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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification (ABSTRACT)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to be a direct copy of the independent claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "plexiglass" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner is taking the position for the purpose of the prior art rejection that the “plexiglass” is referring to the transparent organic soft glass in claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagholt et. al. (US 2011/0149408 A1) in view of Piesko et. al. (US 5,886,332).
Regarding claim 1 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that it includes a glass substrate (7), and a deformation glass plate (1) having a like-side surface is provided on one side of the glass substrate (para. 0012),
where the glass substrate and the deformation glass plate are provided with a polymer layer (3) supporting an image-side surface of the deformation glass plate, so as to form a converging lens between the glass substrate, the polymer layer, and the deformation glass plate (para. 0013);
and a piezoelectric thin film ring (5) is provided around the image-side surface of the deformation glass plate, so as to realize a change of a focal length by deformation generated by the piezoelectric thin film ring (para. 0013).
Hahgholt does not teach that the soft polymer layer is a polymer resin layer.
Piesko teaches a deformable lens system where the soft polymer is a polymer resin (para. 11, col. 58 - 67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system as taught by Hahgholt with the resins as taught by Piesko for the benefit of a system containing a malleable resin with an index of refraction greater than one with low durometer.
Regarding claim 2 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the middle region of the deformation glass plate forms an image-side curved surface away from the glass substrate (para. 0024).
Regarding claim 3 Hahgholt as modified teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the piezoelectric thin film ring is located on the other side of the deformation glass plate away from the polymer resin layer (see fig. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 4 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the piezoelectric thin film ring is deformation by applying a voltage, and this deformation is used to apply pressure to change the curvature of the image-side curved surface of the deformation glass plate to achieve a change in focal length (para. 0013).
Regarding claim 5 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the material of the deformation glass plate is a transparent organic soft glass (para. 0012).
Regarding claim 7 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the piezoelectric thin film ring is a piezoelectric actuator subject to a voltage controlled deformation state in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the glass substrate for controlling the up and down displacement around the deformation glass plate in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the glass substrate to change the curvature of the image-side curvature of the image-side curved surface of the deformation glass plate (para. 0023 and 0013).
Regarding claim 8 Hahgholt as modified teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, characterized in that the polymer resin layer is used to support the spacing between the center of the image-side surface of the deformation glass plate and the glass substrate when the curvature of the image-side surface of the deformation glass plate is changed (para. 0021 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9 Hahgholt as modified teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, except where the polymer resin comprises one or more of alkyd resins off, amino resins, nitro resins, cellulose resins, perchloroethylene resins, vinyl resins off, acrylic resins, polyester resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, silicone resins, and rubber.
Piesko teaches where the polymer resin comprises one or more of alkyd resins off, amino resins, nitro resins, cellulose resins, perchloroethylene resins, vinyl resins off, acrylic resins, polyester resins, epoxy resins, urethane resins, silicone resins, and rubber (para. 11, col. 58 - 67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system as taught by Hahgholt with the resins as taught by Piesko for the benefit of a system containing a malleable resin with an index of refraction greater than one with low durometer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagholt et. al. (US 2011/0149408 A1) in view of Piesko et. al. (US 5,886,332) in further view of Batchko et. al. (US 2008/02851143 A1).
Regarding claim 6 Hahgholt as modified teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure except where, the plexiglass is any one of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), a polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Batchko teaches where, the plexiglass is any one of a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), a polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system as taught by Hahgholt with the bendable cover as taught by Batchko for the benefit of a bendable layer with a suitable index of refraction and a reduction in light scattering interference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagholt et. al. (US 2011/0149408 A1) in view of Piesko et. al. (US 5,886,332) in further view of Okada et. al. (US 4,795,248).
Regarding claim 10 Hahgholt teaches (figs. 3a-3b, and 4a-4c) an autofocus camera structure, except for characterized in that the surface of the glass substrate is vaporized with a transparent conductive layer of In₂O₃ or SnO₂.
Okada teaches the surface of the glass substrate is vaporized with a transparent conductive layer of In₂O₃ or SnO₂ (col. 15, lines 45-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system as taught by Hahgholt with the specific clear electrode as taught by Okada for the benefit of a transparent electrode with high electrical conductivity with optical transparency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further fluid lens systems include Nishioka et. al. (US 2002/0118464 A1), Bollis et. al. (US 2012/0170134 A1), Craen et. al. (US 2017/0199357 A1), and Song et. al. (US 12,108,155 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights