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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on October 30, 2024 and June 17, 2025 have been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0035] “…and forth along on direction only” should read “… and forth along one direction only”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…a cylinder power of the fluid lens id adjusted” should read “…a cylinder power of the fluid lens is adjusted”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9-11, and 23 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.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitation "the restoring force" in the first line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claims 4 and 11 as depending from claim 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the one or more shaping elements" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 9 as depending from claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “one or more actuators”, and the claim also recites “particularly all actuators” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 10 as referring to “one or more actuators.”
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the case at hand, it unclear whether the optical power of the fluids must be adjusted or if any optical property can be adjusted. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 23 as adjusting an optical power of the fluid lens.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacoby et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0026045 – hereinafter referred to as “Jacoby”).
Regarding claim 1, Jacoby teaches a multi-phase actuation method (Figure 16) for adjusting an optical element (Figure 7 lens assembly 100, [01020]) comprising a plurality of actuators (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4, [0128] actuators), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
- Determining an end position for each actuator to which each actuator is to be actuated for adjusting the optical element (Figure 16 step 300 calculate desired actuator position, [0128]),
- In a first actuation phase, driving at least two or more actuators of the plurality of actuators to a first actuation position (Figure 16 step 3005 change actuator position, [0128]),
- In a second actuation phase, driving all actuators that have not reached their associated end position to their associated end position (Figure 16 step 3006 feedback loop, [0128] measure actual position of actuators and if lengths are not correct then step 3005 is repeated)
Jacoby fails to teach wherein at least one of the two or more actuators reverses its drive direction to reach its associated end position(s), such that the optical element arrives in its adjusted state. However, there are only two possibilities for driving the actuators, either in forward or reverse. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Jacoby since there are only two possible solutions, forward and reverse, for driving the actuators to the final position during the feedback loop and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp for the purpose of driving the actuators.
Regarding claim 5, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches a driving direction of the plurality of actuators extends along a first axis ([0116] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 move forward or backward along z-axis).
Regarding claim 6, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches the optical element is a liquid lens (Abstract fluid-filled lens) or an adjustable window element.
Regarding claim 7, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches the plurality of actuators is arranged along a circumference portion of a clear aperture of the optical element (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 are arranged along the circumference of lens assembly 100).
Regarding claim 8, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 7. Jacoby further teaches one or more shaping elements (Figure 4A supporting ring 14, [0111] profile of boundary of membrane 15 is adjusted by displacing one or more circumferential regions of supporting ring 14) are arranged along said circumference portion (Figure 4A supporting ring 14 is arranged along circumference of lens assembly 100), wherein the actuators are configured to move or deform said one or more shaping elements for adjusting the optical element ([0112] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 move supporting ring 14 towards or away from hard lens 18).
Regarding claim 9, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 5. Jacoby The method according to claim 5, wherein in the adjusted state of the optical element, a contour of the one or more shaping elements varies along the first axis in the adjusted state of the optical element ([0112] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 move supporting ring 14 towards or away from hard lens 18 along the z-axis).
Regarding claim 10, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches one or more actuators, particularly all actuators exhibit a load and/or an actuation position dependent actuation force characteristic ([0104], [0132] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 will experience a load or actuation position dependent actuation force characteristic from the resiliently bendable supporting ring 14 and force of fluid pressure on membrane 15).
Jacoby fails to teach the actuation force is non-linear with respect to the load and/or the actuation position. However, there are only two possibilities for the actuation force, either linear or non-linear. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Jacoby since there are only two possible solutions, linear or non-linear actuation forces exhibited by the actuators, and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp for the purpose of driving the actuators.
Regarding claim 12, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches all restoring forces ([0104], [0132] restoring forces from resiliently bendable supporting ring 14 and restoring force of fluid pressure on membrane 15) acting on the actuators (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4) are coupled via the optical element, in particular via the one or more shaping elements ([0132] restoring force from membrane 15 is coupled to active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4 through supporting ring 14), such that the actuators collaboratively work against the coupled restoring forces at least during the first actuation phase ([0104],[0132] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4 work against restoring forces from resiliently bendable supporting ring 14 and restoring force of fluid pressure on membrane 15).
Regarding claim 15, Jacoby teaches a computer program (Figure 16) comprising computer program code, wherein when executed on a data processing system ([0126] control electronics 400), the computer program causes the data processing system to execute the method according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above), particularly by causing the data processing system to issue control signals configured to drive the actuators according to the method.
Regarding claim 16, Jacoby teaches an adjustable optical system (Figure 15), comprising:
- an optical element (Figure 4A lens assembly 100) with a plurality of actuators (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4),
- a base frame (Figure 15 lens 18),
- at least one restoring force generative element (Figures 4A and 15 supporting ring 14 and membrane 15),
- wherein the actuators are arranged to exert an actuation force between the base frame and the at least one restoring force generative element ([0112],[0116] active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 move forward or backward along z-axis and exert a actuation force between supporting ring 14 since supporting ring 14 towards or away from hard lens 18 along the z-axis),
- a control module (Figure 15 control electronics 400, [0124]) configured to drive the actuators according to the method according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Jacoby further teaches the control module (Figures 16 control electronics 400, [0124]) is connected to a data processing system to receive and to execute control signals from the control module (Figure 16, [0126] control electronics 400 operate to calculate optical power and control the optical power), the data processing system having stored a computer program comprising a computer program code (Figure 16), wherein when executed on a data processing system, the computer program causes the data processing system to execute the method by causing the data processing system to issue control signals (Figure 16, [0126]-[0128]).
Regarding claim 18, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Jacoby further teaches wherein the at least one restoring force generative element (Figure 4A supporting ring 14), comprises a bellows and/or one or more elastically deformable membrane(s) ([0104] resiliently bendable supporting ring 14).
Regarding claim 19, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Jacoby further teaches the plurality of actuators is arranged along a circumference portion of a clear aperture of the optical element (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 are arranged along the circumference of lens assembly 100).
Regarding claim 20, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 19. Jacoby further teaches the system comprises one or more shaping elements (Figure 4A supporting ring 14, [0111] profile of boundary of membrane 15 is adjusted by displacing one or more circumferential regions of supporting ring 14) that are arranged along the circumference portion of the clear aperture (Figure 4A supporting ring 14 is arranged along circumference of lens assembly 100), wherein the one or more shaping element(s) is/are in contact with the actuators (Figure 4A active control tabs a1, a2, a3, and a4 are in contact with supporting ring 14).
Regarding claim 21, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Jacoby further teaches the system comprises an elastically deformable membrane (Figure 15 membrane 15) covering a fluid core (Figure 15 fluid 15), particularly liquid core, wherein the system is configured to adjust a shape of the elastically deformable membrane with the actuators ([0111] profile of membrane 15 is adjusted by supporting ring 14 with active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4), particularly by means of moving and/or deforming the one or more shaping elements ([0111] profile of membrane 15 is adjusted by displacing supporting ring 14), thereby adjusting an optical property of the optical element ([0111] optical power adjusted by adjusting curvature).
Regarding claim 22, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 20. Jacoby further teaches the one or more shaping element(s) is/are attached to the elastically deformable membrane (Figure 15 supporting ring 14 is attached to membrane 15) at the circumference portion of the clear aperture (Figure 4A supporting ring 14 is arranged along circumference of lens assembly 100).
Regarding claim 23, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 21. Jacoby further teaches the system comprises a fluid lens (Figure 15 lens assembly 100 has a core of fluid 15) comprising the elastically deformable membrane (Figure 15 membrane 15), wherein said membrane is adjustable with the actuators ([0111] profile of membrane 15 is adjusted by supporting ring 14 with active control tabs a1, a2, a3, a4) for adjusting an optical property, such as an optical power of the fluid lens ([0111] optical power adjusted by adjusting curvature).
Regarding claim 24, Jacoby teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Jacoby further teaches the system comprises one or more inhibition elements (Figures 5A and 6A escalators 105, 106, 107, 108, [0116]) that is/are configured to generate a holding force (Figures 5A and 6A escalators 105-108 will generate a holding force on active control tabs a1-a4), wherein each inhibition element is configured to lock an associated actuator in an end position or in the first position and to sustain a holding force at said position (Figures 5B and 6B escalators 105-108 lock active control tabs a1-a4 into the end position when membrane 15 is curved).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 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.
Claims 4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of record, Jacoby, teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby fails to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “after the second actuation phase, a restoring force acting on at least one actuator that is actuated closest to or actuated at the first position is higher than a restoring force acting on at least one other actuator at its associated end position” in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 2, specifically the limitation: “after the second actuation phase, a restoring force acting on at least one actuator that is actuated closest to or actuated at the first position is higher than a restoring force acting on at least one other actuator at its associated end position”
Claims 3-4 and 11 depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record, Jacoby, teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby fails to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “a holding force of each actuator is higher than a highest achievable actuation force of each actuator” in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 13, specifically the limitation: “a holding force of each actuator is higher than a highest achievable actuation force of each actuator”
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art of record, Jacoby, teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Jacoby further teaches the optical element is a membrane-based fluid lens (Abstract fluid-filled lens). Jacoby fails to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “wherein in the first actuation phase, particularly only in the first actuation phase, a sphere power of the fluid lens is adjusted, wherein in the second actuation phase, particularly only in the second actuation phase, a cylinder power of the fluid lens is adjusted” in combination with the limitations of claim 1. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 14, specifically the limitation: “wherein in the first actuation phase, particularly only in the first actuation phase, a sphere power of the fluid lens is adjusted, wherein in the second actuation phase, particularly only in the second actuation phase, a cylinder power of the fluid lens is adjusted”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patscheider et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/066239) discloses an adjustable liquid lens using multiple actuators to adjust the cylinder and sphere power of the lens. Stamenov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0023258) discloses an adjustable liquid lens using multiple actuators arranged around the circumference of the liquid lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights