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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 3/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,32,34 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Vinogradov (US 20210294071, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Vinogradov teaches (Fig. 1) A method for correcting thermal drift of a liquid lens in a lens assembly (118,120) for a machine vision system (102), the method comprising:
receiving a distance ([37], “focus distance”) to an object (104);
receiving a temperature measurement ([62], “current temperature”) for the liquid lens;
determining a change in temperature ([62], “change in temperature”) for the liquid lens;
determining a lens focus adjustment using a thermal model of the machine vision system ([62], “...determine what the actual, desired focus position...”), wherein the thermal model includes mechanical ([29], “thermal effects...lens assembly”, [56], “lens...temperature compensation...”) and electrical parameters (“[56], “voltage compensation data”) of the machine vision system; and
adjusting a focal length of the liquid lens based on the lens focus adjustment ([62], “The process 208 sets the liquid lens according to those compensated...”, “...the voltage as that has been applied to the liquid lens to achieve that initial focus position”, when the voltage of the liquid lens changes the focal length of the liquid lens changes).
Regarding claim 3, Vinogradov further teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the focal length of the liquid lens comprises:
determining a control current based on the lens focus adjustment; and
applying the control current to the liquid lens ([72], “That focus position is then set by the process 408 as the compensated fixed focus potion (or voltage) that is to be used for future image capture”, it is understood by Examiner voltage control is equivalent to current control for liquid lens when aging and temperature compensations are included).
Regarding claims 32,34, mutatis mutandis, Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 1,3 rejections above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinogradov.
Regarding claim 37, Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 32, but does not explicitly teach The system according to claim 32, further comprising a lens housing wherein the liquid lens and the processor device are disposed within the lens housing.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having a lens housing wherein the liquid lens and the processor device are disposed within the lens housing would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of portable application.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Vinogradov by having a lens housing wherein the liquid lens and the processor device are disposed within the lens housing for the purposes of portable application.
Claim(s) 2,4,5,33,35,36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinogradov, as evidenced by Henriksen (US 20220334452).
Regarding claim 2, Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, and further teaches the thermal model is given by an optical power Psys as a function of temperature T and an input signal being voltage for the liquid lens ([27-28], “Example focusing parameters are measurable parameters of operation or function of the variable lens assembly, and include parameters such as current time, current temperature...voltage...”).
Vinogradov does not explicitly teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the thermal model is given by:
PNG
media_image2.png
44
170
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where dPsys is an optical power difference of the machine vision system relative to a reference optical power, dT is the change in temperature for the liquid lens relative to a reference temperature, ki is a set of coefficients modelling the interaction between a system optical power, a temperature, and an input signal for the liquid lens, and x is a discrete input for the liquid lens at a given optical power, i.e., expressing Psys as a function of T in a derivative form in a polynomial form of temperature and an input signal.
However expressing Psys as a function of T in a polynomial form of temperature and an input signal is well-known math applications for one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Henriksen ([100,105-106], “polynomials”). In addition the polynomial form is practically equivalent mathematically to
PNG
media_image3.png
36
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
when the fact each liquid lens has a baseline optical power is considered, or
PNG
media_image3.png
36
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
can be derived easily by hand from the polynomial form.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Vinogradov by having
PNG
media_image3.png
36
126
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for the purposes of simplifying control program.
Regarding claim 4, Vinogradov further teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein determining the lens focus adjustment using the thermal model comprises:
determining the optical power difference dPsys using the thermal model; and
comparing the determined optical power difference dPsys to a predetermined calibration curve for the liquid lens to identify the lens focus adjustment ([28-29], “...compensated new focus positions may be determined...measurable parameters...may be used to and built into one or more lens behavior models...compensation is performed using historical data on lens performance that is included in the lens behavior model...”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 4, and further teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined calibration curve includes a relationship between a parameter and optical power for the liquid lens (see claim 2 rejection above, Psys as an input signal being voltage).
Vinogradov does not explicitly teach the parameter is current and the predetermined calibration curve is determined using a plurality of distances that fit non-linear behavior.
However it is well-known to have a predetermined calibration curve is determined using a plurality of distances that fit non-linear behavior, as evidenced by Henriksen ([27], “curve fitting polynomial...nonlinear...voltage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the predetermined calibration curve is determined using a plurality of distances that fit non-linear behavior in the teaching of the modified Vinogradov for the purposes of easy modeling.
Further absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the parameter is current would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Henriksen ([85], “...based on voltage...based on current”), for the purposes of design choices.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of the further modified Vinogradov by having the parameter is current for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claims 33,35, mutatis mutandis, the modified Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claims 2,4 rejections above.
Regarding claim 36, mutatis mutandis, the even further modified Vinogradov teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 5 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights