obtain an image with a solid angle of 4π steradian;” see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim), the method comprising the step of: disposing one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 adjacent the fisheye lens (disposition disclosed in Figs. 2, 3), wherein each of the one or more prisms is configured such that a ray incident at more than Θm radial angle is deflected to be captured through the fisheye lens onto the sensor (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 2, 3 & paras. 59 & 60; see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.).
Re: claims 2 and 12, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and Toriumi further discloses the device and method wherein the sensor AI, BI is rectangular (Figs. 1, 2) and the one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 are configured such that each of a horizontal angular range and a vertical angular range of the recorded image is +/- Θm extending over substantially the full horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, of the sensor (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 1, 2; see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.).
Re: claims 6 and 16, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and Toriumi further discloses the device and method wherein the one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 each comprise angled extension portions on either side thereof (Fig. 2, where the angled portions include the pointed ends of each triangle), and three or more such wedge prisms AP2, BP2, AP3, BP3 are disposed around the fisheye lens AP1, BP1 to direct rays from substantially the full 360° azimuthal angle view through the fisheye lens onto the sensor AI, BI (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 2, see also MPEP § 2114.II).
Re: claims 9 and 19, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 11 respectively, and Toriumi further discloses the device and method wherein the one or more wedge prisms comprise two wedge prisms such that rays incident at more than Θm radial angle from two opposing sides of the substantially full 360° azimuthal angle view are deflected to be captured through the fisheye AF, BF lens onto the sensor AI, BI (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 2, 3; see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.).
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) 3-5, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toriumi.
Re: claims 3 and 13, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and Toriumi further discloses the device and method wherein the one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 comprise a sloped face facing outwards from the fisheye lens (disclosed in Fig. 2). While Toriumi does not explicitly disclose that the one or more wedge prisms are right angle wedge prisms, Figure 2 discloses that prisms AP2 and BP2 each include an angle appearing to be equal to or approximately equal to ninety degrees (see MPEP § 2125, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wedge prisms comprise a right angle for the purpose of directing light beams emerging from the prism toward a predetermined location.
Re: claims 4 and 14, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively. While Toriumi does not explicitly disclose the device or method wherein the one or more wedge prisms comprise right angle wedge prisms with a vertical face of the right angle wedge prism facing outwards from the fisheye lens, Figure 2 does disclose that prisms AP2 and BP2 each include an angle appearing to be equal to or approximately equal to ninety degrees. In addition, while Toriumi does not explicitly disclose that a vertical face facing outwards from the fisheye lens, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have this feature for the purpose of directing light beams emerging from the prism toward a predetermined location.
Re: claims 5 and 15, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and Toriumi further discloses the device and method wherein the one or more wedge prisms AP2, BP2 with one of the shallow sloped faces of the isosceles wedge prism facing outwards from the fisheye lens AF, BF (Fig. 2). While Toriumi does not explicitly disclose that the one or more wedge prisms are isosceles wedge prisms, Figure 2 discloses that prisms AP2 and BP2 each include a pair of sides having the same or substantially similar lengths (see MPEP § 2125, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wedge prisms comprise isosceles wedge prisms for the purpose of directing light beams emerging from the prism toward a predetermined location.
Re: claims 7, 8, 17, and 18, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Toriumi does not explicitly disclose the device or method wherein the one or more wedge prisms comprise a conical wedge prism or portions thereof and that the one or more wedge prisms comprise one full conical wedge prism, two half-conical wedge prisms, or four quarter- conical wedge prisms disposed around the fisheye lens to direct rays from substantially the full 360° azimuthal angle view through the fisheye lens onto the sensor; however, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to select an optimum prism shape as a matter of obvious design choice for the purpose of directing light exiting the prism in a specific direction.
Re: claims 10 and 20, Toriumi discloses the limitations of claim 9 and 19 respectively. While Toriumi does not explicitly disclose the device and method wherein the two wedge prisms comprise quarter-conical wedge prisms, a person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been motivated to select an optimum prism shape and number of prisms as a matter of obvious design choice for the purpose of directing light exiting the prism in a specific direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights