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 .
Summary of the Claims
The present application (18/659,718) was filed on May 9, 2024 and claims priority to 63/468,439 filed on May 23, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
Cotoros (US 2020/0133095 A1)
Nishimura (US 2016/0077314 A1)
Hill (US 2023/0224389 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotoros.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros.
Claims 6-9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros in view of Nishimura.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros in view of Nishimura as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hill.
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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites “the second element may have a Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more” (emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second element actually has a Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more or merely “may” have such a hardness rating. Claims 12 and 13 depend on claim 11 and are also indefinite for the same reason.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cotoros.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cotoros discloses an image capture device (Figure 4A) comprising:
a series of elements aligned along an optical axis (e.g., outer lens 432 and lenses 411-414, 434 and 436), the series of elements having a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (paragraphs [0097]-[0100]), wherein the series of elements comprise:
a forward element made of glass that removably forms an outer cover of the series of elements (i.e., outer lens 432),
wherein the forward element is curved and configured to capture the field of view of about 180 degrees or more (paragraph [0100]), and
wherein when the forward element is replaced by a replacement forward element, optics of the image capture device are substantially unchanged (i.e., Cotoros discloses replacing the outer lens 432 “without distorting image capture during in-air operation with a different replaceable lens structure”; paragraph [0025]; see also paragraphs [0002]-[0004] and Figure 9); and
a sensor assembly 420 located on the optical axis (Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 2, Cotoros discloses that the optics comprise: chromatic aberration, image sharpness, optical distortion, relative illumination, intensity, angle of refraction, or a combination thereof (e.g., Cotoros discloses “without distorting image capture during in-air operation with a different replaceable lens structure”; paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Cotoros discloses that the series of elements include a beginning element 434 that is a first element of the series of elements and is located directly behind the forward element 432 (Figure 4A and paragraph [0097]; Cotoros also discloses another embodiment without lenses 434 and 436, wherein the beginning element would be the next lens shown in Figure 4A, namely, lens 411; see paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Cotoros discloses that a gap is located between a front of the beginning element (i.e., lens 434 as shown in Figure 4A, or alternatively, lens 411 as discussed in paragraph [0107]) and a rear of the forward element 432 (see Figure 4A).
Regarding independent claim 15, Cotoros discloses an image capture device (Figure 4A) comprising:
a series of elements aligned along an optical axis (e.g., outer lens 432 and lenses 411-414, 434 and 436), the series of elements having a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (paragraphs [0097]-[0100]);
a forward element that removably covers the series of elements (i.e., outer lens 432, which is removable; paragraphs [0002]-[0004]), wherein the forward element includes a curvature so that the series of elements capture the field of view of about 180 degrees or more through the forward element, and wherein the curvature of the forward element directs light into the series of elements so that the light extends along the optical axis in a parallel direction (paragraphs [0097]-[0100]); and
a sensor assembly 420 located on the optical axis (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 19, Cotoros discloses that the light extends through the forward element 432 and some of the series of elements to a focal point and then along the optical axis (Figure 4A; paragraph [0097]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 20, Cotoros discloses that some or all of the light crosses the optical axis as the light extends through the focal point (Figure 4A; paragraphs [0097]-[0100]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros.
Regarding claim 3, Cotoros discloses an image capture device as discussed above with regard to claim 1, including replacing outer lens 432 (paragraphs [0002]-[0004]) and discloses doing so “without distorting image capture during in-air operation with a different replaceable lens structure” (paragraph [0025]). Although Cotoros is silent with respect to the claimed value of “a just noticeable difference of 5 or less or 1 or less,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide “a just noticeable difference of 5 or less or 1 or less” in the lens replacement in Cotoros in order to advantageously maintain the same image capture after replacement (a goal already disclosed by Cotoros).
Claims 6-9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros in view of Nishimura.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Cotoros discloses an image capture device as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 4, and 5, including a gap between a front of the beginning element (i.e., lens 434 as shown in Figure 4A, or alternatively, lens 411 as discussed in paragraph [0107]) and a rear of the forward element 432 (see Figure 4A). Cotoros does not specifically disclose that the gap is substantially small so that light passing from the forward element into the beginning element is substantially free of refraction, angle change, or both, and/or has a distance of about 3 mm or less.
