Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/512,256

OPTICAL SYSTEM FOR PERISCOPE CAMERA MODULE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
MERLIN, JESSICA M
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Schott AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
714 granted / 1158 resolved
-6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
1213
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1158 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. Election/Restrictions Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 18, 2025. 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. Claims 2-5 are 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. In regard to dependent claim 2, the limitation, “wherein the at least one absorption filter comprises at least one of at least one NIR blocking filter and at least one UV blocking filter” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is not clear if applicant requires one of an NIR blocking filter and UV blocking filter or at least one of each. For examination purposes, it is presumed that it must include at least one of an NIR or UV blocking filter. Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2. 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 1-3, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2021/0026117 A1) in view of Wakabayashi et al. (WO 2018/180269), of which an English translation is attached). In regard to claim 1, Yao discloses an optical system (see e.g. Figure 2) for a camera module (see e.g. paragraph [0051] where is it noted Figure 2 illustrates a camera), the optical system comprising (see e.g. Figure 2): an image sensor 120 (denoted “photosensor”, see e.g. paragraph [0046]) and Figure 2); and an optical arrangement 241+ 210 + 150 (including at least prism 241, lens system 210, IR filter 150, see e.g. paragraphs [0047] and [0051] and Figure 2) defining a beam path (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the beam path falls along the optical axis indicated by the dashed line), the optical arrangement 241+ 210 + 150 including a plurality of optical components 241+ 210 + 150 including a first prism 241 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 2) and an optical lens system 210 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 2), the plurality of optical components 241+ 210 + 150 being arranged in the beam path (i.e. along the optical axis in Figure 2) in a sequential order relative to one another and in front of the image sensor 120 (see e.g. Figure 2), the sequential order being such that the first prism 241 is positioned before the optical lens system 210 (see e.g. Figure 2), at least one of the plurality of optical components including at least one filter 150 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0047]). Yao fails to disclose the filter is an absorption filter. However, Wakabayashi et al. discloses the filter 21 is an absorption filter (see e.g. page 10 last paragraph and page 11 first paragraph, Figures 6a-c). Given the teachings of Wakabayashi et al., 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 device of Yao with the filter is an absorption filter. Using an absorption filter as the IR filter would provide a filter type that is inexpensive and easily fabricated. In regard to claim 2, Yao discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one absorption filter comprises at least one of at least one NIR blocking filter and at least one UV blocking filter. However, Wakabayashi et al. discloses wherein the at least one absorption filter 21 comprises at least one of at least one NIR blocking filter and at least one UV blocking filter (see e.g. page 9, last paragraph-page 10, third paragraph of English translation and Figure 6a for NIR blocking). Given the teachings of Wakabayashi et al., 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 device of Yao with wherein the at least one absorption filter comprises at least one of at least one NIR blocking filter and at least one UV blocking filter. Using a NIR blocker would prevent unwanted external or ambient light from affecting the device performance. In regard to claim 3, Yao discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one NIR blocking filter comprises at least one NIR absorbing filter glass. However, Wakabayashi et al. discloses wherein the at least one NIR blocking filter 21 comprises at least one NIR absorbing filter glass (see e.g. page 9, last paragraph-page 10, third paragraph of English translation and Figure 6a for NIR blocking glass). Given the teachings of Wakabayashi et al., 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 device of Yao with wherein the at least one NIR blocking filter comprises at least one NIR absorbing filter glass. Using a NIR blocker would prevent unwanted external or ambient light from affecting the device performance. In regard to claim 5, Yao discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV blocking filter comprises at least one UV absorbing glass. However, Wakabayashi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6b): wherein the at least one UV blocking filter 22 comprises at least one UV absorbing glass (see e.g. page 11, seventh paragraph-page 12, second paragraph and Figure 6b). Given the teachings of Wakabayashi et al., 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 device of Yao with wherein the at least one UV blocking filter comprises at least one UV absorbing glass. Providing a UV blocking filter would prevent unwanted UV light from interfering with the image. In regard to claim 17, Yao discloses a periscope camera module 200 (denoted “camera”, see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 2), comprising (see e.g. Figure 2): an optical system, which includes (see e.g. Figure 2): an image sensor 120 (denoted “photosensor”, see e.g. paragraph [0046]) and Figure 2); and an optical arrangement 241+ 210 + 150 (including at least prism 241, lens system 210, IR filter 150, see e.g. paragraphs [0047] and [0051] and Figure 2) defining a beam path (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the beam path falls along the optical axis indicated by the dashed line), the optical arrangement 241+ 210 + 150 including a plurality of optical components 241+ 210 + 150 including a first prism 241 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 2) and an optical lens system 210 (see e.g. paragraph [0051] and Figure 2), the plurality of optical components 241+ 210 + 150 being arranged in the beam path (i.e. along the optical axis in Figure 2) in a sequential order relative to one another and in front of the image sensor 120 (see e.g. Figure 2), the sequential order being such that the first prism 241 is positioned before the optical lens system 210 (see e.g. Figure 2), at least one of the plurality of optical components including at least one filter 150 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0047]). Yao fails to disclose the filter is an absorption filter. However, Wakabayashi et al. discloses the filter 21 is an absorption filter (see e.g. page 10 last paragraph and page 11 first paragraph, Figures 6a-c). Given the teachings of Wakabayashi et al., 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 device of Yao with the filter is an absorption filter. Using an absorption filter as the IR filter would provide a filter type that is inexpensive and easily fabricated. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2021/0026117 A1) in view of Wakabayashi et al. (WO 2018/180269) and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US 2013/0094075 A1). In regard to claim 4, Yao, in view of Wakabayashi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one NIR absorbing filter glass includes at least one blue glass, which has a refractive index of at least 1.50. However, Saitoh discloses (see e.g. Figure 1): wherein the at least one NIR absorbing filter glass 21 (see e.g. paragraph [0044]) includes at least one blue glass (see e.g. paragraph [0057] for blue glass), which has a refractive index of at least 1.50 (see e.g. paragraph [0057] refractive index of 1.5). Given the teachings of Saitoh et al., 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 device of Yao, in view of Wakabayashi et al., with wherein the at least one NIR absorbing filter glass includes at least one blue glass, which has a refractive index of at least 1.50. Using the blue glass for the NIR would help prevent light from the infrared spectrum from reaching the imaging device, which results in images close to those perceived by the human eye (see e.g. paragraph [0005] of Saitoh et al.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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. /JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585057
A LIGHT DIFFUSER AND A METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572039
LIGHT MODULATION DEVICE AND PROJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560794
MICROSCOPIC OBSERVATION METHOD AND MICROSCOPIC OBSERVATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560838
DISPLAY DEVICE AND VEHICLE-USE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554131
HEAD-UP DISPLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+23.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1158 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month