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
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 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, 5-10, 13-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2021/0011249 A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2017/0138786 A1).
Re claims 1, 9 and 15, Yokoyama discloses a device comprising an apparatus: comprising a display apparatus (100); and an image sensor (112); wherein the display apparatus comprises a display element (IMG); and an optical system (50) configured to guide an image (“object”) displayed on the display element (IMG), the optical system comprising: a resin lens (L3; paragraph 0072); and a member (F2) for reducing transmission of ultraviolet light of the optical system (paragraph 0070), wherein the member is disposed closer to the viewer than the resin lens (Fig. 1). The member (F2) may be closer to the viewer than the resin lens (L3) since it is closer to the image surface (IMG). Yokoyama does not disclose the device wherein the image displayed on the display element is guided to the eyeball of a viewer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the image displayed on the display element is guided to the eyeball of a viewer since the image may be guided and viewed by an eyeball of a viewer in a digital camera via the optical system and the image surface. In this interpretation, the “object” is the image that is displayed on the display element, and the image of the object is guided to the viewer by the optical system (50)).
Yokoyama does not disclose the device wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 0<Tuv<100; <Rir<10, where Tuv[%] is an average transmittance of the member at a wavelength of 300 to 360 nm, and Rir [%] is an average reflectance of the member at a wavelength of 700 to 1000 nm.
Shimizu et al. discloses a device comprising a member, for reducing transmission of ultraviolet light of the optical system (paragraph 0088), wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0≤Tuv<10; 0<Rir<10, where Tuv[%] is an average transmittance of the member at a wavelength of 300 to 360 nm, and Rir [%] is an average reflectance of the member at a wavelength of 700 to 1000 nm (Fig. 7). Since 100% of wavelengths 700 to 1000 nm are transmitted, the reflectance at 700 to 1000 nm would be 0≤Rir<10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0<Tuv<10; 0<Rir<10 since one would be motivated to significantly reduce the transmission of ultraviolet light compared to other wavelengths of light. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claims 2, 10 and 16, Yokoyama et al. does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0<Tvl<10, wherein Tvl [%] an average reflectance of the member at a wavelength of 400 to 700 nm.
Shimizu et al. discloses a device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0≤Tvl<10, wherein Tvl [%] an average reflectance of the member at a wavelength of 400 to 700 nm (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0<Tvl<10, wherein Tvl [%] an average reflectance of the member at a wavelength of 400 to 700 nm since one would be motivated to significantly reduce the transmission of ultraviolet light compared to other wavelengths of light. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claims 5, 13 and 19, Yokoyama does not disclose the device further comprising an imaging unit configured to image the eyeball using infrared light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device further comprising an imaging unit configured to image the eyeball using infrared light since doing so is well known in the art to enable the eye to select the image to be captured.
Re claim 6, Yokoyama does not disclose the device wherein an optical axis of the imaging unit and an optical system are disposed at different angles from each other, and wherein the imaging unit and the optical system do not share a lens.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein an optical axis of the imaging unit and an optical system are disposed at different angles from each other, and wherein the imaging unit and the optical system do not share a lens since it is well known in the art for the eye-tracking device to be disposed as part of the viewfinder. As disclosed in Fig. 27, the viewfinder (103) is a separate component of the camera (100), and therefore, an optical axis of the imaging unit and an optical system may be disposed at different angles from each other, and the imaging unit and the optical system would not share a lens.
Re claim 7, Yokoyama et al. as modified by Shimizu et al. does not disclose the device wherein the member includes a vapor deposited film made of dielectric or metal oxide, and wherein the vapor deposited film includes 17 layers or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the member includes a vapor deposited film made of dielectric or metal oxide, and wherein the vapor deposited film includes 17 layers or less since doing so is well known in the art to obtain a member that blocks light in an ultraviolet wavelength band. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that the blocked wavelength band is determined in part by the number of dielectric layers. Therefore, obtaining the device wherein there are 17 layers or less to block light of a particular wavelength band is based on a result effective variable requiring routine skill in the art. As to the product-by-process claim limitation, “includes a vapor deposited film”, "[E]ven though product-by-process claim limitation claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113).
Re claims 8, 14 and 20, Yokoyama et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 1.60<ndp<1.75; 15.0<vdp<25.0, wherein ndp is a refractive index of the resin lens for d-line, an vdp is an Abbe number based on the d-line (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 17 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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.
/RICHARD H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871