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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an optical device configured (Claim 1-4, 6-9)
sensing device configured (Claim 1-4. 6-8, 10-11, 16)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 104637500.
Claim 1
CN 104637500 discloses an optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) configured to inspect a position of the lens (Fig. 1, Ref. 6)(See Page 7 of translation), a sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) configured to inspect an inclination of the lens relative to a reference plane (See Page 6 of translation), and an optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) arranged to direct a light beam reflected from the lens (Fig. 1, Ref. 6) to both the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) and the sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11), for conducting concurrent inspection of the position and inclination of the lens (Fig. 1, Ref. 6) by the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) and the sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) respectively (See Page 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
CN 104637500 discloses the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) is configured to receive a first incident light beam from the optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) and the sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) is configured to receive a second incident light beam from the optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15), the first and second incident light beams being perpendicular to each other (See Fig. 1).
Claim 3
CN 104637500 discloses the optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) includes a beam splitter (Fig. 1, Ref. 14) configured to split the light beam reflected from the lens into the first incident light beam to be received by the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) and the second incident light beam to be received by the sensing device respectively (Fig. 1, Ref. 11).
Claim 4
CN 104637500 optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) further includes a light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a) for holding the beam splitter (Fig. 1, Ref. 14), the sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) being mounted to face a first side (top side) of the light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a) and the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) being mounted to face a second side (right side) of the light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a), the first side and second side being perpendicular to each other (See Fig. 1).
Claim 5
CN 104637500 discloses the light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a) includes a container designed to hold the beam splitter (Fig. 1, Ref. 14) and a diffuser to diffuse light from a light source (See Page 6; LED and a diffusion plate).
Claim 6
CN 104637500 discloses the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) is configured to receive a first incident light beam from the optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15) and the sensing device (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) is configured to receive a second incident light beam from the optical arrangement (Fig. 1, Ref. 15), the first and second incident light beams being parallel to each other (See Fig. 1, light beams parallel to each other).
Claim 12
CN 104637500 discloses the inspection system includes a down-look inspection system mounted (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) above the image sensor (Fig. 7, Ref. 5; mounted on the head) for inspecting the image sensor (Fig. 7, Ref. 5) before bonding the lens (Fig. 7, Ref. 6) to the image sensor or for inspecting the bonded image sensor (Fig. 1, Ref. 5).
Claim 13
CN 104637500 discloses the sensing (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) device of the down-look inspection system includes a tilt measurement sensor (Fig. 1, Ref. 2) for inspecting a tilting angle of the lens (See Page 6).
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(s) 7-11, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104637500.
Claim 7
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for a beam splitting arrangement and a beam directing arrangement which are arranged in a stack along a direction perpendicular to the first and second incident light beams, the beam splitting arrangement being configured to generate and direct the first incident light beam into the optical device and the beam directing arrangement being configured to generate and direct the second incident light beam into the sensing device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with the stacking of optical elements since it was well known in the art that using a beam splitting arrangement and a beam directing arrangement stacked perpendicularly to the incident beams allows for efficient, independent, and compact routing of two light paths one to an optical device, one to a sensing device while minimizing cross-talk and simplifying system design. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 8
CN 104637500 discloses the beam splitting arrangement includes a first beam splitter (Fig. 1, Ref. 14) configured to split the light beam from the lens (Fig. 1, Ref. 6) to generate and direct the first incident light beam into the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11).
Claim 9
CN 104637500 discloses a beam splitting (Fig. 1, Ref. 14) arrangement further includes a first light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a) for holding the first beam splitter (Fig. 1, Ref. 14), the optical device (Fig. 1, Ref. 11) being mounted to face a first side (top side) of the first light box (Fig. 1, Ref. 15a), a surface of the first side being perpendicular to the first incident light beam (See Fig. 1).
Claim 10
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for a second beam splitter configured to receive a light beam from the beam splitting arrangement, generate and direct the second incident light beam into the sensing device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with a second beamsplitter since it was well known in the art that using a second beam splitter after the first is a common optical design choice to match path lengths, and route the beam optimally into the sensing device. Therefore, improves measurement accuracy, stability, and flexibility in interferometric and other optical sensing systems. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 11
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for a second light box for holding the second beam splitter, the sensing device being mounted to face a second side of the second light box, a surface of the second side being perpendicular to the second incident light beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with the second light box since it was well known in the art that the second light box provides optical isolation, alignment control, and geometric precision for the second beam splitter and its sensing device. By mounting the sensor to face a perpendicular surface of the box, you ensure optimal beam capture and minimize interference, which is essential for accurate and stable optical measurements. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 14
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for the down-look inspection system is mounted on a positioning table on which a dispenser for dispensing adhesive fluid on the image sensor is also installed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with positioning table since it was well known in the art that the positioning table with an adhesive dispenser on a down-looking inspection system creates a co-located, repeatable, and adaptive workflow, therefore improving the bonding. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 15
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for the inspection system includes an up-look inspection system mounted below the lens when the lens is held by a bond head of the bonding system, for inspecting the lens before bonding the lens to the image sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with inspection system mounted below the lens since it was well known in the art that Using an up-look inspection system below the lens before bonding ensures optical quality, correct alignment, and defect detection without damaging the lens. It is a key quality control step in precision optical assembly, helping to maintain high yield and performance in imaging and sensor manufacturing. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Claim 16
CN 104637500 discloses the claimed invention except for the sensing device of the up-look inspection system includes a tilt measurement sensor for inspecting a tilting angle of the lens being held by the bond head. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify CN 104637500 with a tilt measurement sensor since it was well known in the art that mounting the down-looking inspection system on a positioning table with an adhesive dispenser creates a vision-guided, closed-loop dispensing cell. It ensures that adhesive is applied with micron-level accuracy, corrects for part positioning errors, and verifies quality inline, which is essential for high-reliability manufacturing. The examiner takes Official Notice that the elements listed above are well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious concurrently inspecting a position and an inclination of the image sensor with a first inspection system, concurrently inspecting a position and an inclination of the lens with a second inspection system, wherein each inspection system includes an optical device for inspecting the position of the lens and/or the image sensor and adjusting a position and tilting angle of the lens with a bond head that is holding the lens based on the position and inclination of the image sensor and the lens to align the lens with respect to the image sensor before bonding the lens to the image sensor, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 17. Claim 18 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a mothed of bonding a lens to a camera with the steps of controlling a dispensing operation of a dispenser based on the position and a tilting angle of the image sensor so as to form an adhesive layer with a uniform thickness on a bonding surface of the image sensor prior to bonding the lens to the image sensor, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claim 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights