DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argues that Bredberg fails to disclose or suggest a lens system having multiple lens elements and thus fails to disclose or suggest different materials associated with different lens elements of a lens system. The rejection of claim 1 relies on the disclosures of Cheng and Chipper in regards to the limitations for the lens system having multiple elements and different materials associated with different lens elements. The claims stand rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15, and 17 are 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.
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, 8, 10-13, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”).
As to claim 1, Cheng discloses an imaging device (See Fig. 1) comprising:
a lens system comprising:
a first lens element (120) configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation associated with a scene;
a second lens element (130) configured to receive the electromagnetic radiation from the first lens element and transmit the electromagnetic radiation; and
a third lens element (140) configured to receive the electromagnetic radiation from the second lens element and transmit the electromagnetic radiation,
a detector array (150) comprising a plurality of detectors, wherein each of the plurality of detectors is configured to receive a portion of the electromagnetic radiation from the lens system and generate an infrared image based on the electromagnetic radiation (¶ 0020; Cheng discloses CMOS image sensor, CCDs or FPAs which have “pixels”, each which is a detector defining “a plurality of detectors”.).
Cheng fails to disclose wherein the first lens element and the third lens element comprise As40Se60, and wherein the second lens element comprises Ge22As20Se58 or Ge28Sb12Se60.
Chipper discloses a lens system (See Fig. 2) wherein the first lens element (12) and the third lens element (16) comprise a first material, and wherein the second lens element (14) comprises a second material (See abstract, claim 1).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng with the teachings of Chipper of a lens system wherein the first lens element and the third lens element comprise a first material, and wherein the second lens element comprises a second material, as suggested by Chipper thereby similarly using known configurations such that the change in refractive index for a change in temperature of the first material is less than a change in refractive index for a change in temperature of the second material (See abstract).
Cheng in view of Chipper fails to disclose the first lens element and the third lens element comprise As40Se60, and the second lens element comprises Ge22As20Se58 or Ge28Sb12Se60.
Bredberg discloses an optical lens element comprising a substrate wherein the substrate is selected from a group consisting of As40Se60, Ge22As20Se58 or Ge28Sb12Se60 (See ¶ 0005 and claims 2).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper with the teachings of Bredberg such that an optical lens element comprising a substrate wherein the substrate is selected from a group consisting of As40Se60, Ge22As20Se58 or Ge28Sb12Se60, as suggested by Bredberg thereby similarly using known configurations of material for the substrate of lens elements which exhibit high transmission and low surface reflection.
As to claim 2, Chipper discloses wherein the lens system is configured to distribute an optical power associated with the electromagnetic radiation among at least two of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element such that a change in a focal length of at least one lens element of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element in response to a change in a temperature of the lens system is at least partially cancelled by a change in a focal length of at least one remaining lens element of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element (See abstract; ¶ 0018-0020, 0034-0035, 0095).
As to claim 8, Bredberg discloses wherein the electromagnetic radiation comprises long-wave infrared light (¶ 0002, “transmission in the long wavelength infrared”), and/or wherein the detector array comprises an array of microbolometers.
As to claim 10, Chipper discloses further comprising: a logic device configured to process the infrared image to obtain a processed image (¶ 0003-0004; Electronics to process the electrical signal of the converted IR radiation.); and a display device configured to display the infrared image and/or the processed image (¶ 0003-0004; Imaging systems detect thermal radiance differences and display these differences in a thermal radiation as visual image of the scene.).
As to claim 11, Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg discloses a method of manufacturing the imaging device of claim 1, the method comprising: providing the detector array (Cheng, See Fig. 1, 150; ¶ 0020; Cheng discloses CMOS image sensor, CCDs or FPAs which have “pixels”, each which is a detector defining “a plurality of detectors”.) disposing the detector array within a housing (See Fig. 1, Camera module 100 having a housing which the detector is enclosed.); and disposing the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element within a lens barrel (See Fig. 1; The camera module 100 has a housing wherein the lens elements extend forward within the housing from the sensor and are enclosed.).
As to claim 12, Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg discloses further comprising forming each of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element using one or more wafer-level optics (WLO) manufacturing processes (Cheng, ¶ 0022, “wafer- level mass-production methods”), one or more grinding processes, one or more diamond turning processes, one or more polishing processes, and/or one or more molding processes.
As to claim 13, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 16, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 19, Chipper discloses further comprising, in response to a change in a temperature of the lens system, substantially maintaining a focal length associated with the lens system by adjusting a focal length associated with at least two lens elements of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element such that a change in the focal length of one or more lens elements of the lens system is substantially cancelled by a change in the focal length of one or more remaining lens elements of the lens system (See abstract; ¶ 0018-0020, 0033-0035, 0095).
As to claim 20, Chipper discloses wherein, for each lens element of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element, the respective focal length is adjusted in response to a corresponding change in an index of refraction of the lens element and/or a corresponding change in a size of the lens element (See abstract, ¶ 0018-0020, 0033-0035, 0095, 0100).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2009/0027766 A1 to Izumi et al (“Izumi”).
As to claim 3, Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg fails to disclose wherein the lens system is associated with a field of view less than 25°.
Izumi discloses wherein the lens system is associated with a field of view less than 25° (¶ 0223).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg with the teachings of Izumi wherein the lens system is associated with a field of view less than 25°, as suggested by Izumi thereby similarly using known configurations which make it possible to obtain the imaging performance enough for the entire wavelength region of the received infrared rays for the imaging in the entire region (Izumi, ¶ 0223).
As to claim 15, the same rejections or discussion are used in the rejections of claims 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2012/0229892 A1 to Kang et al (“Kang”).
As to claim 4, Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg fails to disclose wherein the lens system is associated with a focal length greater than 20 mm.
Kang discloses wherein the lens system is associated with a focal length greater than 20 mm (¶ 0019).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg with the teachings of Kang wherein the lens system is associated with a focal length greater than 20 mm, as suggested by Kang thereby similarly using known configurations providing a lens system with specified focal lengths in the lens system of Cheng modified.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2012/0212806 A1 to Shibata.
As to claim 6, Cheng discloses further comprising a lens barrel configured to receive the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element (See Fig. 1; The camera module 100 has a housing wherein the lens elements extend forward within the housing from the sensor and are enclosed.).
Cheng in view of Chipper and Bradberg fails to disclose further comprising a shutter configured to be selectively inserted between the scene and the first lens element.
Shibata discloses digital imaging system comprising a shutter configured to be selectively inserted between the scene and the lens system (See Fig. 1; Shutter 2 is inserted between the lens group 1. See also ¶ 0032-0037).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper and Bradberg with the teachings of Shibata for comprising a shutter configured to be selectively inserted between the scene and the lens system, as suggested by Shibata thereby similarly using known configurations providing a shutter for limiting exposure by the detector.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2012/0212806 A1 to Shibata, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2019/0137737 A1 to Chen et al (“Chen”).
As to claim 7, Cheng in view of Chipper, Bredberg and Shibata discloses further comprising a housing, wherein the lens barrel is coupled to the housing (Cheng, See Fig. 1; The lens surface of 123 is coupled to the surface of the housing of the camera module 100.), wherein the first lens element (Fig. 1, 120) has a first surface facing the scene and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second lens element (130) has a first surface facing the second surface of the first lens element and a second surface opposite the first surface of the second lens element, wherein the third lens element (140) has a first surface facing the second surface of the second lens element and a second surface opposite the first surface of the third lens element.
Cheng in view of Chipper, Bredberg and Shibata fails to disclose wherein the first surface of each of the first, second, and third lens elements and the second surface of each of the first, second, and third lens elements are associated with a conic constant of 0.
Chen discloses a lens system comprising multiple lenses and surfaces that are associated with a conic constant of 0 (¶ 0277).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper, Bredberg and Shibata with the teachings of Chen of a lens system comprising multiple lenses and surfaces that are associated with a conic constant of 0, as suggested by Chen thereby similarly using known configurations for conic constants in lens system in the system of Cheng modified.
Claim(s) 14, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. 2017/0097499 A1 to Cheng et al (“Cheng”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2004/0036982 A1 to Chipper, and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2023/0193452 A1 to Bredberg et al (“Bredberg”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2018/0372992 A1 to Doujou.
As to claim 14, Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg discloses wherein the lens system is configured to distribute an optical power associated with the electromagnetic radiation among at least two of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element such that a change in a focal length of at least one lens element of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element in response to a change in a temperature of the lens system is at least partially cancelled by a change in a focal length of at least one remaining lens element of the first lens element, the second lens element, and the third lens element (Chipper, See abstract; ¶ 0018-0020, 0034-0035, 0095), wherein the first lens element has a convex surface facing the scene and a concave surface opposite the convex surface of the first lens element (Cheng, Fig. 1, 120), and wherein the third lens element has a convex surface facing the concave surface of the second lens element and a concave surface opposite the convex surface of the third lens element (Cheng, Fig. 1, 140).
Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg fails to disclose wherein the second lens element has a convex surface facing the concave surface of the first lens element and a concave surface opposite the convex surface of the second lens element.
Doujou discloses wherein the second lens element has a convex surface facing the concave surface of the first lens element and a concave surface opposite the convex surface of the second lens element (See Fig. 11, L62).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Cheng in view of Chipper and Bredberg with the teachings of Doujou wherein the second lens element has a convex surface facing the concave surface of the first lens element and a concave surface opposite the convex surface of the second lens element, as suggested by Doujou thereby similarly using known configurations for such concave and convex surfaces for lens systems in the system of Cheng modified.
As to claim 18, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 14.
As to claim 21, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights