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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 16 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 June 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 11,036,944 B1) in view of Cavallaro et al. (US 10,091,433 B1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a picture recording arrangement comprising:
an image sensor (Figure 1, 102), and
a light source configured to emit radiation along a plurality of emission directions (Figure 1, 104; Figures 3 and 5),
wherein the light source comprises a plurality of independently controllable light-emitting units (Figures 3 and 5; Figure 9, 902 and 904; c. 20, ll. 14-41; c. 24, l. 56 – c. 26, l. 46; note that either source 902 or 904 may be independently activated and controlled to emit light at a desired intensity),
for each one of the emission directions, there is at least one light-emitting units (e.g. Figure 5C, Figure 9, 902 and 904; note light emitting unit(s) corresponding to each direction 302 and 402), and
the radiation emitted into one of the emission directions is emitted predominantly out of a field of view of the image sensor (Figure 3C and 5C, 302; light is emitted predominantly out of a field of view of the image sensor when performing bounce flash illumination).
However, while Feng discloses a single emission direction in which emitted light is predominantly out of a field of view of the image sensor, Feng does not disclose multiple “emission directions” in which the emitted light is predominantly out of a field of view of the image sensor.
Cavallaro discloses an automated bounce flash system which determines lighting conditions of an environment, selects a surface in the environment from which to bounce emitted light and controls a direction of emitted light onto the selected surface to capture a properly illuminated image (e.g. Figures 1 and 3). Cavallaro further discloses a multi-directional flash device which a plurality of independently controllable light emitters grouped into independent segments which can emit light at a plurality of different angles which is usable with the automated bounce flash system (e.g. Figure 1, 124; c. 3, l. 21-43, c. 3, l. 56 – c. 4, l. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an multi-directional flash device which can emit light at a plurality of different angles, and to select an angle for emitting light to control the light emitters as taught by Cavallaro so that bounce flash photography may be performed using a surface selected in accordance with lighting conditions of the scene, thereby simplifying and automating bounce flash photography to achieve properly illuminated images.
Note that the combined system would include a plurality of possible bounce flash directions, each of which would be emission directions predominantly out of the field of view of the image sensor as recited in the claim.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Cavallaro discloses wherein an emission angle between an optical axis of the image sensor and at least some of the emission directions is between 30 and 75 inclusive, wherein for at least some of the emission directions an emission angle width per emission direction is between 15 and 45 inclusive (c. 3, ll. 21-45; e.g. 30 degrees upwards and 30 degrees downwards).
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 11,036,944 B1) in view of Cavallaro et al. (US 10,091,433 B1) in view of Gross et al. (US 8,761,594 B1).[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Cavallaro discloses further comprising the light- emitting units, wherein at least some of the light-emitting units are followed by redirectional optics for defining the emission directions (Figure 1, 128; ; c. 3, l. 21-43; flash array such as LEDs including reflectors positioned to direct light emitted in different directions).
However, Cavallaro does not explicitly disclose that the light-emitting units are arranged in parallel on a common circuit board.
Gross discloses a similar illumination array including a plurality of light-emitting units arranged in parallel on a common circuit board and including reflectors positioned to direct light in different emission directions (e.g. Figure 12; c. 12, ll. 18-38). The use of a common circuit board would allow for the light-emitting units to be fixed in place relative to each other while providing control paths for activating the light-emitting units.
Therefore, it would have obvious provide a common circuit board to arrange the light-emitting units in parallel so that the light-emitting units may be fixed in place relative to each other while providing control paths for activating the light-emitting units. [claim 17]
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
However, Feng in view of Cavallo does not explicitly disclose an emission angle between an optical axis of the light source and each of the emission directions can be changed during operation of the light source.
Gross discloses a similar illumination array including a plurality of light-emitting units arranged to direct light in different emission directions (e.g. Figure 12; c. 12, ll. 18-38). Gross further discloses an illumination array wherein an emission angle between an optical axis of the light source and each of the emission directions can be changed during operation of the light source, including a plurality of non-parallel directions (e.g. c. 10, l. 31 – c. 11, l. 4; adjusting direction of the light beams). By providing reconfigurable light-emitting units capable of changing emission directions as taught by Gross, the number of directions available in the automated bounce flash system may be increased.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide light-emitting units capable of changing emission angles as taught by Gross so that the light-emitting direction of the array may be further refined, thereby allowing for additional directions for bounce flash photography.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 11,036,944 B1) in view of Cavallaro et al. (US 10,091,433 B1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Feng in view of Cavallaro does not disclose at least one common optics element being optically downstream of all the light-emitting units.
However, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use optical elements such as filters or lenses with arrays of light-emitting units so that light from the light-emitting units may be filtered, focused or dispersed when emitting light onto the scene.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include at least one common optical element downstream of the light-emitting units so that the light emitted may be filtered, focused or dispersed, thereby further adjusting the emitted light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 18 and 19 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.[claims 3-4 and 10]
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the picture recording arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting units are arranged in a circular manner, seen in top view of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the picture recording arrangement according to claim 1, wherein, seen in top view of the image sensor, the light-emitting units surround a placement area in which the image sensor and/or a further optoelectronic unit is located.
While arranging light-emitting units in a circular manner relative to an image sensor is known in the prior art, arranging the particular light-emitting units of claim 1 in such a manner is not taught or suggested by the prior art.[claims 5-7]
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the picture recording arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising a housing body, wherein the light-emitting units are separate devices all fixed to the housing body, wherein the housing body comprises a plurality of recesses the light-emitting units are arranged at.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the picture recording arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising a housing, wherein the housing is composed of a plurality of housing slices of identical construction, wherein each one of the housing slices carries at least one of the light-emitting units.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest picture recording arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting units are placed on and electrically connected with mounting strips in a periphery of a common circuit board, wherein the mounting strips are bent relative to a central part of the common circuit board.
While the prior art teaches similar systems (see e.g. Cavallaro and Gross as discussed above), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the particular structural requirements of claims 5-7.[claims 18 and 19]
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the method for operating a picture recording arrangement according to claim 17, comprising the steps of: recording a series of images under different lighting conditions with the image sensor, such that each image is recorded while electromagnetic radiation is emitted along a single corresponding emission direction, determining optimal intensities of the electromagnetic radiation emitted along each of the plurality of emission directions by comparing the recorded series of images with another image recorded by the image sensor under natural lighting conditions, recording an image while the light source emits electromagnetic radiation according to the previously determined optimal intensities of the electromagnetic radiation along each of the emission directions.
While the prior art teaches similar methods (see e.g. Cavallaro discussed above), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the particular method recited in claims 18 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following show additional prior art systems/methods for emitting light primarily out of the field of view of an image sensor:
Wang US 2024/0364991 A1
Ji et al. US 2024/0155250 A1
Kikuchi et al. US 2020/0260009 A1
Ioachim US 2017/0365049 A1
Ichihara US 2017/0214840 A1
Spielberg US 2013/0314565 A1
The following references show light-emitting systems having light-emitting units arranged around an image sensor:
Sun et al. US 2018/0313520 A1
Dinev US 2016/0072991 A1
Hatzav et al. US 2013/0021653 A1
Pohlert et al. US 7,604,361 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights