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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 18/600,361 filed 03/08/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anduran et al. (US 2023/0124449), herein Anduran.
Consider claim 1, Anduran clearly teaches a variable lens (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first substrate that is light transmissive; (Fig. 1: First window 114 transmits light, [0033], [0036].)
a first liquid; (Fig. 1: First liquid 106, [0029])
a movable film that is in contact with the first liquid and is light transmissive and elastically deformable; (Figs. 1, 2: Adjusting interface 110 is in contact with first liquid 106, transmits light, and changes shape, [0030], [0036], [0042].)
a second liquid in contact with the movable film; (Fig. 1: Second liquid 108 is in contact with adjusting interface 110, [0029], [0030], [0036].) and
a second substrate that is light transmissive, (Fig. 1: Second window 116 transmits light, [0033], [0036].)
the substrates, the film, and the liquids sequentially arranged in a direction in which a beam passes along an optical axis, (Fig. 1: Light enters through first window 114 then passes through first liquid 106, adjusting interface 110, second liquid 108 and exits through second window 116, [0036].)
wherein the first and second liquids differ from each other in terms of refractive index, (The first liquid 106 and second liquid 108 have different refractive indices, [0029].)
pressures of the first and second liquids are adjusted to cause the movable film to curve in a direction along the optical axis, (Figs. 1, 2: A voltage is applied between driving electrode 126 and common electrode 124 which causes the liquids to change the pressures applied to adjusting interface 110 resulting in the shape of adjusting interface 110 changing between convex, flat and concave, [0042].) and
at least one of the first and second substrates has power as a lens. (Fig. 1: First outer layer 118 and second outer layer 122 may be curved to create an integrated fixed lens, [0036].)
Consider claim 2, Anduran clearly teaches at least one of the first and second substrates is made of a resin material. (Outer layers 118, 122 are polymetric material, [0036].)
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.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0033604) in view of Anduran et al. (US 2023/0124449).
Consider claim 8, Chen clearly teaches an optical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a variable lens; (Fig. 1: Focus tunable component 180, [0081]) and
a first optical system, (Fig. 1: Lens assembly 10, [0074]) the two optical systems sequentially arranged from an enlargement side toward a reduction side in a direction in which a beam passes, wherein the variable lens disposed at a position closest to the enlargement side. (Fig. 1: The tunable component 180 is positioned to the magnification side and lens assembly 10 is positioned to the reduction side, [0074].)
However, Chen does not explicitly teach the variable lens according to claim 1.
In an analogous art, Anduran, which discloses a lens system, clearly teaches the variable lens according to claim 1. (See claim 1)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chen by including the variable lens according to claim 1, as taught by Anduran, for the benefit of improved performance at low temperatures (see [0002] Anduran).
Consider claim 9, Chen combined with Anduran clearly teaches an absolute value of a radius of curvature of the curved movable film decreases as a projection distance of the optical system increases. (Fig. 2: Increasing the convex curvature of interface 110 increases the optical power of the lens which inherently decreases the focal length, [0042] Anduran.)
Consider claim 11, Chen combined with Anduran clearly teaches an imaging apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 8; (see claim 8) and an imaging device disposed in a reduction-side conjugate plane of the optical system. (Liquid lens 100 can be used to focus light onto an image sensor of a camera, [0043], [0045], [0053] Anduran.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0033604) in view of Anduran et al. (US 2023/0124449) in view of Minefuji (US 2018/0173088).
Consider claim 10, Chen combined with Anduran clearly teaches a projector comprising: the optical system according to claim 8. (see claim 8)
However, Chen combined with Anduran does not explicitly teach an image formation section that forms a projection image in a reduction-side conjugate plane of the optical system, wherein the image formation section includes a light source and a light modulator that modulates a beam from the light source.
In an analogous art, Minefuji, which discloses an optical system, clearly teaches an image formation section that forms a projection image in a reduction-side conjugate plane of the optical system, wherein the image formation section includes a light source and a light modulator that modulates a beam from the light source. (Fig. 1: Light from light source 10 is modulated by liquid crystal panels 18R, 18G, 18B then enters the reduction side of projection optical system 40, [0048].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chen combined with Anduran by an image formation section that forms a projection image in a reduction-side conjugate plane of the optical system, wherein the image formation section includes a light source and a light modulator that modulates a beam from the light source, as taught by Minefuji, for the benefit of projecting an image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425