However, Nishimura teaches an image capture device that is related to the one disclosed by Cotoros, including a series of elements including a forward element L1 and a beginning element L2, wherein the series of elements has a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (e.g., Example 1 in Figure 1; Nishimura discloses a half view angle of 94.0000 degrees in Table 3; see also paragraph [0041]). Nishimura discloses that the gap between a front of the beginning element L2 and a rear of the forward element L1 is substantially small so that light passing from the forward element into the beginning element is substantially free of refraction, angle change, or both and has a distance of about 3 mm or less (i.e., Nishimura discloses in Table 1 that in Example 1, the gap is 2.11480 mm; see paragraph [0060] and also Examples 2 and 3 described numerically in Tables 4 and 7). Regarding claims 6 and 7, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Nishimura’s lens system in the image capture device disclosed by Cotoros in order to advantageously implement “a wide-angle lens system that is small-sized, and at the same time, has a large aperture and provides high performance” (Nishimura, paragraph [0006]; see also paragraphs [0053] and [0060]).
Regarding independent claim 8, Cotoros discloses an image capture device (Figure 4A) comprising:
a series of elements aligned along an optical axis (e.g., outer lens 432 and lenses 411-414, 434 and 436), the series of elements having a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (paragraphs [0097]-[0100]) and including a first element having a forward side with a first radius of curvature (e.g., lens 434; see Figure 4A and paragraph [0097]; Cotoros also discloses another embodiment without lenses 434 and 436, wherein the first element would be the next lens shown in Figure 4A, namely, lens 411; see paragraph [0107]; either of lens 434 or lens 411 have a forward side with some corresponding first radius of curvature).;
a second element that removably covers the series of elements (i.e., outer lens 432, which is removable; paragraphs [0002]-[0004]), wherein the second element is curved so that the series of elements can capture the field of view of about 180 degrees or more through the second element (paragraph [0100]), the second element comprising: a front side with a front radius of curvature; and a rear side with a rear radius of curvature (i.e., outer lens 432 has front and rear sides each with some corresponding radius of curvature; Figure 4A); and
a sensor assembly 420 located on the optical axis (Figure 4A).
Again, as shown in Figure 4A, outer lens 432 has front and rear sides each with some corresponding “front” and “rear” radius of curvature, and the first element 434 or 411 also has a side with some “first” radius of curvature. Cotoros does not specifically disclose that the first radius of curvature, the front radius of curvature, and the rear radius of curvature are all concentric.
However, Nishimura teaches an image capture device that is related to the one disclosed by Cotoros, including a series of elements including a second element L1 and a first element L2, wherein the series of elements has a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (e.g., Example 1 in Figure 1; Nishimura discloses a half view angle of 94.0000 degrees in Table 3; see also paragraph [0041]). Nishimura further teaches that first element L2 has a first radius of curvature (i.e., surface 3 as described in Table 1) and second element L1 has a front radius of curvature (i.e., surface 1 as described in Table 1) and a rear radius of curvature (i.e., surface 2 as described in Table 1), wherein the first radius of curvature, the front radius of curvature, and the rear radius of curvature are all concentric (Figure 1; Table 1). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Nishimura’s lens system in the image capture device disclosed by Cotoros in order to advantageously implement “a wide-angle lens system that is small-sized, and at the same time, has a large aperture and provides high performance” (Nishimura, paragraph [0006]; see also paragraphs [0053] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, in the image capture device taught by Cotoros in view of Nishimura, Cotoros discloses that the second element is made of glass (i.e., Cotoros discloses glass lenses; Cotoros, paragraph [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 14, in the image capture device taught by Cotoros in view of Nishimura, Nishimura teaches that the first element (i.e., lens L2) includes a rearward side with a second radius of curvature (i.e., surface 4 in Table 1) that is concentric with the first radius of curvature, the front radius of curvature, and the rear radius of curvature (Nishimura, Figure 1; Table 1).
