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 § 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) 1-2 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masao (JP 2009186625 A, see Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Masao, discloses, on Fig. 2, a solid-state imaging apparatus comprising: a solid-state imaging element (imaging lens 20) [Par 32] configured to capture an image including a pixel signal corresponding to a light amount of incident light (image sensor 10 has light receiving surface Jk) [Par 32]; and a lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] including a plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] configured to condense the incident light (See Fig. 2 where light rays are condensed) and forms an image on an imaging surface (surface Jk) [Par 32] of the solid-state imaging element, wherein at least one of the plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] constituting the lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] is a visible light cut lens (CG2 can be an infrared transmissive filter) [Par 36] configured to cut a visible light ray from the incident light and transmit the incident light [Par 36].
Re claim 2, Masao discloses, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and Masao further discloses on Fig. 2, wherein the plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] is two to five lenses (four lenses) [Par 33].
Re Claim 13, Masao discloses, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses, on Fig. 2, wherein the visible light cut lens (CG2 can be an infrared transmissive filter) [Par 36] is a coding lens in which a coating configured to cut a visible light ray (Masao teaches uses coating to cut visible light on a len) [Par 87] is applied to both an incident surface and an emission surface of the incident light (coating can be applied to object or image side, and inherently both) [Par 87].
Re Claim 14, Masao discloses, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 13, and Masao further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the coding lens is obtained by applying the coating configured to cut a visible light ray (coating can be applied to object or image side, and inherently both) [Par 87] to both the incident surface and the emission surface of a lens (coating can be applied to object or image side, and inherently both) [Par 87] including a transparent resin material or a lens including glass (CG2 is made of glass) [Par 95].
Re Claim 15, Masao discloses on Fig. 15, an imaging apparatus comprising: a solid-state imaging apparatus (Fig. 2) wherein the solid-state imaging apparatus includes: a solid-state imaging element (imaging lens 20) [Par 32] configured to capture an image including a pixel signal corresponding to a light amount of incident light (image sensor 10 has light receiving surface Jk) [Par 32]; and a lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] including a plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] configured to condense the incident light (See Fig. 2 where light rays are condensed) and forms an image on an imaging surface (surface Jk) [Par 32] of the solid-state imaging element, and at least one of the plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] constituting the lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] is a visible light cut lens (CG2 can be an infrared transmissive filter) [Par 36] configured to cut a visible light ray from the incident light and transmit the incident light (“…infrared light transmission filter that transmits infrared light and blocks visible light”) [Par 36].
Re Claim 16, Masao discloses, on Fig. 2, an electronic apparatus comprising: a solid-state imaging element (imaging lens 20) [Par 32] configured to capture an image including a pixel signal corresponding to a light amount of incident light (image sensor 10 has light receiving surface Jk) [Par 32]; and a lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] including a plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] configured to condense the incident light (See Fig. 2 where light rays are condensed) and form an image on an imaging surface (surface Jk) [Par 32] of the solid-state imaging element, wherein at least one of the plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] constituting the lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33] is a visible light cut lens (CG2 can be an infrared transmissive filter) [Par 36] configured to cut a visible light ray from the incident light and transmit the incident light (“…infrared light transmission filter that transmits infrared light and blocks visible light”) [Par 36].
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) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2011043433 A, See Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 3, Masao discloses, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 1.
But Masao does not explicitly disclose, wherein the visible light cut lens is a dye lens molded from a resin material including a dye configured to absorb a visible light ray.
.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include wherein the visible light cut lens (lens 19 and 20) is a dye lens molded from a resin material (dye lens 19 and 20) [Par 68] including a dye configured to absorb a visible light ray (dye that cuts visible light) [Par 68].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Masao with Yamaguchi in order to prevent light from entering the receiver, as taught by Yamaguchi [Par 59].
Re Claim 4, Masao in view of Yamaguchi, obviates the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 3, and Yamaguchi further teaches on Fig. 1, wherein in the dye lens (lens 20), a surface on which the incident light is incident (top surface of lens 20) has a convex shape (Fig. 1 shows the Top of lens 20 is convex) and a surface through which the incident light is transmitted (bottom surface of lens 20) and emitted has a concave shape (Fig. 1 shows the bottom of lens 20 comprises a concave surface) [Par 59]
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Imamura (US 20140055661 A1).
Re claim 5, Masao in view of Yamaguchi obviates, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 3.
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach, wherein the dye lens is a part of the plurality of lenses constituting the lens group.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Imamura teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include wherein, the dye lens (dye lens L1) [Par 129] is a part of the plurality of lenses (L1 and L2) constituting the lens group (optical system L) [Par 88].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Masao in view of Yamaguchi with Imamura in order to provide, control of the incident light transmitted by the lens group.
Re claim 6, Masao in view of Yamaguchi obviates, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 3.
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach, wherein the dye lens is one of the plurality of lenses constituting the lens group.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Imamura teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include wherein, the dye lens (dye lens L1) [Par 129] is one of the plurality of lenses (L1 and L2) constituting the lens group (optical system L) [Par 88].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Masao in view of Yamaguchi with Imamura in order to provide, control of the incident light transmitted by the lens group.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masao in view of Yamaguchi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mastsusaka (WO 2014080561 A1, see attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 7, Masao in view of Yamaguchi obviates, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 3. And Yamaguchi further teaches, wherein the dye lens (dye lens L1) [Par 129] is a part of the plurality of lenses (L1 and L2) constituting the lens group (optical system L) [Par 88].
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the lens being such that: a maximum thickness Tmax is smaller than a first predetermined thickness and a minimum thickness Tmin is larger than a second predetermined thickness; and a ratio Tmax/Tmin between the maximum thickness Tmax and the minimum thickness Tmin is smaller than a predetermined value.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Matsusaka teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to explicitly control the Tmin and Tmax of a color absorbing lens (TDmin and TDmax) [Par 91-93, 186], wherein a ratio Tmax/Tmin between the maximum thickness Tmax and the minimum thickness Tmin is smaller than a predetermined value (ratio of TDmax/TDmin is smaller than a number in each of the conditions; C5, C5A, C5B, and A6) [Par 91-93, 186].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Masao in view of Yamaguchi with Matsusaka in order to improve overall performance, as taught by Mastusaka [Par 63].
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi and Matsusaka does not explicitly disclose,
a maximum thickness Tmax is smaller than a first predetermined thickness and a minimum thickness Tmin is larger than a second predetermined thickness.
Optimizing lens thickness is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Matsusaka teaches Tmin and Tmax as variables which achieves a recognized result (“…the degree of freedom of the lens shape is increased, and the performance can be improved”) [Par 63]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting Tmin and Tmax, and identifies said quantities as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Masao in view of Yamaguchi and Matsusaka, such that a maximum thickness Tmax is smaller than a first predetermined thickness and a minimum thickness Tmin is larger than a second predetermined thickness, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 8, Masao in view of Yamaguchi and Matsusaka obviates, the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 7, and Yamaguchi further teaches on Fig. 1, wherein the dye lens (dye lens L1) [Par 129] is a part of the plurality of lenses (L1 and L2) constituting the lens group (optical system L) [Par 88], and Matsusaka further teaches on Fig. 1, the lens being such that the ratio Tmax/Tmin between the maximum thickness Tmax and the minimum thickness Tmin is smaller than 4.0 (TDmax/TDmin<2.3) [Par 62].
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi and Matsusaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum thickness Tmax is smaller than 1.00 mm and the minimum thickness Imin is larger than 0.10 mm.
Optimizing lens thickness is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Matsusaka teaches Tmin and Tmax as variables which achieves a recognized result (“…the degree of freedom of the lens shape is increased, and the performance can be improved”) [Par 63]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting Tmin and Tmax, and identifies said quantities as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Masao in view of Yamaguchi and Matsusaka, such that wherein the maximum thickness Tmax is smaller than 1.00 mm and the minimum thickness Imin is larger than 0.10 mm, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 9, Masao in view of Yamaguchi, and Matsusaka teaches the solid-state imaging apparatus according to claim 7, and Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the dye lens is a lens among the plurality of lenses (CG1-CG2, lenses L1-L2) [Par 33] constituting the lens group (Cover CG1, L1-L2, and CG2) [Par 33]
But Masao in view of Yamaguchi, and the prior as a whole fails to teach or suggest, the lens being such that: a value (|Vc−Vp|/n) obtained by dividing a difference absolute value |Vc−Vp| between an optical path length Vc of a main light ray at an image height center and an optical path length Vp of the main light ray at an image height of 80% by a refractive index n of a main wavelength is shorter than a predetermined length; and a value ((Vi_max−Vi_mmin)/n) obtained by dividing a difference (Vi_max−Vi_mmin) between a maximum optical path length Vi_max at an image height of i.Math.10% and a minimum optical path length Vi_min at the image height of i.Math.10% by the refractive index n of the main wavelength is shorter than the predetermined length, and the i is 0 to 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Otani (US 20120212587 A1) similarly teaches a solid state imaging device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights