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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed August 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mori et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0080494).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 8, 12-17, Mori et al. disclose (Figs.) a method and an optical system comprising: one or more optical components (lens 12); an occlusion-detection camera (16) configured to capture images (P1) of the one or more optical components; and a controller comprising at least one processor (CPU 30) and a memory (46 or memory inherent in CPU), wherein the at least one processor executes instructions stored in the memory so as to perform operations, the operations comprising: adjusting, based on information indicative of a light intensity ([0051]) of a field of view of the one or more optical components, at least one operating parameter (exposure time) of the occlusion- detection camera; and causing the occlusion-detection camera to capture at least one image ([0051]) of the one or more optical components according to the at least one adjusted operating parameter. Mori et al. also disclose (S10) determining based on the at least one image, a presence or location of at least one imperfection (foreign object) associated with the one or more optical components. Since the same structure is disclosed by Mori et al., the camera has a low dynamic range relative to a range of light intensities and is a vehicle as claimed.
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. in view of Nikitin et al. (U.S. Patent 9,970,884).
Regarding claims 4-6, Mori et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Mori et al. further disclose ([0005]-[0006]) the imperfection being a debris or impurity (dirt/dust). Mori et al. do not specifically disclose determining a size or type of imperfection. Nikitin et al. teach (col. 6, lines 25-28) determining a size or type of imperfection associated with an optical component. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to determine a size or type of imperfection in the apparatus of Mori et al. in view of Nikitin et al. to more completely determine the severity of the imperfection as known and predictable.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. in view of Kemmochi et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0133953).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Mori et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Mori et al. do not specifically disclose a brightness map. Kemmochi et al. teach ([0063]-[0065]) capturing a bright field image and determining a brightness map. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a brightness map in the apparatus and method of Mori et al. in view of Kemmochi et al. to provide a more quantitative analysis for improved detection as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 19, 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights