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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 22, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10, 15, and 17 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 30, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 17 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation “the deformable solid material comprises at least one of a polymer, an organic-inorganic composite, or a liquid lens.” It is unclear how the a liquid lens would satisfy the limitation of a solid material since a liquid is not a solid and thus renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the deformable solid material comprises at least one of a polymer or an organic-inorganic composite.”
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wells et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,895,737 – hereinafter referred to as “Wells”).
Regarding claim 1, Wells teaches an optical lens assembly (Figure 4 optical lens assembly 400), comprising:
at least one optical lens (Column 12 lines 7-15 one or both of support structures 408 and 418 may be optical lens);
a tunable optical lens (Figure 4 deformable lens assembly 404, Column 11 lines 1-10) aligned along an orthogonal axis of the at least one optical lens (Figure 4 deformable lens assembly 404 is aligned along an orthogonal axis of support structures 418), the tunable optical lens (Figure 4 deformable lens assembly 404) comprising:
a transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 4 transducer 410, Column 12 lines 25-26 transducer 410 may include a transparent electroactive material, Column 13 lines 30-45 electroactive materials for transducer 410 may include a piezoelectric material);
a front plate (Figure 4 support structure 408, Column 6 lines 34-36) positioned parallel to the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 4 support structure 408 is parallel to transducer 410); and
a deformable solid material (Figure 4 deformable material 412, Column 14 lines 42-54 deformable media 412 may include a polymer material which is a solid) between the front plate (Figure 4 support structure 408) and the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 4 transducer 410), wherein an adjustment of a profile of the transparent piezoelectric layer adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly (Column 16 lines 15-21 electroactive material deformed to alter focus).
Regarding claim 2, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wells further teaches one or more electrodes (Figure 5 electrode materials 504,508, Column 16 lines 1-2) disposed on one or both surfaces of the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 5 electrode materials 504,508 are applied to both sides of electroactive material 502) to provide an actuation voltage to the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 16 lines 1-2 provides voltage to electroactive material 502).
Regarding claim 3, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wells further teaches the transparent piezoelectric layer comprises a plurality of actuation zones to receive actuation voltages (Figures 7A-C conductive traces 702-712 form a plurality of actuation zones, Column 16 lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 4, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3. Wells further teaches the plurality of actuation zones are distributed evenly or according to a pattern across the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figures 7A-C patterns of conductive traces 700, Column 16 lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 5, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3. Wells further teaches a value and a distribution of the actuation voltages is determined based on the focus distance of the optical lens assembly (Column 14 lines 17-41 voltages adjusted to change focus, Column 12 lines 67-66 different voltages applied at different nodes), or a value and a distribution of the actuation voltages is determined based on an aberration correction for the optical lens assembly (Column 16 lines 15-20 voltages determined to correct for optical aberration).
Regarding claim 6, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wells further teaches the transparent piezoelectric layer comprises lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PMN-PT), lithium niobate, or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Column 13 lines 30-45 materials suitable for transducer 410 include PMN-PT, lithium niobate, and PVDF).
Regarding claim 7, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wells further teaches the deformable solid material comprises at least one of a polymer, an architectured ceramic, or an organic-inorganic hybrid composite (Column 14 lines 42-54 deformable media 412 may include a polymer material).
Regarding claim 8, Ouderkirk teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Ouderkirk further teaches the deformable solid material returns to an original shape when the transparent piezoelectric layer returns to a rest profile (Column 14 liens 36-41 deformable media 412 conforms to shape of transducer 410 upon actuation and thus returns to the original shape when transducer 410 returns to a rest profile).
Regarding claim 9, Wells teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Wells further teaches the front plate is made from a rigid, transparent material (Column 11 lines 47-57 support structure 408 may be made of rigid transparent materials such as glass, sapphire, crystal material, polycarbonate, or polymer material).
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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,634,824 – hereinafter referred to as “Ouderkirk”) in view of Wells (U.S. Patent No. 10,895,737) and in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0158750).
Regarding claim 10, Oderkirk teaches a controller (Figure 4 engine 480); and
an optical lens assembly (Figure 3B varifocal block 360) comprising:
at least one optical lens (Figure 3B, Column 10 lines 34-38 varifocal block 360 includes one or more optical devices in optical series);
a tunable optical lens (Figure 1A liquid lens 100) aligned along an orthogonal axis of the at least one optical lens (Figure 3B, Column 10 lines 34-38 varifocal block 360 includes one or more optical devices in optical series with liquid lens 100), the tunable optical lens (Figure 1A liquid lens 100) comprising:
a transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 1A adjustable membrane 120, Column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 5 adjustable membrane 120 is composed of a substantially transparent piezoelectric material);
a rigid front plate (Figure 1A substrate layer 150, Column 6 lines 34-36 substrate layer is composed of a rigid material such as SiO2, plastic, sapphire, or thermoplastic) positioned parallel to the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 1A substrate layer 150 is parallel to adjustable membrane 120); and
a deformable material (Figure 1A liquid layer 160) between the rigid front plate (Figure 1A substrate layer 150) and the transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 1A adjustable membrane 120), wherein an adjustment of a profile of the transparent piezoelectric layer adjusts a focus distance of the optical lens assembly (Column 7 lines 40-67 shape of adjustable member 120 is adjusted to change optical power of liquid lens 100).
Ouderkirk fails to teach a deformable solid material. However, Wells teaches an optical lens assembly (Figure 4 optical lens assembly 400) with a tunable lens using a deformable solid material (Figure 4 deformable material 412, Column 14 lines 42-54 deformable media 412 may include a polymer material which is a solid). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the case at hand, choosing a solid deformable material for the tunable lens would be a matter of design choice to match desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost. 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 tunable lens taught by Ouderkirk to use a deformable solid material as taught by Wells as choosing the deformable material would be a matter of design choice to achieve desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost.
Ouderkirk and Wells fail to teach the optical lens assembly is a part of an image capture device with a camera sensor. However, Kim teaches an image capture device (Figure 1c camera 121b, [0099]) with a camera sensor (Figure 9 image sensor 250, [0107]). 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 head mounted device taught by Ouderkirk and Wells by adding the image capture device and camera sensor taught by Kim with the tunable lens taught by Ouderkirk and Wells in order to allow the head mounted device to take images.
Regarding claim 11, Ouderkirk, Wells, and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Ouderkirk further teaches the controller (Figure 4 engine 480) is to:
determine a new focus distance for the image capture device (Figure 4 varifocal block 445, Column 13 lines 1-17 vergence processing module 455 determines location where user’s eyes should be focused, Column 15 lines 1-17 engine 480 determines focal distance for varifocal block 445 based on information from vergence processing module 455);
determine a new profile the optical lens assembly based on the determined new focus distance (Column 14 lines 59-67 engine 480 maintains focal capability information and settings for liquid lens 100 that map to particular focal planes);
determine value and a distribution for a plurality of actuation voltages to adjust a shape of the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 15 lines 1-17 engine 480 generates instructions and settings to adjust the liquid lens within varifocal block 445); and
apply the plurality of actuation voltages to a plurality of actuation zones on the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 conductive layer 125 provides different voltages to different portions of adjustable membrane 120 to create different curvatures).
Regarding claim 12, Ouderkirk, Wells, and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Ouderkirk further teaches the plurality of actuation zones are distributed evenly or according to a pattern across the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 adjustable portions of adjustable membrane 120 will inherently have a pattern, Column 9 lines 6-11 adjustable portions distributed to provide a bifocal).
Regarding claim 13, Ouderkirk, Wells, and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Ouderkirk further teaches the value and the distribution for the plurality of actuation voltages is further determined to provide an aberration correction (Column 8 line 58-column 9 line 13 voltages determined to correct for optical aberration).
Regarding claim 14, Ouderkirk, Wells, and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Ouderkirk further teaches the transparent piezoelectric layer comprises lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PMN-PT), lithium niobate, or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Column 5 lines 2-5 adjustable membrane 120 is composed of PVDF).
Regarding claim 15, Ouderkirk and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Ouderkirk further teaches the deformable material returns to an original shape when the transparent piezoelectric layer returns to a rest profile (Column 6 lines 55-57 liquid layer 160 includes one or more liquids and the liquid will return to its original shape when adjustable layer 120 returns to its rest profile). Ouderkirk fails to teach the deformable solid material comprises at least one of a polymer or an organic-inorganic composite. However, Wells teaches the deformable solid material comprises at least one of a polymer or an organic-inorganic composite (Column 14 lines 42-54 deformable media 412 may include a polymer material). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the case at hand, choosing a polymer for the solid deformable material would be a matter of design choice to match desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost. 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 tunable lens taught by Ouderkirk to use a polymer for the deformable solid material as taught by Wells as choosing the deformable material would be a matter of design choice to achieve desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost.
Regarding claim 16, Ouderkirk, Wells, and Kim teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Ouderkirk and Wells fail to teach the optical lens assembly has a field of view (FOV) of more than 100 degrees in a diagonal direction. However, Kim teaches an camera module (Figure 9 camera module 200) with a FOV of more than 100 degrees in a diagonal direction (Figure 9 second lens assembly 240, [0179] half field of view of second lens assembly 240 is 60 degrees, FOV = 120 degrees). Kim further teaches that camera module 200 contains a tunable lens (Figure 9 first lens assembly 210 is a tunable lens, [0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tunable lens taught by Ouderkirk and Wells with the second lens assembly taught by Kim in order to provide a single camera with a wide FOV (Kim [0008]-[0009]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk (U.S. Patent No. 10,634,824) in view of Wells (U.S. Patent No. 10,895,737).
Regarding claim 17, Ouderkirk teaches a method comprising:
determining, at a controller (Figure 4 engine 480), a focus distance for an optical lens assembly (Figure 4 varifocal block 445, Column 13 lines 1-17 vergence processing module 455 determines location where user’s eyes should be focused, Column 15 lines 1-17 engine 480 determines focal distance for varifocal block 445 based on information from vergence processing module 455), wherein the optical lens assembly comprises:
at least one optical lens (Figure 3B, Column 10 lines 34-38 varifocal block 360 includes one or more optical devices in optical series); and
a tunable optical lens (Figure 1A liquid lens 100) aligned along an orthogonal axis of the at least one optical lens (Figure 3B, Column 10 lines 34-38 varifocal block 360 includes one or more optical devices in optical series with liquid lens 100), the tunable optical lens having an adjustable profile (Column 4 lines 7-10 liquid lens 100 adjusts focus by adjusting curvature) and comprising a transparent piezoelectric layer (Figure 1A adjustable membrane 120, Column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 5 adjustable membrane 120 is composed of a substantially transparent piezoelectric material) a deformable material (Figure 1A liquid layer 160);
determining a new profile for the tunable optical lens based on the determined focus distance (Column 14 lines 59-67 engine 480 maintains focal capability information and settings for liquid lens 100 that map to particular focal planes);
determining value and a distribution for a plurality of actuation voltages to adjust a shape of a transparent piezoelectric layer of the tunable optical lens and thereby a profile of the tunable optical lens to the new profile (Column 15 lines 1-17 engine 480 generates instructions and settings to adjust the liquid lens within varifocal block 445); and
applying the plurality of actuation voltages to a plurality of actuation zones on the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 conductive layer 125 provides different voltages to different portions of adjustable membrane 120 to create different curvatures), thereby adjusting the shape of a deformable material and the shape of the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 conductive layer 125 provides different voltages to different portions of adjustable membrane 120 to create different curvatures to adjust the shape of liquid layer 160).
Ouderkirk fails to teach a deformable solid material. However, Wells teaches an optical lens assembly (Figure 4 optical lens assembly 400) with a tunable lens using a deformable solid material (Figure 4 deformable material 412, Column 14 lines 42-54 deformable media 412 may include a polymer material which is a solid). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the case at hand, choosing a solid deformable material for the tunable lens would be a matter of design choice to match desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost. 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 tunable lens taught by Ouderkirk to use a deformable solid material as taught by Wells as choosing the deformable material would be a matter of design choice to achieve desired properties such as refractive index, curvature profiles, weight, and cost.
Regarding claim 18, Ouderkirk and Wells teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Ouderkirk further teaches determining the value and the distribution for the plurality of actuation voltages to provide an aberration correction (Column 8 line 58-column 9 line 13 voltages determined to correct for optical aberration).
Regarding claim 19, Ouderkirk and Wells teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Ouderkirk further teaches applying the plurality of actuation voltages to a plurality of actuation zones on the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 conductive layer 125 provides different voltages to different portions of adjustable membrane 120 to create different curvatures) causes: adjustment of the shape of the transparent piezoelectric layer (Column 6 lines 2-6 conductive layer 125 provides different voltages to different portions of adjustable membrane 120 to create different curvatures), and adjustment of the profile of a deformable material between the transparent piezoelectric layer and a rigid front plate (Column 1 lines 24-39 liquid layer is deformed in response to the deformable membrane).
Regarding claim 20, Ouderkirk and Wells teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Ouderkirk further teaches the transparent piezoelectric layer comprises lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PMN-PT), lithium niobate, or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Column 5 lines 2-5 adjustable membrane 120 is composed of PVDF).
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 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 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872