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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (WO 2020/207416 A1).
In regard to claim 10, note Chen discloses a meeting device used for conducting a remote conference, the meeting device comprising an imaging device having an optical axis directed in opposite directions with respect to a horizontal direction, the imaging device having at least two lenses, each lens of the at least two lenses having an angle of view of 180 degrees or more and capable of imaging at an angle of view of 360 degrees in the horizontal direction (paragraphs 0040, 0045, and figure 1 & 5: 12, 123; the imaging device 12 includes two lenses 123, each having a 180 degree angle of view), a protrusion portion disposed above the at least two lenses and projecting outward from a position of upper surfaces of the at least two lenses (paragraph 0043, and figure 1: 121, 123; the upper end of the main body 121 includes a protrusion that projects outward above the two lenses 123), and a body portion disposed under the imaging device and having a microphone and a speaker (paragraph 0040, and figures 1, 2 & 5: 11, 16, 1D; the lower housing comprises a body having a microphone 16 and a speaker 1D).
In regard to claim 11, note Chen discloses that the protrusion portion has a circular shape when viewed from above, and the imaging device has at least two recesses in a circumferential direction of the protrusion portion in the horizontal direction, and the at least two lenses are disposed in corresponding recesses of the at least two recesses, respectively (paragraph 0043, and figures 1-2: 121, 123; the upper end of the main body 121 includes a protrusion having a circular shape, and two recesses 122 that correspond to the respective lenses 123).
In regard to claim 12, note Chen discloses that when viewed from above, a radial size of the imaging device is smaller than a radial size of the body portion (figures 1-2: 12, 11; the imaging device 12 has a smaller radial size than the main body 11).
In regard to claim 13, note Chen discloses that the protrusion portion has a side surface with an inward-curving shape (figures 1, 5 & 8: 122; the inner surface 122 has an inward-curving shape).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2020/207416 A1), in view of Chakravarty et al. (US Pub. 2023/0057103).
In regard to claim 14, note the primary reference of Chen discloses a meeting device, as discussed with respect to claim 13 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the protrusion portion limits an incident angle of light to an angle greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 67 degrees.
In analogous art, Chakravarty discloses an image capturing device that includes a protrusion portion that limits an incident angle of light to an angle greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 67 degrees (paragraphs 0040-0042, and figure 3: 301, 305; the upper hood 301 is adjustable based on the maximum desired viewing angle of each of the lenses, therefore, this is considered to include limiting the incident angle of light to an angle greater than or equal to approximately 30 degrees and less than or equal to approximately 67 degrees in order to maximize the desired viewing angle). Chakravarty teaches that the use of the protrusion portion limiting an incident angle of light to an angle greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 67 degrees is preferred in order to provide overhead coverage while maximizing the desired viewing angle (paragraphs 0040-0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the protrusion portion limits an incident angle of light to an angle greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 67 degrees, in order to provide overhead coverage while maximizing the desired viewing angle, as suggested by Chakravarty.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 and 5-9 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for claim 1, the reasons for allowance of the claims is clear from the written record of prosecution. Attention is specifically drawn to the amendment and arguments filed by the applicant on March 2, 2026. See pages 6-7 of the amendment.
As for claim 8, the reasons for allowance of the claims is clear from the written record of prosecution. Attention is specifically drawn to the amendment and arguments filed by the applicant on March 2, 2026. See pages 6-7 of the amendment.
As for claim 9, the reasons for allowance of the claims is clear from the written record of prosecution. Attention is specifically drawn to the amendment and arguments filed by the applicant on March 2, 2026. See pages 6-7 of the amendment.
As for claims 3 and 5-7, the reasons for allowance of these claims is due at least to their dependency upon allowable claim 1.
Claims 15-16 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.
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 CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at (571) 272-7372. 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.
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638