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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed April 13, 2026. Claims 1-17 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 8-16 have been previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments traversing the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections applied to claims 2-5, the examiner appreciates applicant’s explanation. However, the language still appears to be ambiguous. It is unclear if applicant requires one of an NIR blocking filter and UV blocking filter or at least one of each. The examiner notes that applicant’s alternative claim language discussed in the Remarks would clarify the scope of claim 2.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the newly cited reference to Satoh et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4): at least the first prism AP1 including at least one absorption filter (see e.g. paragraph [0037] for an IR cut filter on a first prism and paragraph [0090] for an example of the filter being absorbing), as set forth below.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 17.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 17 are rejected, as set forth below.
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, 2, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2021/0026117 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 2019/0273848 A1).
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
at least the first prism including at least one absorption filter.
However, Satoh discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
at least the first prism AP1 including at least one absorption filter (see e.g. paragraph [0037] for an IR cut filter on a first prism and paragraph [0090] for an example of the filter being absorbing).
Give the teachings of Satoh, 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, and at least the first prism including at least one absorption filter.
Providing the filter would prevent unwanted light wavelengths from propagating through the optical system.
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, Satoh et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
wherein the at least one absorption filter comprises at least one IR cut filter (see e.g. paragraph [0037] for an IR cut filter ). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using 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, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Satoh 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.
Selecting the appropriate filter for the application of the optical system would be within ordinary skill in the art and would have predictable results. For example, using a NIR blocker would prevent unwanted external or ambient light from affecting the device performance.
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
at least the first prism including at least one absorption filter.
However, Satoh discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
at least the first prism AP1 including at least one absorption filter (see e.g. paragraph [0037] for an IR cut filter on a first prism and paragraph [0090] for an example of the filter being absorbing).
Give the teachings of Satoh, 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, and at least the first prism including at least one absorption filter.
Providing the filter would prevent unwanted light wavelengths from propagating through the optical system.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2021/0026117 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 2019/0273848 A1) and further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (WO 2018/180269).
In regard to claim 3, Yao, in view of Satoh et al., 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, in view of Satoh et al., 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. Further, using glass as the filter substrate would allow for easily modifying the system by selecting an appropriate absorption filter glass for the application.
In regard to claim 5, Yao, in view of Satoh et al., 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, in view of Satoh et al., 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. Further, using glass as the filter substrate would allow for easily modifying the system by selecting an appropriate absorption filter glass for the application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US 2021/0026117 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 2019/0273848 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 Satoh et al. and 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 Satoh et al. and 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights