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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C (claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-27, and 29-32) in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the difference between the species would not impose a serious burden on the Examiner as the Species recite common technical features with the exception of the position of the annular light blocking portion. This is not found persuasive because the element which an annular light blocking portion is attached to affects its position relative to other elements of an optical system (such as the blades in an aperture), and the relative positioning of element within an aperture device can significantly alter the functioning of the optical system. This makes it unlikely that a prior art reference which shows one optical axis position for an annular light blocking structure will show or suggest as obvious other positions for that element, and as there is not a statement on the record which clearly admits that the species are obvious variants this makes the difference between the species a significant search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 6, 10-11, and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/05/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claims make reference to the ratio of Focal Length (EFL) to the diameter of the fixed aperture opening (Df). The examiner notes that in the art of photography the ratio of the focal length of a lens assembly to the diameter of the entrance pupil of the imaging lens assembly is known as the “f-number” of an imaging lens assembly, and for optical systems with an aperture is at the object side of an imaging lens assembly such that it restricts the imaging light passing through the imaging lens assembly (as is claimed due to the existence of the annular light blocking portion which reasonably is expected to block light due to its name), the diameter of that aperture defines the entrance pupil of the imaging assembly meaning that the claimed range of values for EFL/Df can be reasonably considered to be a claimed range of values for the f-number of the imaging lens assembly module. This is important to note because prior art patent documents directed towards imaging lens assemblies do not typically discuss focal lengths and aperture sizes in absolute terms (because those values can vary wildly depending on the intended application of the module) but do make reference to f-number.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 12-13, 15-17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29-30, and 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) and Hu et al (US PGPub 2021/0109368 A1, hereafter “Hu”).
With regard to claims 1 and 18: 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.
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).
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).
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 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 2-3, 14, 19-20, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Zhang, and Hu in further view of Nakada et al (US Patent 11,953,820 B2).
With regard to claims 2-3 and 19-20: Wang does not teach 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.
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 the claimed range of distance 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 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).
Claims 7-8, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Zhang, and Hu 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
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