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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 7, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 7, 2025 has been entered. Claims 3 and 11 have been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 12, 13, and 21 have been amended in the present application. Claim 22 is new in the present application. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 21 over Choi 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 21 over Ford 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 as a different embodiment of Ford is used in the new rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 over the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the specification satisfies the written description requirement for the limitation “wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture.” To support this limitation, Applicant points to [0026] which states “such a sparsely-filled aperture allows for an imaging device that can be thin, for example, less than 10 millimeters in thickness.” However this broad range fails to support the limitation as the only aperture diameter given is 3 cm and the range of less than 10 mm contains values that would result in the thickness being greater than 17% of the diameter (any thickness value greater than 5 mm is greater than 17%). Applicant further points to [0005] which states “the folded lens design allows a focal length of 1.5 cm in a mobile phone that may have only 6 or 7 mm of thickness to carry the image.” However, [0005] and the associated Figure 2 appears to describe the current state and limitations of folded optics that the instant invention overcomes rather than the claimed invention itself. Regardless, as stated in the arguments a thickness of 6 and 7 mm results in thickness to diameter ratios of 20% and 23%, respectively, both of which exceed the claimed ratio of no more than 17%. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of an imaging device with a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture and Examiner maintains the 112(a) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 11 that Lu fails to teach the limitation “wherein light passes through the outer portion and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture” of amended claims 1, 12, and 21, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Lu fails to teach “wherein light passes through the outer portion and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture.” However, Lu teaches light passes through the outer portion (Column 6 lines 3-9 lens 101 defines outer portion of aperture 126) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 1 disc-shaped light barrier 116, Column 6 lines 56-63) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 1 light barrier 116 is formed by outer portion of lens 101). Since lens 101 allows light through and defines aperture 126 (Column 6 lines 3-9), lens 101 is thus the outer portion of aperture 126. Furthermore, aperture 126 has a disc-shaped light barrier 116 that prevents light from entering the central portion of aperture (Column 6 lines 56-63, Column 8 lines 66-67 shield 116 functions to block unwanted incident light rays such as the light ray 162 from entering). Thus aperture 126 has an inner portion (light barrier 116) formed by the outer portion (Figure 1 lens 101 surrounds light barrier 116) that does not let light pass. Lens 101 and light barrier 116 also satisfy a “sparsely-filled optical aperture” since lens 101 only forms an opening around the circumference of aperture 126 and light barrier 116 fills and blocks the central portion of aperture 126. Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 1, 12, and 21 in view of Lu.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page that there is no reason to combine Ford and Lu, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lu teaches this parabolic shape “for achieving a very small thickness for the camera” (Column 7 lines 41-42). Furthermore, using the parabolic shape taught by Lu would simplify the manufacture of the mirror compared to an aspheric surface. 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 imaging device of Ford with the parabolic reflector of Lu in order to achieve a very small thickness for the camera (Lu Column 7 lines 41-42) and to simplify the manufacture of the mirror surfaces. Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains combination of Ford in view of Lu for the 103 rejection of claim 22.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture” should read “wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% of a diameter of the optical aperture.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 21, upon which other claims depend, recite “wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture.”
Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. While Applicant shows support for an imaging device having a thickness of 16.7% of the diameter of the optical aperture (Figure 4 thickness is 0.5 mm and aperture diameter is 3 cm), there is no evidence for support for the claimed range. With respect to changing numerical range limitations, the analysis must take into account which ranges one skilled in the art would consider inherently supported by the discussion in the original disclosure. In the decision in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), the ranges described in the original specification included a range of "25%- 60%" and specific examples of "36%" and "50%." A corresponding new claim limitation to "at least 35%" did not meet the description requirement because the phrase "at least" had no upper limit and caused the claim to read literally on embodiments outside the "25% to 60%" range, however a limitation to "between 35% and 60%" did meet the description requirement. See also Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1328, 56 USPQ2d 1481, 1487 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[T]he specification does not clearly disclose to the skilled artisan that the inventors... considered the... ratio to be part of their invention.... There is therefore no force to Purdue’s argument that the written description requirement was satisfied because the disclosure revealed a broad invention from which the [later-filed] claims carved out a patentable portion"). See also General Hosp. Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372, 126 USPQ2d 1556, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (written description support for the claimed concentration is lacking where the specification discloses a range of optical densities and several discrete values in the range with no explicitly defined maximum concentration; and even if the specification may be read to convert each disclosed value into a range, there is insufficient written description for the entire claimed range where the disclosed range minimally overlaps with the claimed range). In the case at hand, Applicant only shows support for a single value, 16.7% from Figure 4, and does not disclose any other values within the claimed range (i.e. 4%, 6%, 8%, etc.). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of an imaging device with a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention, the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Ford et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,898,749 – hereinafter referred to as “Ford”).
Regarding claim 1, Ford teaches an imaging device (Figure 2A lens 120), comprising:
a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 extending around reflecting plate 130, Column 5 lines 34-54; reflection plate 130 with ring aperture 125 makes ring aperture 125 sparsely-filled), having a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 forms the circular shape of the aperture), wherein light passes through the outer portion (Figure 2A ring aperture 125, Column 5 line 37 light enters through ring aperture 125) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 2A light does not enter through reflection plate 130) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture; and
imaging optics (Figure 2A reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 35-37), wherein the imaging optics comprise at least one reflection device (reflecting plates 130 and 140) optically located after the optical aperture (Figures 2A and B light rays pass through ring aperture 125 and strike reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 5 lines 44-46) and at least one imaging sensor (Figure 2A imager 60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Figures 2A and B light rays strike imager 60 through central aperture 150 after reflecting off reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 45-51),
wherein light entering the optical aperture (ring aperture 125) reflects from the at least one reflection device (reflecting plates 130 and 140) onto the at least one imaging sensor (Figures 2A and B light rays strike imager 60 through central aperture 50 after reflecting off reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 45-51), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 2B zones 155 have curved surfaces, Column 5 lines 60-62 surfaces 155 are aspheric which is a curved surface, Column 6 lines 3-5 reflecting plates 130 and 140 are not planar);
wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture (Column 5 lines 40-41 the outer diameter of the ring aperture 125 is 30 mm and the thickness of the imaging device is 5 mm thus the thickness is 16.7% of the diameter of ring aperture 125).
Regarding claim 2, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ford further teaches the at least one reflection device (Figure 2A reflecting plates 130 and 140) comprises a central reflector (Figure 2A reflecting plate 130 is a central reflector, Column 5 lines 44-47) and at least one outer reflector (Figure 2A reflecting plate 140 is an outer reflector, Column 5 lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 5, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ford further teaches the imaging device is less than 10 millimeters in thickness (Column 5 lines 40-41 the thickness of the imaging device is 5 mm).
Regarding claim 6, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ford further teaches the shape comprises a circular shape (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 is circular in shape, Column 5 lines 28-31 lens 120 is circular).
Regarding claim 12, Ford teaches an information handling device (Column 1 line 35 wireless telephone with camera is an information handling device), comprising:
an imaging device (Figure 1A lens 20), comprising:
a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 extending around reflecting plate 130, Column 5 lines 34-54; reflection plate 130 with ring aperture 125 makes ring aperture 125 sparsely-filled), having a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 forms the circular shape of the aperture), wherein light passes through the outer portion (Figure 2A ring aperture 125, Column 5 line 37 light enters through ring aperture 125) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 2A light does not enter through reflection plate 130) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture; and
imaging optics (Figure 2A reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 35-37), wherein the imaging optics comprise at least one reflection device (reflecting plates 130 and 140) optically located after the optical aperture (Figures 2A and B light rays pass through ring aperture 125 and strike reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 5 lines 44-46) and at least one imaging sensor (Figure 2A imager 60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Figures 2A and B light rays strike imager 60 through central aperture 150 after reflecting off reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 45-51),
wherein light entering the optical aperture (ring aperture 125) reflects from the at least one reflection device (reflecting plates 130 and 140) onto the at least one imaging sensor (Figures 2A and B light rays strike imager 60 through central aperture 50 after reflecting off reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 4 lines 45-51), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 2B zones 155 have curved surfaces, Column 5 lines 60-62 surfaces 155 are aspheric which is a curved surface, Column 6 lines 3-5 reflecting plates 130 and 140 are not planar);
wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture (Column 5 lines 40-41 the outer diameter of the ring aperture 125 is 30 mm and the thickness of the imaging device is 5 mm thus the thickness is 16.7% of the diameter of ring aperture 125).
at least one memory device (Column 1 line 35 wireless telephone with camera is an information handling device) and has a processing device (Column 5 lines 34-35 lens 120 is similar to lens 20, Column 4 line 27) that can perform signal processing and thus will have memory); and
at least one processor (Column 4 lines 27-31 processing device has a microprocessor) operatively coupled to the imaging device and the at least one memory device (Column 4 lines 27-31 the microprocessor will be connected to lens 20 and memory in order to perform signal processing).
