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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that line 8 on page 13 of the arguments refers to the “eighteenth group” of embodiments of Wang, while the rejection being traversed referenced the eighth group of embodiments. The rest of the arguments discuss features of the eighth group so this appears to be a simple typographical error which is only notable due to the rather large number of groupings of Wang having an 18th embodiment to match with the typo.
Applicant argues that the rejection of the subject matter of claims 2 and 19 (now incorporated into claims 1 and 18, respectively) regarding the distance d1 between the light blocking sheet set and the fixed aperture, parallel to the optical axis, being within a claimed range or 0 mm < d1 < 1.5 mm over Wang in view of Nakada was not proper. Applicant argues that the mechanical arrangement of Wang and Nakada are significantly different from the claimed features, and further that the driving mechanisms used by Wang and Nakada are mutually distinct which would cause a combination of Wang and Nakada to fail to function (see page 13 lines 3-20). Further Applicant argues that the combination of Wang and Nakada does not disclose the claimed range or the advantages gained by having the distance between the light blocking sheet set and the fixed aperture be in the claimed range.
Firstly, with regard to the argument in page 13 lines 3-4 that the mechanical arrangement of Wang and Nakada are significantly different from the amended claims: the arguments do not particularly point out which features are missing from Wang and Nakada (other than the range of d1). This point of argument is not persuasive because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Secondly, with regard to the argument regarding the combinability of Wang and Nakada: It is true that Wang and Nakada have distinct mechanisms for imparting movement, with Wang using a voice coil motor made of coils 8-464 to drive a linear slider 8-462 and Nakada using a more conventional motor 28. Wang and Nakada however both convert the movement output by their respective drive systems into similar rotational movement of annular members (8-440 and 22 respectively) which move sets of light blocking sheets (8-430 and 24, respectively) through interaction between openings (8-444 and 22c) on the annular members imparting movement to one of pin member on each sheet (8-432b and 23b, respectively) while a second pin member of each sheet (8-432d and 23c, respectively) interacts with openings (8-414 and 25c, respectively) on a stationary member (8-410 and 25, respectively) with the relative motion of the pins causing rotation of the sheet members. The drive motion in each of Wang and Nakada is converted in a similar manner by applying force to the movable annular member at the periphery of the annular member (via 8-446 and 22d, respectively). In short while the source of drive force is different in Wang and Nakada, the arrangement of light blocking sheets, the manner in which the light blocking sheets are driven, the movement of those sheets, and the mechanism through which the light blocking sheets affect light passing through the aperture to vary the diameter of the aperture are substantially similar. Due to those similarities said person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably expected that teachings of Nakada regarding the effects of the light blocking sheets or features which can enhance the performance of the sheets (the portion of Nakada relied upon in the rejection) would also be applicable to Wang, and would reasonably expect that the combination would continue to function as described in Wang with the additional benefit of preventing blade warpage during actuation as taught by Nakada.
