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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (USP No. 9,874,664), hereinafter “Stevens”, in view of Ouderkirk et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0283340), hereinafter “Ouderkirk”.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Stevens discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising: a substrate (104) (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 27); an actuator (115/116 with 106) (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29); and a spring member (107 with 108) disposed between the substrate (104) and the actuator (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29), wherein: the spring member comprises a flexure (108) that at least partially surrounds a central region (see Figs. 2, 3); and a spring stiffness of the flexure differs at each of at least two peripheral locations around the central region (see Fig. 3, Col. 3, Lines 15-19, Col. 8, Lines 51-55). Stevens discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m (Paragraphs 45, 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens with wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m of Ouderkirk for the purpose of providing support for a liquid lens (Paragraph 45). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Stevens further discloses wherein the flexure (108) extends between the actuator and the substrate along a path that protrudes radially outward or inward with respect to the central region (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Stevens further discloses wherein the flexure (208) has a generally V-shaped cross- sectional surface (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Stevens further discloses wherein the flexure comprises a resilient material (Col. 8, Line 33).
Regarding claim 8, Stevens further discloses wherein the spring member (207 with 208) further comprises: a base surface adjacent the substrate (204); and an actuation surface adjacent the actuator (211) (see Figs. 2, 5, 9).
Regarding claim 10, Stevens further discloses wherein a distance between the actuation surface and the base surface differs at each of the at least two peripheral locations (see Fig. 3, Col. 3, Lines 15-19, Col. 8, Lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 11, Stevens discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator configured to compress the flexure in response to a change in voltage applied to the electromechanical actuator. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator configured to compress the flexure in response to a change in voltage applied to the electromechanical actuator (Paragraph 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens with wherein the actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator configured to compress the flexure in response to a change in voltage applied to the electromechanical actuator of Ouderkirk for the purpose of obtaining the desired surface curvature (Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 12, Stevens discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises at least one piezoelectric layer. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises at least one piezoelectric layer (Paragraph 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens with wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises at least one piezoelectric layer of Ouderkirk for the purpose of obtaining the desired surface curvature (Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 14, Stevens further discloses fluid lens comprising the apparatus of claim 1 (Col. 8, Lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 15, Stevens discloses a fluid lens (see Figs. 1-3) comprising: a substrate (104) (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 27); an actuator (115/116 with 106) (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29); a fluid layer disposed between the substrate and the actuator (Col. 8, Lines 35-37); and a spring member (107 with 108) disposed between the substrate (104) and the actuator (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29), wherein: the spring member comprises a flexure (108) that at least partially surrounds the fluid layer (see Figs. 2, 3); and a spring stiffness of the flexure differs at each of at least two peripheral locations around the fluid layer (see Fig. 3, Col. 3, Lines 15-19, Col. 8, Lines 51-55). Stevens discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m (Paragraphs 45, 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fluid lens of Stevens with wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m of Ouderkirk for the purpose of providing support for a liquid lens (Paragraph 45). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Stevens further discloses wherein the spring member seals the fluid between the substrate and the actuator (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Stevens further discloses wherein the spring member defines a noncircular profile around the fluid layer (see Figs. 5, 6, 9).
Regarding claim 18, Stevens discloses a method comprising: positioning a spring member (107 with 108) over a substrate (104) (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29); positioning an actuator (115/116 with 106) over the spring member and the substrate such that an interior gap is defined between the substrate and the actuator with the interior gap at least partially surrounded by a flexure (108) of the spring member (see Figs. 2, 3, Col. 8, Line 44 – Col. 9, Line 29); wherein a spring stiffness of the flexure differs at each of at least two peripheral locations around the interior gap (see Fig. 3, Col. 3, Lines 15-19, Col. 8, Lines 51-55); and dispensing a fluid into the interior gap (Col. 8,Lines 35-37). Stevens discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m (Paragraphs 45, 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Stevens with wherein the spring stiffness is less than approximately 2000 N/m/m of Ouderkirk for the purpose of providing support for a liquid lens (Paragraph 45). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Stevens further discloses further comprising forming the spring member such that the spring stiffness of the flexure at each of the at least two peripheral locations results in a lens shape having a selected optical power and cylinder at each of at least two different voltages applied to the actuator (see Fig. 3, Col. 3, Lines 15-19, Col. 8, Lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 20, Stevens further discloses wherein the spring member defines a noncircular profile around the fluid (see Figs. 5, 6, 9).
Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (USP No. 9,874,664) in view of Ouderkirk (USPG Pub No. 2022/0283340) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bean et al. (WO 2013/143630 A1), hereinafter “Bean”.
Regarding claim 4, Stevens and Ouderkirk disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the flexure protrudes radially outward or inward to a different extent at each of the at least two peripheral locations. In the same field of endeavor, Bean discloses wherein the flexure (1430 with 1412) protrudes radially outward or inward to a different extent at each of the at least two peripheral locations (Paragraphs 218, 219, see Figs. 28, 31A, 31B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens and Ouderkirk with wherein the flexure protrudes radially outward or inward to a different extent at each of the at least two peripheral locations of Bean for the purpose of controlling the strain in the membrane (Paragraph 218).
Regarding claim 6, Stevens and Ouderkirk disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the flexure comprises a different resilient material or combination of resilient materials at each of the at least two peripheral locations. In the same field of endeavor, Bean discloses wherein the flexure comprises a different resilient material or combination of resilient materials at each of the at least two peripheral locations (Paragraphs 71, 75, 147, 218, 219, see Figs. 28, 31A, 31B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens and Ouderkirk with wherein the flexure comprises a different resilient material or combination of resilient materials at each of the at least two peripheral locations of Bean for the purpose of controlling the strain in the membrane (Paragraph 218). Each “spring member” or “flexure” comprises multiple components, which, as presented in the cited paragraphs, have differing stiffness or flexibility. These components differ in composition. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Stevens and Ouderkirk disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the resilient material or combination of resilient materials has a different Young's modulus at each of the at least two peripheral locations. In the same field of endeavor, Bean discloses wherein the resilient material or combination of resilient materials has a different Young's modulus at each of the at least two peripheral locations (Paragraphs 71, 75, 147, 218, 219, see Figs. 28, 31A, 31B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens and Ouderkirk with wherein the resilient material or combination of resilient materials has a different Young's modulus at each of the at least two peripheral locations of Bean for the purpose of controlling the strain in the membrane (Paragraph 218). It is inherent for differing materials or compositions to produce differing modulus. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (USP No. 9,874,664) in view of Ouderkirk (USPG Pub No. 2022/0283340) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouderkirk et al. (USP No. 10,677,966), hereinafter “Ouderkirk ‘966”.
Regarding claim 9, Stevens and Ouderkirk disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the actuation surface overlaps the base surface between the actuator and the substrate. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk ‘966 discloses wherein the actuation surface overlaps the base surface between the actuator (1520) and the substrate (1504) (see Figs. 15, 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens and Ouderkirk with wherein the actuation surface overlaps the base surface between the actuator and the substrate of Ouderkirk ‘966 for the purpose of providing a driving plate to regulate the optical power of the fluid lens (Col. 14, Lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 13, Stevens and Ouderkirk disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the flexure has a different layer thickness at each of the at least two peripheral locations. In the same field of endeavor, Ouderkirk ‘966 discloses wherein the flexure has a different layer thickness at each of the at least two peripheral locations (see Figs. 15, 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Stevens and Ouderkirk with wherein the flexure has a different layer thickness at each of the at least two peripheral locations of Ouderkirk ‘966 for the purpose of providing flexibility and/or movement in the desired direction (Col. 14, Lines 21-24).
Prior Art Citations
Patscheider et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0196887) and Duon et al. (USPG Pub No. 2004/0036989) are each being cited herein to show an apparatus, a fluid lens and method relevant to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. Ouderkirk cures the deficiencies of Stevens and addresses the items challenged by Applicant.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11/20/2025