DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1), fails to teach the claim limitations as a whole, specifically, “the optical element having a length extending along an oblique direction relative to the optical axis”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Attention is directed to fig. 2 of Sugizaki, image sensor 101 which extends the length of lens 102. Fig. 8, which is similar to fig. 1, image sensor 101 extends the length of not only the lenses 131 but the length of aperture 301 which is asymmetric (emphasis added). Therefore, image sensor 101 has length extending along an oblique direction, as pertaining to the asymmetric aperture 301. Based on this reasoning/rationale, the prior art of rejection will remain. It is highly suggested to amend the claim further to highlight the inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1).
As per claim 1, Sugizaki discloses a camera system (fig. 1, imaging device 10) comprising:
an asymmetrical aperture aligned relative to an optical axis (figs. 1 and 8, imaging device 10, image sensor 22 and 101, aperture 301 is asymmetric, para 0132), wherein the asymmetrical aperture is configured to obtain light from an optical element, the optical element having a length extending along an oblique direction relative to the optical axis (figs. 1 and 8, imaging device 10, image sensor 22 and 101, aperture 301 captures light from lens group 21 and on-chip lens 131, furthermore image sensor 101 extends the length of not only the lenses 131 but the length of aperture 301 which is asymmetric), wherein the asymmetrical aperture comprises a first dimension along a first axis and a second dimension along a second axis, the first dimension being longer than the second dimension (fig. 8, image sensor 101, aperture 301, right side of aperture is longer than left side of aperture with respect to the optical axis); and
an image sensor, wherein the optical axis intersects with an array of photosensors of the image sensor (fig. 8, image sensor 101, photodiodes 133, intersects with the optical axis).
As per claim 9, Sugizaki further discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the optical axis and the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis and the optical axis (fig. 8, image sensor 101, aperture 301, first and second axis is orthogonal to the optical axis).
As per claim 13, Sugizaki further discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the asymmetrical aperture restricts aberrations induced by the optical element along the second axis (figs. 8 and 9, image sensor 101, aperture 301 has different sizes which may restrict aberrations, para 0132).
As per claim 14, Sugizaki further discloses the camera system of claim 1, further comprising one or more focusing optical elements disposed along the optical axis, wherein the one or more focusing optical elements are configured to focus an image at an image plane coinciding with the image sensor (fig. 8, image sensor 101, on-chip lens 131A, para 0129).
As per claim 15, Sugizaki further discloses a method of optical detection comprising:
receiving light from a scene at an asymmetrical aperture aligned relative to an optical axis, wherein the asymmetrical aperture is configured to obtain light from an optical element, the optical element having a length extending along an oblique direction relative to the optical axis, wherein the asymmetrical aperture comprises a first dimension along a first axis and a second dimension along a second axis, the first dimension being longer than the second dimension;
focusing the light from the scene to form an image; and
receiving the image at an image sensor (fig. 2, image sensor 101 capturing light from optical lens 102 (i.e. lens group 21) based on subject 103, furthermore claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 above).
As per claim 17, Sugizaki further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the asymmetrical aperture restricts aberrations induced by the optical element along the second axis (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 13 above).
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 2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1) in view of Sakai (US 2014/0204264 A1).
As per claim 2, The camera system of claim 1, further comprising an adjustable lens system, wherein the adjustable lens system comprises a first lens and a second lens, the first lens and the second lens each comprising a respective curved surface.
Sugizaki fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 2. However, Sakai discloses an imaging apparatus comprising zoom lenses L1, L2, and L3, which move along the optical axis and each lens are curved (Sakai, fig. 1, L1, L2, and L3, para 0056-0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, by incorporating the zoom lens as taught by Sakai, into the imaging device as taught by Sugizaki, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of imaging the object/target of choice, thus enhancing the quality of the overall image.
As per claim 3, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 2, wherein a relative displacement of the first lens and the second lens relative to the optical axis along the first axis or the second axis reduces at least one of astigmatism associated with the optical element or defocus associated with the optical element (Sakai, para 0035).
As per claim 5, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 2, wherein a camera lens system comprises a housing and the housing encloses the adjustable lens system and the asymmetrical aperture (Sugizaki, fig. 1, imaging device 10 comprises a housing and encloses the lenses and aperture).
As per claim 6, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 2, wherein:
a camera lens system comprises a housing (Sugizaki, fig. 1, imaging device 10 comprises a housing);
the housing encloses the asymmetrical aperture (Sugizaki, fig. 1, imaging device 10 comprises a housing and encloses aperture); and
the adjustable lens system is external to the housing (Sugizaki, fig. 1, imaging device 10 comprises a housing and encloses the lenses may extend externally).
As per claim 7, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes one or more optical aberrations (Sakai, para 0039).
As per claim 10, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the optical element introduces aberrations along the second axis (Sakai, para 0039, also lenses are along first and second axis).
As per claim 11, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the camera system of claim 1, wherein the optical element includes at least one of astigmatism or defocus aberration (Sakai, para 0035).
As per claim 18, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising receiving the light from the scene at an adjustable lens system disposed along the optical axis, wherein the adjustable lens system comprises a first lens and a second lens, the first lens and the second lens each comprising a respective curved surface (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 2 above).
As per claim 20, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the optical element comprises one or more optical aberrations (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 7 above).
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1) in view of Sakai (US 2014/0204264 A1) in further view of Blahnik et al (US 2018/0210173 A1).
As per claim 4, the camera system of claim 2, wherein the first lens and the second lens comprise a Lohmann lens pair or an Alvarez lens pair.
The combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 4. However, Blahnik discloses a lens system attached to a camera module, wherein the lens system may be comprised of the “Alvarez-Lohmann” field of view application (Blahnik, para 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Sugizaki and Sakai, in further view of Blahnik, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to apply the “Alvarez-Lohmann” field of view application as taught by Blahnik, into the imaging device as taught by Sugizaki and Sakai, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of adjusting the field of view, thus enhancing the picture quality of images being captured.
As per claim 19, the combined teachings of Sugizaki and Sakai, in further view of Blahnik, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the first lens and the second lens comprise a Lohmann lens pair or an Alvarez lens pair (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 4 above).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1) in view of Hinkel et al (US 9,787,899 B1).
As per claim 12, the camera system of claim 1, wherein the asymmetrical aperture comprises an oval-shaped aperture.
Sugizaki fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 12. However, Hinkel discloses an imaging device, wherein the aperture may be “oval shaped” (Hinkel, fig. 2, aperture 218 and 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Sugizaki in view of Hinkel, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to adjust an aperture to various shapes such as Hinkel, into the imaging device as taught by Sugizaki, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of controlling the incoming light of the scene being captured, thus enhancing the overall image that is being captured.
As per claim 16, the combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Hinkel, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the asymmetrical aperture comprises an oval-shaped aperture.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugizaki (US 2018/0166488 A1) and Sakai (US 2014/0204264 A1), in further view of Dreiocker et al (US 2023/0247275 A1).
As per claim 8, the camera system of claim 7, wherein the optical element comprises a vehicle windshield.
The combined teachings of Sugizaki in view of Sakai, as a whole, fail to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 8. However, Dreiocker discloses a vehicular camera module, wherein camera module 14 mounted in vehicle 12 may be disposed behind a windshield 16 (Dreiocker, fig. 1, vehicle 12, camera module 14, windshield 16, para 0038 and 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Sugizaki and Sakai, in further view of Dreiocker, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to mount an imaging device to the windshield as taught by Dreiocker, into the imaging device as taught by Sugizaki and Sakai, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of capturing images within a vehicle, thus enhancing the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle safely.
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 JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 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, 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights