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
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) 1-2, 5, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford (US 20100188856 A1) in view of Kim (US 20200154042 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 10, and 11, the Examiner has determined new grounds of rejection.
Re Claim 1, Ford discloses, on Fig. 1a-1b, 5A and 6a-6b, an optical assembly, comprising: an optical element provided in a form of a solid main optical element (Fig. 6a: combination device 80) and comprising an integrated focal system (upper surfaces of lens 82 and 84) [Par 26] with two mirrors (See surfaces 55 in Fig. 1B which is used in Fig. 6a) [Par 26] and at least one integrated afocal ( bottom most surfaces of lens 82 and 84, see Fig. 1B for a similar lens wherein inner surface 35 is planar and rear inner surface 45 is curved)[Par 26] system with two mirrors (flat surfaces 35 in Fig. 1B, which are used in Fig. 6B) [Par 26].
But Ford does not explicitly disclose, a plurality of switching optical element arranged on a front face of the optical element configured to switch between an open state in which light is transmitted and a closed state in which light is reflected and/or inhibited; wherein the SOEs are configured to compensate for curvature of at least one concave surface of the afocal system to form a substantially flat forward face portion of the optical element. and an image plane curvature correction element.
However, Ford discloses in an alternative embodiment, see Fig. 2a-b, and 7B: a plurality of switching optical element (Fig. 7 B: switching diffraction gratings 194 can be used in lenses like those in Fig. 2a-2b) arranged on a front face of the optical element (lenses 193) [Par 46 and 47 and 56], configured to switch between an open state in which light is transmitted and a closed state in which light is reflected and/or inhibited (preferentially receive light from different angles, which would be open and closed) [Par 55].
Ford also discloses, on Fig. 7B, SOEs that are configured to compensate for curvature of at least one concave surface (switchable gratings in connection with the imaging lenses, which would include the aforementioned concave curved surfaces of lens 82 and 84, and thus compensate for them) [Par 56] to form a substantially flat forward face portion of the optical element (imaging systems 10, 20, 110, and 120 can be incorporated in a so called “flat camera”, with an extremely small track length such that it would be substantially flat) [Par 43]. Further Ford teaches, that the exact shapes and angles of the reflective surfaces can be determined using known optical techniques [Par 27]. Since, Ford explicitly teaches the control of switchable gratings to compensate for curved surfaces of focal systems (curved surfaces of lens 82 and 84) [Par 56] and the determination of the exact shapes of reflective surfaces appropriate for directing light in the desired manner, such as that of a curved surface in an afocal system [Par 27]. Ford establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of designing the SOEs so they are configured to compensate for curvature of at least one concave surface of the afocal system to form a substantially flat forward face portion of the optical element. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, to produce a thinner camera lens for use in miniature cameras [Par 43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in order to provide a thinner camera lens.
But, modified Ford does not explicitly disclose, an image plane curvature correction element.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in micro systems with switching units to include an image plane curvature correction element (polarization dependent lens array 160, would inherently have a field curvature corresponding to sensor 180 in order to for the sensor 180 to adequately image refracted light) [Par 41].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford with Kim in order to provide, an imaging lens corresponding to the sensor depending on the on/off state of the switching unit, as taught by Kim [Par 49].
Re Claim 2, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 1, and Ford further discloses Fig. 1a-1B, wherein the focal system comprises a first concave reflective optical surface and a second convex reflective optical surface (surfaces 55 are reflective, aspheric lens surfaces whose shape can be determined using conventional optical techniques such as optical computer programs, concave and convex surfaces are inherent in aspherical surfaces and are conventional reflective surface shapes) [Par 27].
Re Claim 5, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 1, and Ford further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the focal system (Surfaces 55 of Fig. 1B present in Fig. 6B) and the at least one afocal system (surfaces 35 in Fig. 1B present in Fig. 6B) are provided in the solid main optical element (surfaces 35 and 55 are both in combination device 80).
Re Claim 7, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 1, and Ford further discloses (on Fig. 2a-2b and 7B), an SOE (Fig. 7 B: switching diffraction gratings 194 can be used in lenses like those in Fig. 2a-2b) [Par 46-47 and 56] and a reflective optical coating (“…lens 120 like the lens 20 includes a plurality of reflective, substantially concentric and circular, angle-selective dielectric-coated aspheric lens zones or surfaces 155) [Par 32].
But Ford in view of Kimd does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one surface of the SOEs is applied with a reflective optical coating
However, since Ford does teach the use of both switchable diffraction gratings that would act as an SOE and reflective optical lens coatings [Par 32, 46-47, and 56], the use of both is taught in the prior art. Further, simply combining the switchable grating with the reflective optical coating is well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Ford in view of Kim, such that at least one surface of the SOEs is applied with a reflective optical coating, for the purpose of directing light within the lens and beam steering [Par 32 and 56].
Re claim 10, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 7.
But Ford in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the SOEs have a flat first optical surface and a second optical surface having curvature corresponding to curvature of a concave optical reflective surface of the focal system and/or the at least one afocal system.
However, Ford teaches, on Fig. 7B, the explicit control and design of each diffraction grating such that, each grating performs unique beam steering for its respective lens (See equation 1 for a relationship between beam steering angle and grating period) [Par 55]. Ford also teaches on Fig. 1, a flat first optical surface (planar surfaces 35) [Par 26] and a second optical surface (rear inner surface 45) [Par 26] having curvature corresponding to curvature of a concave optical reflective surface of the focal system (surface 45 includes several curved surfaces 55, which in conjunction constitutes a focal system) [Par 26]. Thus, Ford teaches both the control and design of gratings [Par 55], switchable gratings [Par 56], and an optical element with, a flat first optical surface and a second optical surface having curvature corresponding to curvature of a concave optical reflective surface of the focal system and/or the at least one afocal system [Par 26]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply creating a switchable grating with similar surfaces to of that of the lens in Fig. 1B (lens 20), and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide in the switchable grating, lateral alignment tolerances [Ford: Par 26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim in order to provide, lateral alignment tolerances, as taught by Ford.
Re Claim 11, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 7, and Ford further discloses on Fig. 1B, a second reflective optical surface (planar inner surface 35 is reflected on at least twice) [Par 26] of the at least one afocal system (inner surface 35 is planar and thus afocal) [Par 26] to form a flat surface arranged perpendicular to an optical axis (inner surface 35 is planar and perpendicular to the optical axis in Fig. 1B) [Par 26], and Ford discloses on Fig. 7B, wherein the SOEs are arranged on a reflective optical surface (switchable gratings disposed one each lens, which is in itself an optical surface with inherent reflective properties) [Par 55-56].
But Ford in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the SOEs are arranged on a second reflective optical surface of the at least one afocal system to form a flat surface arranged perpendicular to an optical axis.
However, since Ford teaches, the SOE’s arrange on a reflective optical surface [Par 55-56], and a second reflective optical surface of the at least one afocal system to form a flat surface arranged perpendicular to an optical axis [Par 26]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply arranging the SOE’s on a second reflective optical surface of the at least one afocal system to form a flat surface arranged perpendicular to an optical axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim, in order to provide beam steering in different directions, as taught by Ford [Par 56].
Re Claim 12, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 7.
But Ford in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical element has a recessed concave central circular portion.
However, Ford teaches in an alternative embodiment, on Fig. 2a-2b, that it is desirable in lenses with multiple fields of view, to include wherein the optical element has a recessed concave central circular portion (surface 155 is a recessed, concave, central, circular portion as can be seen in Fig. 2a and 2B)[Par 32].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view Kim, in order to provide for directing the light into the interior of the lens and reflect light in the desired manner, as taught by Ford [Par 32].
Re Claim 13, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 1, and Kim further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the image plane curvature correction element is provided in a form of at least one lens arranged between the optical element and an image sensor of an imaging device (polarization dependent lens array 160, would inherently have a field curvature corresponding to sensor 180 in order to for the sensor 180 to adequately image refracted light, and is disposed between other optical elements of polarization unit 140 and sensor 180) [Par 41].
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kessler (US 20100208319 A1).
Re Claim 3, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 2.
But Ford in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the at least one afocal system comprises at least a first concave reflective optical surface and a second convex reflective optical surface.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kessler teaches, on Fig. 5, that it is desirable in an afocal optical system to include at least a first concave reflective optical surface (concave mirror 50) and a second convex reflective optical surface (convex mirror 60) [Par 31 and 59].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim with Kessler in order to direct the reflected light, as taught by Kessler [Par 59].
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Kim and Kessler as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Weir (US 20140043666 A1).
Re Claim 4, Ford in view of Kim and Kessler discloses, the optical assembly of claim 3, and Kessler further discloses on Fig. 5, a first concave reflective optical surface (concave mirror 50) and a second convex reflective optical surface (convex mirror 60).
But Ford in view of Kim and Kessler does not explicitly disclose wherein, optical surfaces are applied with a coating of which a state can change between a transmission state and a reflection state.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weir teaches, on Fig. 1-3, that it is desirable in optical systems to include, optical surfaces which are applied with a coating of which a state can change between a transmission state and a reflection state (specific composition of switchable electrochromic coatings for optical surfaces, such as windows, would include a transmission state and reflection state) [Par 3-6 and 61].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim and Kessler with Weir in order to provide long lasting, and faster switching, as taught by Weir [Par 61].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weir .
Re Claim 8, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim .
But Ford in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein, wherein at least one surface of the SOEs is applied with an electrochromic glass (ECG) coating.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Weir teaches, on Fig. 1-3, that it is desirable in optical systems to include, wherein at least one surface of the SOEs is applied with an electrochromic glass (ECG) coating (specific composition of switchable electrochromic coatings for optical surfaces, such as windows, would include a transmission state and reflection state) [Par 3-6 and 61].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim and Kessler with Weir in order to provide long lasting, and faster switching, as taught by Weir [Par 61].
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Kim as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Blum (US 20200073170 A1).
Re Claim 9, Ford in view of Kim discloses, the optical assembly of claim 7.
But Ford in view of Kim discloses, wherein the SOEs are made of a same optical material as the main optical element.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Blum teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in micro arrays for the SOEs ( micro lenses of the switchable micro lens array ) to be made of a same optical material as a main optical element (see through near eye display would constitute a main optical element with imaging and refracting lenses, wherein the micro lens array comprises the display and thus comprises the same materials, LCDs) [Par 4, and 12]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ford in view of Kim with Blum, in order to provide mimicking of a lens or optic, as taught by Blum [Par 12].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Svec (US 20180100996 A1) teaches a lens with multiple fields of view through a common aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 at (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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872