Regarding claims 16-18, Cotoros discloses an image capture device as discussed above with regard to independent claim 15, including a forward element (i.e., outer lens 432) and further discloses a beginning element (i.e., forward element 432; Figure 4A and paragraph [0097]; Cotoros also discloses another embodiment without lenses 434 and 436, wherein the beginning element would be the next lens shown in Figure 4A, namely, lens 411; see paragraph [0107]). Cotoros does not specifically disclose a beginning element that has a curvature that substantially mirrors a curvature of the forward element.
However, Nishimura teaches an image capture device that is related to the one disclosed by Cotoros, including a series of elements including a forward element L1 and a beginning element L2, wherein the series of elements has a field of view of about 180 degrees or more (e.g., Example 1 in Figure 1; Nishimura discloses a half view angle of 94.0000 degrees in Table 3; see also paragraph [0041]). Regarding claim 16 in particular, Nishimura teaches beginning element L2 has a curvature that substantially mirrors a curvature of the forward element L1 (Figure 1; see also Examples 2 and 3 in Figures 3 and 5). Regarding claim 17 in particular, Nishimura teaches that a gap between the beginning element and the forward element is substantially small so that light does not refract, change angle, or both as the light passes through the gap (Nishimura discloses in Table 1 that in Example 1, the gap is 2.11480 mm; see paragraph [0060] and Examples 2 and 3 described numerically in Tables 4 and 7). Regarding claim 18 in particular, Nishimura discloses that the light is directed towards the optical axis, parallel to the optical axis, or both in an unrefracted manner as the light extends through the forward element and the beginning element (Figure 1; paragraphs [0024]-[0028]; see also Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claims 16-18, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Nishimura’s lens system in the image capture device disclosed by Cotoros in order to advantageously implement “a wide-angle lens system that is small-sized, and at the same time, has a large aperture and provides high performance” (Nishimura, paragraph [0006]; see also paragraphs [0053] and [0060]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros in view of Nishimura as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hill.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Cotoros in view of Nishimura teaches an image capture device as discussed above with regard to claim 8, including a second element 432 made of glass as disclosed by Cotoros, but does not specifically teach that the second element is made of an alkaline earth boro-aluminosilicate glass or that the second element may have a Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more. However, Hill teaches a system that is related to the one taught by Cotoros in view of Nishimura, including image capture elements (front camera 206 and sensor array 260; paragraphs [0190]-[0191]). Hill further teaches an element made of glass that covers image capture elements (e.g., cover 102; Figure 1A) and regarding claim 10 in particular, this element is made of an alkaline earth boro-aluminosilicate glass (Hill, paragraph [0142]). Regarding claim 11 in particular, as well as the claim may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, Hill discloses that the element “may” have a Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more at least in the sense that Hill discloses materials such as alkaline earth boro-aluminosilicate glass and others that may have Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more (Hill, paragraph [0142]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use alkaline earth boro-aluminosilicate glass or other materials that “may” have a Vickers hardness rating of 600 or more as taught by Hill for the second element in the image capture device taught by Cotoros in view of Nishimura in order to provide an advantageously durable outer surface for the device.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, as well as the claims may be understood with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above, Cotoros in view of Nishimura and Hill teaches an image capture device including a second element L1 and a first element L2 as taught by Nishimura. Nishimura further teaches a gap is located between the forward side of the first element L2 and the rear side of the second element L1 and the gap is substantially small so that light passing from the second element into the first element is substantially free of refraction, angle change, or both (Nishimura discloses in Table 1 that in Example 1, the gap is 2.11480 mm; see Figure 1 and paragraph [0060] and Examples 2 and 3 described numerically in Tables 4 and 7). Regarding claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Nishimura’s lens system in the image capture device taught by Cotoros in view of Nishimura and Hill in order to advantageously implement “a wide-angle lens system that is small-sized, and at the same time, has a large aperture and provides high performance” (Nishimura, paragraph [0006]; see also paragraphs [0053] and [0060]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023. If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached at (571) 272-6660.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991