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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/02/2025 has been entered. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered.
Examiner concurs the arrangement of FIG. 3 of previously presented reference Chiang fails to disclose the amended claim language. However, the reference notes in paragraph [0010] the lens set of FIG. 3 may be changed by demand. Therefore, the previous rejections of applicable claims under 102 are now revised to a 103 rejection as it would have been obvious to rearrange the arrangement of the lens set of FIG. 3, as suggested by paragraph [0010] of Chiang, to disclose the claim language. The rejections below have been revised accordingly.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang US 2012/0013787 A1, hereafter Chiang.
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses an optical system for a camera for imaging an object (image capture device) [title], the optical system comprising;
at least one sensor unit (image sensor 1000) [0015];
at least one first lens unit (third lens) [0011];
at least one second lens unit (fifth lens) [0011];
at least one immersion unit (resolution enhancing element 500) [0015] having a refractive index (index of refraction of water is 1.44 and the air is 1) [0015], wherein;
the optical system has a light incidence direction (optical axis) [0012; FIG. 3],
when viewed in the light incidence direction, first the at least one first lens unit, then the at least one second lens unit, then the at least one immersion unit, and then the at least one sensor unit are arranged along an optical axis of the optical system (see arrangement of L3, L5, 300 and 500) [0013; FIG. 3],
the at least one immersion unit is arranged between the at least one second lens unit and the at least one sensor unit (see 500 with respect to L5 and 1000) [0013; FIG. 3];
the at least one immersion unit is arranged at the at least one second lens unit (see L5 with respect to 500) [0013; FIG. 3]
the at least one immersion unit includes a liquid and is arranged directly on at the at least one sensor unit (the resolution enhancing element includes liquid; see arrangement of resolution enhancing element 500 and image sensor 1000) [0004; FIG. 3], and
the at least one second lens unit and the at least one immersion unit together have positive refractive power (L5 has positive diopter and the convex surface towards the image side, see L5 and 500 in a plane) [0011; FIG. 3].
However, while Chiang discloses the lens arrangement described above, this particular embodiment fails to disclose the at least one immersion unit is arranged directly on the at least one second lens unit.
Chiang, in an alternative embodiment, discloses the at least one immersion unit is arranged directly on the at least one second lens unit (the Lens set 200 from the object side along to the optical axis to the image side includes a first lens L1…a fifth lens L5. A planar lens L6 with infite focus is set behind the fifth lens L5. The planar lens L6 may be a IR filter, OLPF or protection glass. The arrangement of the Lens set may be changed by demand) [0010]. Therefore, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the arrangement of the Lens set of Chiang such that resolution enhancing element 500 is arranged directly on L5 instead of L6. Also see MPEP 2141(VI)(C) for obviousness with respect to rearrangement of parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Chiang further discloses wherein the at least one immersion unit touches the at least one sensor unit (see arrangement of 500 and 1000) [0013; FIG. 3].
Regarding claim 4, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Chiang fails to explicitly disclose at least one absorption unit is arranged between the at least one immersion unit and the at least one sensor unit.
Chaing discloses at least one absorption unit is arranged adjacent to the at least one immersion unit and the at least one sensor unit (see L6, 500 and 1000 of FIG. 3) [FIG. 3].
It would have been an obvious design choice to rearrange part L6 inbetween 500 and 1000, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Chiang further discloses the optical system has at least one of the following features: (i) the at least one absorption unit is configured to filter infrared light (L6 may be a IR filter) [0010],
(ii) the at least one absorption unit is configured to generate infrared light;
(iii) the at least one absorption unit and the at least one sensor unit are arranged at a distance from one another; and
(iv) the at least one absorption unit is arranged at an absorption unit distance
wherein the following applies to the absorption unit distance: 0<AA< λA
wherein IA is the absorption unit distance and λ A is a wavelength of
Regarding claim 6, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Chiang further discloses the at least one immersion unit has the following feature: (i) at least one first immersion device in solid form (uniform solid material may be used) [0015].
Regarding claim 7, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Chiang further discloses wherein the at least one immersion unit has at least one optical unit, wherein the at least one optical unit has at least one of the following features:
(i) the at least one optical unit is plane parallel (see arrangement of components in FIG. 3) [FIG. 3];
(ii) a refractive index of the at least one optical unit is larger than a refractive index of a medium adjacent to the at least one immersion unit at the object side,
(iii) the at least one optical unit is configured to filter light (L6 may be a IR filter) [0010] ; and
(iv) the at least one optical unit is configured to filter infrared light (L6 may be a IR filter) [0010].
Regarding claim 8, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Chiang further discloses wherein the optical system has one of the following features: (i) the refractive index of the at least one immersion unit is larger than a refractive index of a medium adjacent to the at least one immersion unit at the object side (resolution enhancing element 500 attached between the Lens set 300 and the image sensor…index of refraction) and (ii) the refractive index is different from or identical to the refractive index of a medium adjacent to the at least one immersion unit at the object side, with the deviation being ± 0.01 or ± 0.02.
Regarding claim 9, Chiang discloses a camera for imaging an object (high resolution image capture device) [title], comprising the optical system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Ning US RE38,799 E, hereafter Ning.
Regarding claim 3, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Chiang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical system has at least one of the following features: (i) the at least one immersion unit and the at least one sensor unit are arranged at a distance from one another; (ii) the at least one immersion unit is at an immersion unit distance from the at least one sensor unit, wherein the following applies to the immersion unit distance: 0<IA<λI wherein IA is the immersion unit distance and λI is a wavelength of
Ning further discloses wherein the optical system has at least one of the following features: (i) the at least one immersion unit and the at least one sensor unit are arranged at a distance from one another (sensor for forming a digital image…positive lens element having an index of refraction of about 1.85 at the object end of the lens assembly); (ii) the at least one immersion unit is at an immersion unit distance from the at least one sensor unit, wherein the following applies to the immersion unit distance: 0<IA<λI wherein IA is the immersion unit distance and λI is a wavelength of
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the immersion unit and the sensor, as disclosed by Ning, with the invention disclosed by Chiang, the motivation being size and weight reduction [column 2, lines 36-38].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Carpentier et al. US 4,636,631, hereafter Carpentier.
Regarding claim 10, Chiang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
However, Chiang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the camera is a thermal imaging camera.
Carpentier, in an analogous environment, discloses wherein the camera is a thermal imaging camera (photoconducting detector…sensitive to infrared radiations) [column 1, lines 6-7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thermal sensor, as disclosed by Carpentier, with the invention disclosed by Chiang, the motivation being detecting infrared radiation [column 1, lines 6-7].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al US 2019/0079261 A1 discloses a lens set for a camera module
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 STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485