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 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.
Claim 39 is 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 39 recites the limitation "first axis" and “second axis” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 27-28, 31, 34-35, 38 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Konno (US 2006/0092524 A1).
As to claim 21, Konno discloses an optical prism (Fig.14: first reflecting prism PR1), comprising:
an object side (Fig.14; [0124]: incident surface S1);
a reflective surface (Fig.14; [0124]: planar reflecting surface S2) that redirects light received through the object side from a first portion of an optical axis to a second portion of the optical axis (Fig.14; [0124]: The reflecting surface S2 formed on the first reflecting prism PR1 is adapted to bend an incident ray at about 90 degrees to direction the reflected ray toward the second lens group Gr2 and the plan parallel plate PL. The optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow A corresponds to the claimed first portion of the optical axis; the optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow B corresponds to the claimed second portion of the optical axis); and
a curved image side surface (Fig.14: exit surface S3) through which the light passes and to which a lens is attached (See Fig. 14, the exit surface of the prism PR1 is in direct contact with the incident surface of the negative biconcave lens element L1), the lens having a curved object side surface through which the light passes (also see Fig. 14), wherein a curvature of the image side surface of the optical prism is complementary to a curvature of the object side surface of the lens (as shown in Fig.14, the exit surface of the prism perfectly matches the incident surface of the lens element L1; that is, they have the same curvature).
As to claim 24, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, wherein the image side of the optical prism comprises a second convex optical surface (Fig.14; [0124]: “an exit surface (S3) of a positive optical power”).
As to claim 27, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, wherein the reflective surface is configured to bend the optical axis by 90 degrees from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis (Fig.14; [0124]: The reflecting surface S2 formed on the first reflecting prism PR1 is adapted to bend an incident ray at about 90 degrees to direction the reflected ray toward the second lens group Gr2 and the plan parallel plate PL).
As to claim 28, Konno discloses a lens system (Fig.14), comprising:
a plurality of elements arranged along a folded optical axis of the lens system (Fig. 14), wherein the plurality of elements comprises:
an optical prism (Fig.14: first reflecting prism PR1), comprising:
an object side (Fig.14; [0124]: incident surface S1);
a reflective surface (Fig.14; [0124]: planar reflecting surface S2) that redirects light received through the object side from a first portion of an optical axis to a second portion of the optical axis (Fig.14; [0124]: The reflecting surface S2 formed on the first reflecting prism PR1 is adapted to bend an incident ray at about 90 degrees to direction the reflected ray toward the second lens group Gr2 and the plan parallel plate PL. The optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow A corresponds to the claimed first portion of the optical axis; the optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow B corresponds to the claimed second portion of the optical axis); and
a curved image side surface (Fig.14: exit surface S3) through which the light passes and to which a lens is attached (See Fig. 14, the exit surface of the prism PR1 is in direct contact with the incident surface of the negative biconcave lens element L1), the lens having a curved object side surface through which the light passes (also see Fig. 14), wherein a curvature of the image side surface of the optical prism is complementary to a curvature of the object side surface of the lens (as shown in Fig.14, the exit surface of the prism perfectly matches the incident surface of the lens element L1; that is, they have the same curvature); and
a lens stack comprising at least the lens (Fig. 14: lens elements L3, L4, L5), wherein the lens stack is configured to refract light propagating along the second portion of the folded optical axis (See Fig. 14) to form an image at an image plane (Fig.14: [0127]: “forming an optical image of a subject on the light receiving plane of the image sensor (SR)”).