Regarding claim 13, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Ford further teaches a second imaging device (Figure 6B second lens 84, Column 10 lines 12-27 lens 120 can be combined with other conventional elements), wherein the second imaging device (Figure 6B second lens 84, Column 10 lines 28-37 the first lens 82 is largely identical to lens 20, Column 5 lines 34-35 lens 120 is similar to lens 20) comprises a second optical aperture (Figure 6B ring aperture 88, Column 10 line 38) having a shape forming an outer portion of the second optical aperture (Figure 6A ring aperture 88 has a circular shape) and located within the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figures 6A and B ring aperture 88 is located within ring aperture 98 which is the same as ring aperture 25, Column 10 lines 28-37) and wherein the second optical aperture (ring aperture 88) forms a second inner portion, wherein light passes through the outer portion of the second optical aperture and is not allowed through at least a portion of the second inner portion (Figure 6B light rays reflect off the front inner portion of lens 84, Column 10 lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 15, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Ford further teaches the imaging device is less than 10 millimeters in thickness (Column 5 lines 40-41 the thickness of the imaging device is 5 mm).
Regarding claim 19, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Ford further teaches a second imaging device (Figure 6B second lens 84, Column 10 lines 12-27 lens 120 can be combined with other conventional elements) comprising a second optical aperture (Figure 6B ring aperture 88, Column 10 line 38) located within the inner portion formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figures 6A and B ring aperture 88 is located within ring aperture 98, Column 10 lines 28-37 the first lens 82 is largely identical to lens 20, Column 5 lines 34-35 lens 120 is similar to lens 20).
Regarding claim 20, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Ford further teaches the information handling device is a handheld, portable information handling device (Column 1 line 35 a wireless telephone with a camera is a handheld, portable information handling device).
Regarding claim 21, Ford teaches a method (Figure 2A), comprising:
receiving light through a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 is a sparsely-filled aperture, Column 5 lines 44-46 light enters lens 120 through ring aperture 125),
wherein the optical aperture is formed in a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 2A ring aperture 125 forms the circular shape of the aperture),
wherein light passes through the outer portion (Figure 2A ring aperture 125, Column 5 line 44-46 light enters through ring aperture 125) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 2A light does not enter through reflection plate 130) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture; and
reflecting the light using at least one reflection device (Figure 2A reflecting plates 130 and 140) optically located after the optical aperture (Figures 2A and B light rays pass through ring aperture 125 and strike reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 5 lines 44-49) onto at least one imaging sensor (Figure 2A imager 60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Figures 2A and B light rays strike imager 60 through central aperture 150 after reflecting off reflecting plates 130 and 140, Column 5 lines 44-51), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 2B zones 155 have curved surfaces, Column 5 lines 60-62 surfaces 155 are aspheric which is a curved surface, Column 6 lines 3-5 reflecting plates 130 and 140 are not planar);
wherein the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture (Column 5 lines 40-41 the outer diameter of the ring aperture 125 is 30 mm and the thickness of the imaging device is 5 mm thus the thickness is 16.7% of the diameter of ring aperture 125).
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford (U.S. Patent No. 7,898,749) as applied to claim 2 above in view of Lu (U.S. Patent No. 10,133,043 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 22, Ford teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ford further teaches the curved reflection device comprises an aspheric reflection device (Column 5 lines 60-62 surfaces 155 are aspheric). Ford fails to teach the curved reflection device comprises a curved reflection device selected from the group consisting of: a spherical reflection device, a parabolic reflection device, or a hyperbolic reflection device.
However, Lu teaches a compact telephoto lens camera (Figure 1) having a curved reflection device selected from the group consisting of: a spherical reflection device, a parabolic reflection device, or a hyperbolic reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42). Lu teaches this parabolic shape “for achieving a very small thickness for the camera” (Column 7 lines 41-42). Furthermore, using the parabolic shape taught by Lu would simplify the manufacture of the mirror compared to an aspheric surface. 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 imaging device of Ford with the parabolic reflector of Lu in order to achieve a very small thickness for the camera (Lu Column 7 lines 41-42) and to simplify the manufacture of the mirror surfaces.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, 14-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (U.S. Patent No. 10,133,043).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches an imaging device (Figure 1 camera 100), comprising:
a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 1 aperture 126, Column 6 lines 3-9 light is blocked from entering camera 100 except through aperture 126 defined by lens 101) having a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 34-36 lens 101, which defines aperture 126, is doughnut shaped) wherein light passes through the outer portion (lens 101 defines outer portion of aperture 126) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 1 disc-shaped light barrier 116, Column 6 lines 56-63) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 1 light barrier 116 is formed by outer portion of lens 101); and
imaging optics (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60), wherein the imaging optics comprise at least one reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 7-12 light received from lens 101 is incident on mirror 111) and at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Column 7 lines 27-60 light from mirror 111 is reflected toward image sensor 195),
wherein light entering the optical aperture reflects from the at least one reflection device onto the at least one imaging sensor (Column 7 lines 27-60 light from mirror 111 is reflected toward image sensor 195), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42 parabolic shape).
Lu teaches the thickness of imaging device should be less than half its overall diameter (Column 1 lines 29-30). Lu fails to teach the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture. However, optimizing image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Lu teaches image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio (Column 1 lines 29-30) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case to balance image brightness and image sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device to fit in a mobile device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the imaging device thickness to aperture ratio of Lu since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Furthermore one would be motivated to do so in order to balance image brightness and sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16).
Regarding claim 2, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the at least one reflection device comprises a central reflector (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60) and at least one outer reflector (Figure 1 secondary mirror 112, Column 7 lines 27-60).
Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the at least one reflection device comprises at least one lens (Figure 1 lens 105, Column 7 lines 27-60).
Regarding claim 5, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the imaging device is less than 10 millimeters in thickness (5 mm thickness, Column 11 lines 29-49).
Regarding claim 6, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the shape comprises a circular shape (Figure 1 first lens 101 of aperture 126, Column 6 lines 34-36 "doughnut shape" which is a circular shape).
Regarding claim 7, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the imaging optics further comprises at least two lenses (Figure 1 lenses 105 and 107), wherein at least one of the at least two lenses comprises a movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105, Column 10 lines 1-32 lens 105 is moveable by mount 118) and wherein another of the at least two lenses comprises a field lens (Figure 1 lens 107, Column 10 lines 1-32).
Regarding claim 8, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Lu further teaches the at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195) is a movable imaging sensor (Column 10 lines 1-32 image sensor 195 may be moveable), and wherein movement of the movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105) and the movable imaging sensor (image sensor 195) provides a zoom feature for the imaging device (Column 10 lines 1-32).
Regarding claim 9, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Lu further teaches at least one second movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 106, Column 10 lines 1-32 lens 106 is moveable by mount 118).
Regarding claim 10, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9. Lu further teaches the at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195) is a stationary imaging sensor and wherein movement of the movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105) and the at least one second movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 106) provides a zoom feature for the imaging device (Column 10 lines 26-29 lens 105 and 106 move while image sensor 195 is stationary).
Regarding claim 12, Lu teaches an information handling device (Column 4 lines 2-3), comprising:
an imaging device (Figure 1 camera 100), comprising:
a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 1 aperture 126, Column 6 lines 3-9 light is blocked from entering camera 100 except through aperture 126 defined by lens 101) having a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 34-36 lens 101, which defines aperture 126, is doughnut shaped) wherein light passes through the outer portion (lens 101 defines outer portion of aperture 126) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 1 disc-shaped light barrier 116, Column 6 lines 56-63) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 1 light barrier 116 is formed by outer portion of lens 101); and
imaging optics (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60), wherein the imaging optics comprise at least one reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 7-12 light received from lens 101 is incident on mirror 111) and at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Column 7 lines 27-60 light from mirror 111 is reflected toward image sensor 195),
wherein light entering the optical aperture reflects from the at least one reflection device onto the at least one imaging sensor (Column 7 lines 27-60 light from mirror 111 is reflected toward image sensor 195), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42 parabolic shape)..
at least one memory device (Column 4 lines 2-3 camera is configured for smartphones which have memory and a processor); and
at least one processor operatively coupled to the imaging device and the at least one memory device (Column 4 lines 2-3 camera is configured for smartphones which have memory and a processor).
Lu teaches the thickness of imaging device should be less than half its overall diameter (Column 1 lines 29-30). Lu fails to teach the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture. However, optimizing image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Lu teaches image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio (Column 1 lines 29-30) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case to balance image brightness and image sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device to fit in a mobile device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the imaging device thickness to aperture ratio of Lu since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Furthermore one would be motivated to do so in order to balance image brightness and sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16).
Regarding claim 14, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Lu further teaches the at least one reflection device comprises at least one of a central spherical reflector, a central semi- spherical reflector (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42 parabolic shape is semi-spherical), and at least one lens (Figure 1 lens 105, Column 7 lines 27-60).
Regarding claim 15, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Lu further teaches the imaging device is less than 10 millimeters in thickness (5 mm thickness, Column 11 lines 29-49).
Regarding claim 16, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Lu further teaches the imaging optics further comprises at least two lenses (Figure 1 lenses 105 and 107), wherein at least one of the at least two lenses comprises a movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105, Column 10 lines 1-32 lens 105 is moveable by mount 118) and wherein another of the at least two lenses comprises a field lens (Figure 1 lens 107, Column 10 lines 1-32).
Regarding claim 17, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Lu further teaches the at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195) is a movable imaging sensor (Column 10 lines 1-32 image sensor 195 may be moveable), and wherein movement of the movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105) and the movable imaging sensor (image sensor 195) provides a zoom feature for the imaging device (Column 10 lines 1-32).
Regarding claim 18, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Lu further teaches at least one second movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 106, Column 10 lines 1-32); and wherein the at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195) is a stationary imaging sensor and wherein movement of the movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 105) and the at least one second movable objective lens (Figure 1 lens 106) provides a zoom feature for the imaging device (Column 10 lines 26-29 lens 105 and 106 move while image sensor 195 is stationary).
Regarding claim 20, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Lu further teaches the information handling device is a handheld, portable information handling device (Column 4 lines 2-3 camera is configured for smartphones which are handheld devices).
Regarding claim 21, Lu teaches a method (Figure 1, method described in Columns 6 -7), comprising:
receiving light through a sparsely-filled optical aperture (Figure 1 aperture 126, Column 6 lines 3-9 light is blocked from entering camera 100 except through aperture 126 defined by lens 101) wherein the optical aperture is formed in a shape forming an outer portion of the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 34-36 lens 101, which defines aperture 126, is doughnut shaped),
wherein light passes through the outer portion (lens 101 defines outer portion of aperture 126) and is not allowed through at least a portion of an inner portion (Figure 1 disc-shaped light barrier 116, Column 6 lines 56-63) formed by the outer portion of the optical aperture (Figure 1 light barrier 116 is formed by outer portion of lens 101); and
reflecting the light using at least one reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the optical aperture (Column 6 lines 7-12 light received from lens 101 is incident on mirror 111) onto at least one imaging sensor (Figure 1 image sensor 195, Column 7 lines 27-60) optically located after the at least one reflection device (Column 7 lines 27-60 light from mirror 111 is reflected toward image sensor 195), wherein the at least one reflection device comprises a curved reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42 parabolic shape).
Lu teaches the thickness of imaging device should be less than half its overall diameter (Column 1 lines 29-30). Lu fails to teach the imaging device has a thickness of no more than 17% than a diameter of the optical aperture. However, optimizing image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Lu teaches image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio (Column 1 lines 29-30) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, in this case to balance image brightness and image sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device to fit in a mobile device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting image device thickness to aperture diameter ratio and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify the imaging device thickness to aperture ratio of Lu since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Furthermore one would be motivated to do so in order to balance image brightness and sensor size with the need for a thin imaging device (Column 12 line 50 – Column 13 line 16).
Regarding claim 22, Lu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lu further teaches the curved reflection device comprises a curved reflection device selected from the group consisting of: a spherical reflection device, a parabolic reflection device, or a hyperbolic reflection device (Figure 1 primary mirror 111, Column 7 lines 41-42 parabolic shape).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached on (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872