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 .
Amendment
The Response, filed on December 17, 2025, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 18, 2025, the title and claims 4 and 5 have been amended, claims 1-3 have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the title, Applicant has amended the title to be more clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the outstanding objection to the title is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim to address the overlap of statutory classes as it applies to the camera module displaying a coded-aperture pattern by removing the related process/method language. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 2-5, Applicant asserts that “[t]he claims are herein amended to clarify the language noted as unclear.” (Remarks, p. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the rejection of claim 1 was addressed by amending the language of claim 1, supra, the outstanding rejection of claims 2-5 were not found to be addressed by amendment nor was any discussion provided as to how the claims were amended to clarify the language. Amended claims 4 and 5 still possess the active method language, i.e., “the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state when no electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer and is brought into a scattered state when an electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer”. The Examiner notes that this particular claim language is not directed to specific and distinct apparatus structure that creates or generates an electric field related to the particular state, but instead is directed to the process/method act of bringing the panel into a particular state. In view of at least the above, the basis of the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim to address the overlap of statutory classes as it applies to the camera module displaying a coded-aperture pattern by removing the related process/method language. This also removes the indefinite status of the claim related to that language. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 2-5, Applicant asserts that “[t]he claims are amended to clarify the language.” (Remarks, p. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the rejection of claim 1 was addressed by amending the language of claim 1, supra, the outstanding rejection of claims 2-5 were not found to be addressed by amendment nor was any discussion provided as to how the claims were amended to clarify the language. Amended claims 4 and 5 still possess the active method language, i.e., “the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state when no electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer and is brought into a scattered state when an electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer”. As the claim language is still directed to both an apparatus and a method of operation, the basis of the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 3, 4 and 5, Applicant asserts “one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand first and second alignment films being “vertically aligned films” or alternatively “horizontally aligned films”, and submit that the language is thereby clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (Remarks, p. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has provided neither factual evidence nor clarifying discussion as to why/how “one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand first and second alignment films being “vertically aligned films” or alternatively “horizontally aligned films.” Absent evidence or clarifying discussion, Applicant’s statement is merely just an unsupported assertion. In view of at least the above and in view of the rejection as presented, the basis of the rejection is maintained.
Applicant also asserts “[t]he claims are, however, amended to make that language more clear by now reciting "are configured as vertically aligned films" and "are configured as horizontally aligned films", which applicant submits further clarifies that claim language.” (Remarks, p. 7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how the insertion of the clause “configured as” clarifies the claim language, or how Applicants statement that “applicant submits further clarifies that claim language” can be found to provide any explanation or support for how this newly included language of “configured as” provides clarity. As Applicant has not found to either amend to include any structural anchor or physical reference from which vertical alignment can be established, nor has Applicant provided any clarity through discussion as to how vertical alignment is established by the newly included claim language, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, and the basis of the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, Applicant states “features of "a liquid crystal panel which displays a coded-aperture pattern", which with claim features can be utilized in a distance measurement function. Applicant submits those features are not met by the applied art.” (Remarks, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “with claim features can be utilized in a distance measurement function”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to the recited limitation of “a liquid crystal panel which displays a coded-aperture pattern”, Kuwata corresponding teaches element 12, which is a liquid crystal panel which displays a coded-aperture pattern, as the liquid crystal panel is capable of selectively blocking light (e.g., [0009]) via opening that can be selectively formed at four positions (e.g., see figure 3; also see [0009-11]), i.e., coded-aperture patterns. In view of these teachings, Kuwata teaches displaying a coded-aperture pattern. Absent further limitations to this currently broadly recited claim limitation, the Office stands behind the teachings of the art.
Applicant also asserts “Applicant submits Xue does not disclose or suggest the claim features. Applicant submits Xue does not disclose or suggest any function corresponding to the distance measurement function of claim features. Applicant submits Xue also does not disclose or suggest displaying a coded aperture pattern on the liquid crystal panel to realize such functions.” (Remarks, pp. 9-10), and “Applicant submits Xue also does not disclose or suggest applying a liquid crystal layer containing dichroic dye molecules to the liquid crystal panel for displaying the coded aperture pattern to accurately calculate a distance to a subject” (Remarks, p. 10). Again, the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the distance measurement function of claim features” and “for displaying the coded aperture pattern to accurately calculate a distance to a subject”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As Xue teaches a similar panel including dichroic dye molecules aligned following liquid crystal molecules (e.g., [0078]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporated the teachings of Xue with the camera module as taught by Kuwata as a means to absorb polarized light (anisotropic absorption); adding dichroic dyes molecules can also improve alignment, enhance contrast, and decrease switching times.
It is also noted that Applicant does not challenge the Xue reference for the teachings for which it was introduced. i.e., the dichroic dye molecules (e.g., [0078]).
Based on at least the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of the art as currently applied.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5, Applicant states the claim recites "a liquid crystal panel which displays a coded-aperture pattern", similarly as in independent claim 4. As discussed above the applied art to Kuwata fails to disclose or suggest that feature. Applicant submits Yoshida also does not disclose or suggest that feature.” (Remarks, p. 11). As discussed above in relation to claim 4, Kuwata teaches a liquid crystal panel which displays a coded-aperture pattern" (see the response to claim 4, supra). In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, i.e., Applicant’s statement that “Yoshida also does not disclose or suggest that feature”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner also notes that the Yoshida reference was not presented for a teaching that was already presented by the Kuwata reference.
Applicant also asserts “Yoshida does not disclose or suggest a function corresponding to a range-finding function as recited in claim 1 nor further as noted above displaying a coded aperture pattern on the liquid crystal panel, to realize such a range-finding function. Applicant submits Yoshida also does not disclose or suggest applying a liquid crystal layer containing twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules to the liquid crystal panel for displaying the coded aperture pattern, and to thereby accurately calculate a distance to a subject with such features” (Remarks, pp. 11-12).
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “a function corresponding to a range-finding function”, “displaying a coded aperture pattern on the liquid crystal panel, to realize such a range-finding function”, “applying a liquid crystal layer containing twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules to the liquid crystal panel for displaying the coded aperture pattern, and to thereby accurately calculate a distance to a subject with such features”, and “applying a liquid crystal layer containing twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules to the liquid crystal panel for displaying the coded aperture pattern”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As Yoshida teaches a similar panel including alignment films whose alignment treatment directions are different from each other (e.g., fig. 17), and wherein the liquid crystal layer includes twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules and polymers (fig. 17), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporated the teachings of Yoshida with the camera module as taught by Kuwata in order to create a structural configuration that results in twist-aligned molecules (twisted nematic effect) in order to benefit from fast alignment response time.
It is also noted that Applicant does not challenge the Yoshida reference for the teachings for which it was introduced. i.e., alignment films whose alignment treatment directions are different from each other (e.g., fig. 17), and wherein the liquid crystal layer includes twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules and polymers (fig. 17).
Based on at least the above, the Office stands behind the teachings of the art as currently applied.
* * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine," but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQe2d 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Also see 2173.05(p), section II.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a "camera module". However, the claim is also directed to an active method, i.e., "the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state... and is brought into a scattered state..." The Examiner notes that this particular claim language is not directed to specific and distinct apparatus structure that creates or generates an electric field related to a particular state, but instead is directed to the process/method act of bringing the panel into a particular state. In view of at least the above, the claim is rejected for failing to set fourth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a "camera module". However, the claim is also directed to an active method, i.e., "the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state... and is brought into a scattered state..." The Examiner notes that this particular claim language is not directed to specific and distinct apparatus structure that creates or generates an electric field related to a particular state, but instead is directed to the process/method act of bringing the panel into a particular state. In view of at least the above, the claim is rejected for failing to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only.
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 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a "camera module". However, the claim also recites an active method, i.e., "the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state... and is brought into a scattered state..." Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation "the first alignment film and the second alignment film are vertically aligned films". However, the claim is not found to provide any structural anchor or physical reference from which vertical alignment can be established. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to an apparatus, i.e., a "camera module". However, the claim also recites an active method, i.e., "the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state... and is brought into a scattered state..." Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the first alignment film and the second alignment film are horizontally aligned films". However, the claim is not found to provide any structural anchor or physical reference from which vertical alignment can be established. Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the claim is 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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006-285110 to Kuwata (machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0244629 to Xue et al. (hereinafter “Xue”).
Regarding claim 4, Kuwata teaches a camera module comprising a liquid crystal panel configured to display a coded-aperture pattern (e.g., fig. 1, element 12; [0009]), an image sensor (e.g., fig. 1, element 10b, [0009]), and an optical system located between the liquid crystal panel and the image sensor, wherein the liquid crystal panel includes a liquid crystal layer containing liquid crystal molecules and polymers (e.g., [0012]), the liquid crystal panel includes a first substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, lower element 32; [0011]) including a first electrode (e.g., [0011], electrode pattern on film 33), a second substrate opposed to the first substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, upper element 32; [0011]) and including a second electrode (e.g., [0011], electrode pattern on film 33), and the liquid crystal layer located between the first substrate and the second substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5), the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state when no electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer and is brought into a scattered state when an electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer (e.g., [0013]), the first substrate includes a first alignment film which covers the first electrode and which is in contact with the liquid crystal layer (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, element 33; [0011]), the second substrate includes a second alignment film which covers the second electrode and which is in contact with the liquid crystal layer (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, element 33; [0011]), and the first alignment film and the second alignment film are configured as vertically aligned films (e.g., figs. 4 and 5; see the related 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, supra). Kuwata, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the liquid crystal layer further includes dichroic dye molecules aligned following the liquid crystal molecules.
Nevertheless, the concept of including a dichroic dye molecules with liquid crystal molecules is well-known and accepted in the electronic arts. For example, Xue teaches a similar panel including dichroic dye molecules aligned following liquid crystal molecules (e.g., [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xue with the camera module as taught by Kuwata as a means to absorb polarized light (anisotropic absorption); adding dichroic dyes molecules can also improve alignment, enhance contrast, and decrease switching times.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006-285110 to Kuwata (machine translation provided by Applicant) in view of WIPO PCT application No. WO 2020/036227 A1 to Yoshida et al. (hereinafter “Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 5, Kuwata teaches a camera module comprising a liquid crystal panel configured to display a coded-aperture pattern (e.g., fig. 1, element 12; [0009]), an image sensor (e.g., fig. 1, element 10b, [0009]), and an optical system located between the liquid crystal panel and the image sensor, wherein the liquid crystal panel includes a liquid crystal layer containing liquid crystal molecules and polymers (e.g., [0012]), the liquid crystal panel includes a first substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, lower element 32; [0011]) including a first electrode (e.g., [0011], electrode pattern on film 33), a second substrate opposed to the first substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, upper element 32; [0011]) and including a second electrode (e.g., [0011], electrode pattern on film 33), and the liquid crystal layer located between the first substrate and the second substrate (e.g., figs. 4 and 5), the liquid crystal panel is brought into a transparent state when no electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer and is brought into a scattered state when an electric field is applied to the liquid crystal layer (e.g., [0013]), the first substrate includes a first alignment film which covers the first electrode and which is in contact with the liquid crystal layer (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, element 33; [0011]), the second substrate includes a second alignment film which covers the second electrode and which is in contact with the liquid crystal layer (e.g., figs. 4 and 5, element 33; [0011]), and the first alignment film and the second alignment film are configured as horizontally aligned films (e.g., figs. 4 and 5; see the related 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, supra). Kuwata, however, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the alignment treatment directions are different from each other, and wherein the liquid crystal layer includes twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules and polymers.
Nevertheless, Yoshida teaches a similar panel including alignment films whose alignment treatment directions are different from each other (e.g., fig. 17), and wherein the liquid crystal layer includes twist-aligned liquid crystal molecules and polymers (fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Yoshida with the camera module as taught by Kuwata in order to create a structural configuration that results in twist-aligned molecules (twisted nematic effect) in order to benefit from fast alignment response time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638