Claims 31 and 34 recite substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claims 24 and 27, respectively; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 35, Konno discloses a camera (Figs.7A and 7B: camera phone 200), comprising:
a photosensor (Fig.14: image sensor SR) configured to capture light projected onto a surface of the photosensor (Fig.14: [0127]: “forming an optical image of a subject on the light receiving plane of the image sensor (SR)”);
an optical prism (Fig.14: first reflecting prism PR1), comprising:
an object side (Fig.14; [0124]: incident surface S1);
a reflective surface (Fig.14; [0124]: planar reflecting surface S2) that redirects light received through the object side from a first portion of an optical axis to a second portion of the optical axis (Fig.14; [0124]: The reflecting surface S2 formed on the first reflecting prism PR1 is adapted to bend an incident ray at about 90 degrees to direction the reflected ray toward the second lens group Gr2 and the plan parallel plate PL. The optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow A corresponds to the claimed first portion of the optical axis; the optical axis parallel to the direction shown by arrow B corresponds to the claimed second portion of the optical axis); and
a curved image side surface (Fig.14: exit surface S3) through which the light passes and to which a lens is attached (See Fig. 14, the exit surface of the prism PR1 is in direct contact with the incident surface of the negative biconcave lens element L1), the lens having a curved object side surface through which the light passes (also see Fig. 14), wherein a curvature of the image side surface of the prism is complementary to a curvature of the object side surface of the lens (as shown in Fig.14, the exit surface of the prism perfectly matches the incident surface of the lens element L1; that is, they have the same curvature); and
a lens stack comprising at least the lens (Fig. 14: lens elements L3, L4, L5), wherein the lens stack is configured to refract light propagating along the second portion of the folded optical axis (See Fig. 14) to form an image at an image plane at or near a surface of the photosensor (Fig.14: [0127]: “forming an optical image of a subject on the light receiving plane of the image sensor (SR)”).
Claims 38 and 40 recite substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claims 24 and 27, respectively; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 26, 29, 32, 36 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (US 2006/0092524 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2009/0212202 A1).
As to claim 22, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, but fails to disclose a portion of an object side surface of the optical prism is coated with an opaque material to provide an aperture stop at the object side of the optical prism.
However, Takahashi teaches a portion of an object side surface of the optical prism is coated with an opaque material to provide an aperture stop at the object side of the optical prism ([0038] and [0040]: an aperture stop is located on an object side of the first surface of the prism, which may be replaced by a black coating material coated on the first surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konno with the teaching of Takahashi to have a portion of an object side surface of the prism coated with an opaque material to provide an aperture stop at the object side of the prism, so as to reduce the size of the optical system while being able to control the incident light amount.
As to claim 26, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, but it does not explicitly disclose the reflective surface comprises a reflective coating configured to redirect the light from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis.
However, Takahashi teaches the reflective surface comprises a reflective coating configured to redirect the light ([0176]: the reflecting surfaces of the prism should preferably be provided with a reflection coating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konno with the teaching of Takahashi to have a reflective coating on the reflective surface to redirect light from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis, so as to make sure the quantity of light, thereby improving the image quality.
Claims 29 and 32 recite substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claims 22 and 26, respectively; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 36 and 39 recite substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claims 22 and 26, respectively; therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 23, 30 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (US 2006/0092524 A1) in view of Bae (US 2017/0139184 A1).
As to claim 23, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, but it fails to disclose the object side of the optical prism comprises a first convex optical surface.
However, Bae teaches the object side of the optical prism comprises a first convex optical surface (Fig.1A; [0057]: first prism lens P1 having a convex incident surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konno with the teaching of Bae such that the object side of the optical prism comprises a first convex optical surface, so as to control the convergence or divergence of incoming light and improve imaging performance by reducing aberrations and improving light coupling efficiency.
Claim 30 recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 23; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 37 recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 23; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (US 2006/0092524 A1) in view of Sato (US 2012/0176685 A1).
As to claim 25, Konno discloses the optical prism as recited in claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose the image side surface of the optical prism is cemented to the object side surface of the lens.
However, Sato teaches the image side surface of the optical prism is cemented to the object side surface of the lens (Fig.1; [0031]: a light transmitting surface of the prism P1 and the plano-convex lens L2 are cemented).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konno with the teaching of Sato to have the image side surface of the optical prism cemented to the object side surface of the lens, so as to reduce the dimension of depth of the optical system and suppress ghosting consequent to reflected light at a lower aspect of the prism ([0207]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (US 2006/0092524 A1) in view of Wilson et al. (US 2011/0001789 A1).
As to claim 33, Konno discloses the lens system as recited in claim 28.
Konno does not explicitly disclose the reflective surface redirects with total internal reflection at the reflective surface, the light from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis.
However, Wilson et al. teaches the reflective surface redirects with total internal reflection at the reflective surface, the light from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis ([0028]: “Alternatively, if the refractive index of the prism P1 is large enough to ensure total internal reflection for all field angles, then no reflective coating is required”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konno with the teaching of Wilson et al. to redirect with total internal reflection at the reflective surface, the light from the first portion of the optical axis to the second portion of the optical axis, so as to produce brighter images, and provide better efficiency for directing light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENZHEN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2519. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, SINH TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ZHENZHEN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637