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 § 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 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0187455 to Iwasaki.
Regarding Claim 1, Iwasaki discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 2, 6, 8, and 9 and their corresponding descriptions) a focus variable liquid lens 11 (e.g., paragraph [0067], “optical element that can electrically control the focal position”; paragraph [0178], “liquid lens 11 functions as a variable focus lens”) comprising: a base substrate 21; an electrode part 22 formed on the base substrate, and having a central electrode 22A and a plurality of electrodes 22B formed around the central electrode and insulated from each other (e.g., paragraphs [0093] and [0095], where different voltages can be applied to the regions 22B, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize means that they are “insulated from each other”); and a lens unit having a liquid lens formed at the central electrode (formed of liquid 24; e.g., paragraph [0085]), a light passing through the liquid lens, wherein the liquid lens is located at a center of the central electrode and a focus of the light is located at an optical axis passing through the center of the central electrode, when a voltage having the same magnitude is applied to the plurality of the electrodes (e.g., Fig. 9 and paragraph [0097]; also Figs. 2A/B; paragraph [0067]; [0186]), wherein the liquid lens moves laterally from the central electrode and the focus of the light moves laterally from the center of the central electrode, when voltages of different magnitudes are applied to one of the plurality of the electrodes (Fig. 9, various illustrated scenarios other than the first or last scenarios).
Regarding Claim 2, Iwasaki discloses wherein the plurality of the electrodes comprises: a first electrode located at a first side of the central electrode along a first direction; a second electrode located at a second side of the central electrode along the first direction; a third electrode located at a first side of the central electrode along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and a fourth electrode located at a second side of the central electrode along the second direction (Fig. 8A).
Regarding Claim 3, Iwasaki discloses wherein the first to fourth electrodes are arranged in a concentric direction around the central electrode, and are insulated from the central electrode by an insulating part. wherein each of the first to fourth electrodes has the same shape (Fig. 8A).
Regarding Claim 4, Iwasaki discloses wherein each of the central electrode, the first electrode, the second electrode, the third electrode and the fourth electrode receives a voltage independently (e.g., Figs. 2, 8, and 9).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 5–8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (Seungwan Seo, et al., “Liquid Microlens Enabling Tunable Focus and Tilt for Resolution Enhancement of 3D Image,” Transducers 2019 – EUROSENSORS XXXIII Berlin, GERMANY, 23–27 June 2019, pp. 1592–2595; cited in Applicant’s September 25, 2023, IDS) in view of Iwasaki.
Regarding Claim 5, Seo discloses (e.g., focusing on the section “Fabrication”) a method of manufacturing a focus variable liquid lens (process for fabrication of the proposed liquid microlens,” where the lens has tunable focus), the method comprising: forming a ground electrode G and an electrode part having a plurality of electrodes (Vx+, Vx-, Vy+, Vy-) to be spaced apart from each other on a base substrate (“ITO-coated glass substrate”); forming a metal layer on each of the electrodes (“contact metal, Ti/Au . . . sputtered on . . . ITO-coated glass substrate”); forming an insulating layer to insulate the ground electrode and the electrodes from each other (e.g., Si3N4 layer), and to expose the metal layer to outside (“plasma etching process to open the signal pad and ground”); mounting a liquid lens on the central electrode (“inner and outer lenses were placed at the center”) and forming an oil layer to cover the liquid lens (electrolyte and silicone oil dispensed onto the center); and forming an encapsulation layer to encapsulate the oil layer (Fig. 3(d), “encapsulation with Parylene C”).
Seo does not explicitly disclose that the ground electrode is a central electrode (instead illustrating the ground electrode and the four other electrodes as concentric).
Iwasaki discloses a tunable focus liquid lens, similar to Seo, and Iwasaki teaches forming the electrode structure having a central ground electrode 22A surrounded by four control electrodes 22B in order to more finely control the position and shape of the oil lens (e.g., paragraph [0095] and Figs. 8 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the method of Seo such that the ground electrode is a central electrode, as suggested by Iwasaki, in order to more finely control the position and shape of the oil lens, and also where Iwasaki teaches a suitable electrode configuration for a focus tunable liquid lens (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Seo and Iwasaki would have rendered obvious wherein in forming the electrode part, the electrode part which is transparent is deposited on the base substrate which is transparent, and then the electrode part is patterned to form the central electrode and the plurality of the electrodes spaced apart from each other (e.g., “Fabrication” section of Seo and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Seo and Iwasaki would have rendered obvious wherein in forming the metal layer, the metal layer having titanium (Ti) or gold (Au) is formed in an area exposed to outside of the electrode part (e.g., “Fabrication” section of Seo and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Seo and Iwasaki would have rendered obvious wherein in forming the insulating layer, silicon nitride (SiNx) is deposited on the electrode part on which the metal layer is formed via plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), and then the insulating layer is formed by patterning the central electrode and the metal layer to be exposed to outside (e.g., “Fabrication” section of Seo and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Seo and Iwasaki would have rendered obvious wherein the liquid lens has electrolyte and is conductive, wherein the liquid lens is mounted on the central electrode with a spherical shape, wherein the oil layer has oil and is nonconductive, wherein the oil layer has a hemispherical shape (Fig. 1(a) of Seo, enlarged and reproduced in part below).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(partial enlarged Fig. 1(a) of Seo)
Claims 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo and Iwasaki, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0310490 to Park et al.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Seo and Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose, after forming the insulating layer, a circuit board is mounted to be electrically connected to the metal layer exposed to outside through the insulating layer, and the encapsulation layer is formed on an upper surface of the circuit board.
Park discloses a liquid lens, similar to Seo and Iwasaki, and Park teaches a printed circuit board 411 connected to electrode unit 440 and first electrode 441 in order to electrically control the liquid lens 400 (e.g., Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0105]–[0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the method of Seo and Iwasaki such that, after forming the insulating layer, a circuit board is mounted to be electrically connected to the metal layer exposed to outside through the insulating layer, and the encapsulation layer is formed on an upper surface of the circuit board, as suggested by Park, in order to electrically control the liquid lens.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Seo, Iwasaki, and Park would have rendered obvious wherein the circuit board is a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) (paragraphs [0107]–[0108] of Park, PCB or FPCB).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Seo, Iwasaki, and Park would have rendered obvious wherein the encapsulation layer is formed by depositing parylene polymer via chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Seo, “parylene C was deposited via low-pressure chemical vapor deposition”).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Seo, Iwasaki, and Park would have rendered obvious wherein before mounting the circuit board, a cover layer which is patterned to partially expose the metal layer and the insulating layer is formed on the insulating layer (e.g., Seo, Si3N4 layer, “plasma etching process to open the signal pad and ground”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Seo, Iwasaki, and Park would have rendered obvious wherein the oil layer covers the liquid lens and is formed on the partially exposed insulating layer (Fig. 1(a) of Seo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871