Finally, with regard to the argument that the references do not disclose that the configuration results in an advantageous light blocking effect, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The rejections, updated to the changes in dependency in the amended claims, are being maintained by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12-21, 24, 27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US PGPub 2019/0230262 A1) in view of Zhang (US PGPub 2023/0367101 A1), Hu et al (US PGPub 2021/0109368 A1, hereafter “Hu”), and Nakada et al (US Patent 11,953,820 B2).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 18, and 20: Wang discloses in the 8th embodiment (shown in Figures 99-120) a imaging lens assembly module 8-1 which comprises an imaging lens assembly having an optical axis (8-340, optical axis 8-O); and a variable aperture module 8-400 disposed on an object side of the imaging lens assembly (shown assembled in Figure 99, see Figure 100 showing exploded view with 8-400 on the object side of the lens assembly 8-340), the optical axis passing through a center of the variable aperture module (see ¶0612). The variable aperture module of Wang is disclosed as having a light blocking sheet set comprising at least two light blocking sheets (element 8-432, eight of which are shown by Wang), arranged to be mutually stacked along a circumferential direction surrounding the optical axis to form a variable aperture opening 8-434 (stacking is best visible in Figure 108); a fixed element (combination of 8-420 and 8-450) which is indirectly connected to the light blocking sheet set (the fixed element is connected to the light blocking sheet set indirectly by forming an accommodation space in which the sheet set is held, and indirectly by the connection of the blades to 8-410 using connecting elements 8-432D, 8-410 being connected to 8-420 and 8-450). The fixed element has a sidewall structure (best seen in Figure 101, the sidewall is primarily defined by the inner portion of 8-420) and an annular portion which surrounds the optical axis (the inner circumference of the hole formed in element 8-450, visible but unlabeled in Figure 108); and a movable element 8-440 which is connected to the light blocking sheet set (via connecting pins 8-432B). The sidewall structure of the fixed element is configured to extend from an image side to the object side of the imaging lens assembly (the sidewalls of element 8-420 extend vertically in Figure 101, which is taken along line 8-A in Figure 99, see ¶0602), and wherein the movable element drives the light blocking sheet set to move relative to the fixed element so that an aperture size of the variable aperture opening is variable (see ¶0622, ¶0624, ¶0626 discussing the reaction of the aperture assembly to movement of the movable portion. As drawn, the maximum outer diameter of the sidewall portion of Wang is larger than the diameter of the annular opening portion of the fixed element, see Figure 101 showing the inner opening of element 8-450 being substantially smaller than the opening 8-422 defined by the sidewall of 8-420.
While the annular portion of the fixed element of Wang does extend toward the optical axis along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (again, as shown in Figure 101), Wang does not disclose that it extends sufficiently such that the annular portion is a “light blocking portion” which forms a fixed aperture opening (as the term would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, this limitation requires that the annular light blocking portion be positioned/sized such that it blocks light which would otherwise pass through the imaging lens assembly and form an image). Additionally Wang does not mention the focal length of the lens assembly 8-340 or the ratio between the size of the annular portion, meaning that Wang does not disclose the claimed range of EFL/Df, and Wang does not disclose configuring a shortest distance between the light blocking sheet and the fixed aperture opening along a direction parallel to the optical axis d1 is within the claimed range.
Zhang discusses the optical effects of various f-numbers in ¶0130-0132, notably also indicating that the particular f-number needed for a camera device depends upon the application in which the camera is intended to be used, giving examples of a camera which is imaging in dark areas having a lower f-number to allow additional light to be collected and a camera which is attempting to capture sharp images of multiple objects at different distances should have a higher f-number (see ¶0131).
Hu teaches that arranging an aperture module such that the fixed opening of the base member which is arranged on the image side of an aperture blade assembly has a diameter 1-D2 which is less than other diameters of fixed elements of the aperture assembly (1-D1, 1-D3, 1-D4, 1-D5, see column 6 lines 4-31) and less than the maximum diameter of the variable diameter of the blade section of the aperture (1-DA’’, shown in Figure 10C and described in column 10 lines 20-26), making 1-D2 the portion which defines the maximum diameter for light passing through (thus serving as a light blocking fixed aperture when the blades are fully open) aids in miniaturization and optimizes optical quality (see column 10 lines 57-67).
Nakada indicates that the distance between a set of blades which define a variable aperture and a fixed aperture element defining the maximum aperture of the unit should be minimized because variation in the position can cause reduced optical performance (see column 12 lines 14-37). Nakada includes a structure which has a variation in distance between the blades and the element behind the blades in order to selectively support the blades when they attempt to warp, see column 13 lines 1-15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have configured the fixed opening of Wang to have a smaller opening diameter than other fixed openings in the optical path as taught by Hu in order to aid in miniaturization and improve optical quality of the module, and further would have found the claimed range of EFL to fixed aperture size obvious as the prior art indicates that the ratio of focal length to entrance aperture can be changed to alter the optical characteristics of the lens and camera module for different imaging characteristics (lower ratios allowing increased light collection, higher ratios resulting in increased depth of field). Further said person would have found the claimed range of distance d1 between the blades and the fixed aperture opening obvious as Nakada indicates that a close arrangement would support the blades and reduce the likelihood of the blades warping (which would reduce the optical performance of the assembly due to variation in the position of the aperture opening).
With regard to claims 5 and 24: Wang discloses the inclusion of a frame element 8-410 which is coupled to the fixed element to become part of the fixed element assembly.
With regard to claims 9 and 27: Wang discloses that the variable aperture module is coupled with the imaging lens assembly (see ¶0633 indicating that the aperture assembly can be coupled to 8-340 to aid in miniaturization).
With regard to claims 12-13 and 29-30: Wang does not specifically indicate the spacing between the light blocking sheet set and a minimum aperture of the imaging lens assembly. Wang however does repeatedly emphasize the importance of miniaturizing the assembly (see ¶0612, 0633, and 0637), and correspondingly a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the claimed range of distances obvious as a matter of reducing the distance between optical elements to the maximum extent practicable to reduce the overall dimension of the completed assembly while still retaining some bare minimum clearance of between the elements (preventing, for example, the blades of the aperture from impacting and potentially scratching the first lens element of the optical assembly).
With regard to claims 14 and 31: Wang does not disclose any relationship between the minimum aperture of the imaging lens assembly and the maximum diameter of the aperture assembly (which in the combination is the diameter of the fixed aperture opening).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention however would have found the claimed range obvious because the maximum aperture of the aperture assembly should be chosen to be less than the minimum aperture of the lens system (because if the maximum fixed aperture value were larger the aperture assembly would not be effectively useless at maximum aperture, not affecting any light which would be able to affect the image being produced) and should not be very much smaller than the minimum aperture of the lens system (because having a much smaller diameter maximum aperture would effectively “waste” the light gathering capabilities of a high aperture lens, and if an application indicated towards a smaller aperture significant cost savings could be obtained by also using a lens with a smaller aperture in combination with the smaller fixed aperture).
With regard to claims 15 and 32: Wang does not disclose the material from which the light blocking sheet set is made, and thus does not disclose that the elements are formed of a plastic material, but Wang does indicate that elements of the aperture assembly may be formed of plastic in order to prevent the possibility of short circuits and interference between the elements and surrounding electronics (see ¶0605).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have applied the teaching of Wang ¶0605 to the sheet set and to have formed the light blocking sheet set out of a plastic material to prevent the sheet set from potentially interfering with other electronic element around the camera module.
With regard to claims 16-17: Wang discloses that the imaging lens assembly can be used as part of a camera module used within an electronic device (see ¶0816).
With regard to claim 21: The sidewall and the fixed opening of Wang are disclosed as being formed as separate members, but a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have formed the two elements as part of an integrally formed component as a matter of engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V B.), with the combination of the two elements resulting in fewer parts requiring assembly to each other.
Claims 7-8, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Zhang, Hu, and Nakada in further view of Hu et al (US Patent 12,001,074 B2, hereafter “Hu et al” to more readily distinguish the document with Hu).
With regard to claims 7-8, 22-23, and 25-26 : The movable element of Wang is disclosed as having a rotational degree of freedom around the circumferential direction (as noted in ¶0624), and an electromagnetic driving assembly comprising a coil 8-464 and magnet 8-462 which drives movement of the movable element to adjust the aperture size, but Wang does not disclose the inclusion of a rolling support element disposed between the movable element and the frame element 8-410 (which forms part of the fixed element) nor does Wang disclose that the driving mechanism is arranged with the magnet disposed along a circumferential direction with the magnet corresponding to the coil (the coil and magnet are arranged on a side of the assembly, not circumferentially).
Hu et al teaches that configuring the drive system for a miniaturized camera module intended for embedding into an electronic device to have a circumferentially arranged magnet 610 with corresponding coil 620 to improve the driving force of the assembly (see column 13 lines 32-42), and to use bearing elements 510-530 positioned between the moving rotor element and the fixed assembly to reduce friction (see column 11 lines 41-56). Hu et al indicates that this configuration is able to accomplish enhanced miniaturization of the assembly (see column 9 lines 8-14).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have configured the assembly of Wang to incorporate friction-reducing rolling support elements as taught by Hu et al, and further would have found it obvious to have used the circumferentially arranged drive system of Hu et al in order to increase the driving force of the aperture (allowing faster and/or more precise movements).
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 Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights