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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
In re page 7, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the cited references do not disclose "a three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form." For example, the cited structures of Mahito have a protruding form, as shown in FIGS. 1, 15, and 17, for example.
In response, Mahito shows in Figs. 1, 15 and 17 a three-dimensional chart but does not specifically disclose that the three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form. However, the claimed “a three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form” is considered a matter of choice which as person of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that the three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form is significant.
In re page 7, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 11, that the support plate 190 of Mahito does not appear to "have an empty space in an interior" and that the "3D test chart" is configured to provide the "at least two surfaces spaced apart from each other”.
In response, Figs. 1 and 2A of Mahito shows 3D chart having a support in a form of a polyhedron “the support plate 190” in polyhedron. The 3D chart of Figs. 1 and 2A have at least two surfaces. Mahito does not specifically disclose wherein the at least two surfaces have an empty space in an interior of each of the at least two surfaces and wherein the at least two surfaces are spaced apart from each other in an optical axis direction of the camera module. However, the claimed “the at least two surfaces have an empty space in an interior of each of the at least two surfaces and that the at least two surfaces are spaced apart from each other in an optical axis direction of the camera module” are considered a matter of choice which as person of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious absent persuasive evidence that they are significant.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Patent No. 10,432,927 B2) in view of Mahito N. et al. (JP 6974638 B1).
In considering claim 1, Wang et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed receiving, from a camera module, image data generated by imaging a test chart using the camera module is met by the image sensor 12 of the photographic arrangement 21 which captures the image of the 3D test chart 100 (Fig. 1, col. 16, lines 7-40), and 2) the claimed measuring, for multiple depths, a resolution of the camera module from the image data, wherein the test chart comprises a three-dimensional (3D) chart is met by when the test patterns 21 of different depths of the 3D test chart 10 are shot by the photographic arrangement 11, the corresponding resolution values are obtained (Figs. 31-34, col. 32, line 12 to col. 33, line 51).
However, Wang et al. explicitly do not disclose the claimed wherein the test chart comprises a three-dimensional (3D) chart including a first test pattern radiating from a vertex of the test chart, and wherein the first test pattern is arranged on an exposed surface of the test chart, the first test pattern comprising alternating first and second surfaces.
Mahito N et al. teaches that as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2A, the test chart 10 of the present embodiment includes, for example, a three-dimensional structure (three-dimensional structure), the test chart 10 has, for example, a pattern 160 on the slope 140 used for adjusting the positions of the optical system 220 and the image pickup device 240 in the camera 20…, the 3D block 110 of the present embodiment has, for example, a bottom surface (not shown), a vertex 120, and a slope 140 (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the test chart as taught by Mahito N et al. into Wang et al.’s system in order to adjust the camera with high accuracy.
The combination of Mahito et al. and Wang et al. explicitly do not disclose the newly added claimed a three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form. However, the claimed “a three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form” is considered an obvious design choice to one person of ordinary skill in the art without persuasive evidence that the three-dimensional (3D) chart in a hollow relief form is significant.
In considering claim 2, the claimed measuring the resolution for the multiple depths comprises: calculating a resolution indicator for each depth of the multiple depths, and identifying whether the resolution indicator for each depth satisfies a threshold condition is met by when the test patterns 21 of different depths of the 3D test chart 10 are shot by the photographic arrangement 11, the corresponding resolution values are obtained,… and after finishing the adjusting process of the photographic arrangement 10, it is required to evaluate the adjusting result to the photographic arrangement 10, so that the above steps are repeated to testing and calculating the imaging resolution, if the imaging resolution of the photographic arrangement 10 meets the requirements, then it is assumed that the adjusting process by the adjusting arrangement is effective, and then a solidifying process is carried out the fix up the photographic module 11 and the image sensor 12 (Figs. 31-34, col. 32, line 12 to col. 34, line 20 of Wang et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 3, the claimed wherein measuring the resolution for the multiple depths comprises at least one of: in response to a first resolution indicator of the resolution indicators for the multiple depths satisfying the threshold condition, determining a depth corresponding to the first resolution indicator as an effective area; and in response to a second resolution indicator of the resolution indicators for the multiple depths not satisfying the threshold condition, determining a depth corresponding to the second resolution indicator as a non-effective area is met by if the imaging resolution of the photographic arrangement 10 meets the requirements, then it is assumed that the adjusting process by the adjusting arrangement is effective, and then a solidifying process is carried out the fix up the photographic module 11 and the image sensor 12 (Figs. 31-34, col. 32, line 12 to col. 34, line 20 of Wang et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 4, the claimed wherein the test chart includes a focusing marker and a cross pattern, and wherein the method comprises: using the focusing marker, (i) adjusting a focus of the camera module, (ii) identifying whether a lens of the camera module is distorted, or both (i) and (ii); and performing a tilt adjustment of the camera module using the cross pattern is met by in the camera position adjusting step S540 of the present embodiment, in addition to the adjustment performed in the above-described embodiment, the adjusted focal position is in the X direction and Y based on the detection result of the center mark 122 of the 2D block 170 or the central block 110a (Figs. 17-18, page 18, line 12 to page 19, line 46 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 5, the claimed wherein the 3D chart in the hollow relief form has a cone shape or a polygonal pyramid shape, the cone shape or the polygonal pyramid shape engraved inside a polyhedral box is met by the 3D block 110 (test chart) of the present embodiment is configured as, for examples of the pyramid formed by the 3D block 110 include a polygonal pyramid (triangular pyramid, quadrangular pyramid, etc.), a cone, and the like, in the present embodiment, the 3D block 110 is configured as, for example, a quadrangular pyramid (regular quadrangular pyramid) (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 6, the claimed wherein the cone shape or the polygonal pyramid shape has a base defined by an opening in a side surface of the polyhedral box is met by the 3D block 110 (test chart) of the present embodiment is configured as, for examples of the pyramid formed by the 3D block 110 include a polygonal pyramid (triangular pyramid, quadrangular pyramid, etc.), a cone, and the like, in the present embodiment, the 3D block 110 is configured as, for example, a quadrangular pyramid (regular quadrangular pyramid) (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 7, the claimed wherein the exposed surface of the first test pattern is configured as a light emitting body is met by the test chart 10 of this modification, for example, each of the four slopes 140 has one boundary line 162, specifically, each slope 140 has, for example, a light-impermeable region and a light-transmitting region as a pattern 160 (Figs. 12A and 2B, page 15, line 42 to page 16, line 11 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 8, the claimed wherein a bottom surface of the test chart is configured as a backlight is met by the support plate 190 is made of, for example, a black-painted aluminum alloy to prevent light from the outside, for example, room illumination light from entering… (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 9, the claimed wherein the test chart includes an index for a plurality of depths marked on the exposed surface of the test chart is met by the information of each test pattern 21 of each test chart layer 20 can be captured by the photographic module 11, so as to provide an image with depth information (Figs. 4-6, col. 19, line 59 to col. 20, line 55 of Wang et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 10, the claimed wherein the first and second surfaces are adjacent surfaces in the polyhedral box is met by the 3D block 110 (test chart) of the present embodiment is configured as, for examples of the pyramid formed by the 3D block 110 include a polygonal pyramid (triangular pyramid, quadrangular pyramid, etc.), a cone, and the like, in the present embodiment, the 3D block 110 is configured as, for example, a quadrangular pyramid (regular quadrangular pyramid) (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above and further the claimed a 3D test chart comprising: a support in a form of a polyhedron, and a test pattern comprising at least two surfaces spaced apart from each other using the support is met by the support plate 190 is configured as, for example, a plate-shaped member and is configured to support the 3D block 110, the support plate 190 is made of, for example, a black-painted aluminum alloy to prevent light from the outside, for example, room illumination light from entering (Figs. 1 and 2A, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The combination of Mahito et al. and Wang et al. explicitly do not disclose the newly added claimed wherein the at least two surfaces have an empty space in an interior of each of the at least two surfaces and wherein the at least two surfaces are spaced apart from each other in an optical axis direction of the camera module.
However, the claimed “the at least two surfaces have an empty space in an interior of each of the at least two surfaces and that the at least two surfaces are spaced apart from each other in an optical axis direction of the camera module” are considered an obvious design choice to one person of ordinary skill in the art without persuasive evidence that they are significant.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 2-4, respectively.
In considering claim 15, the claimed wherein the at least two surfaces comprise: a first surface having a first empty space therein, and a second surface having a second empty space therein, wherein a size of the second empty space is greater than a size of the first empty space, and wherein the first surface is closer to the camera module than is the second surface is met by a pattern 160 on the slope 140 used for adjusting the positions of the optical system 220 and the image pickup device 240 in the camera 20…, the 3D block 110 of the present embodiment has, for example, a bottom surface (not shown), a vertex 120, and a slope 140 (Figs. 1, 2A, 15 and 17, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 16, the claimed wherein the size of the second empty space is equal to or greater than an area of the first surface the 3D block 110 of the present embodiment has, for example, a bottom surface (not shown), a vertex 120, and a slope 140 (Figs. 1, 2A, 15 and 17, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 17-19 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 7-9, respectively.
In considering claim 21, the claimed wherein outer edges of the second surface are arranged farther laterally outward than outer edges of the first surface is met by the 3D block 110 of the present embodiment has, for example, a bottom surface (not shown), a vertex 120, and a slope 140 (Figs. 1, 2A, 15 and 17, page 3, line 7 to page 4, line 48 of Mahito N et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
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 TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
July 21, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights