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 (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 and 02/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “SB-MLA1”, “SB-MLA2”, and “SB-MLA3” in Figure 3 as described in the specification ([0064] teaches that Figure 3 teaches the above labels, however Figure 3 does not include the labels). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4 and Figure 6, “SB-MAL1”, “SB-MAL2”, “SB-MAL3” should be read as “SB-MLA1”, “SB-MLA2”, “SB-MLA3”, respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillkorn et al. (2021/0165234) in view of Wippermann et al. (2010/0033829).
Regarding claim 1, Tillkorn discloses a microlens array (at least Figure 1, 1, optical assembly), the microlens array comprising: a first individual microlens array (MLA1, microlens array) where first microlenses having one focus distance (f1, focal length; [0068]); a second individual microlens array (MLA2, microlens array) where second microlenses having the same or different focus distances (f2, focal length; [0068]), the second individual microlens array being stacked on the first individual microlens array (Examiner notes that using the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stacked", Figure 1 depicts MLA2, microlens array, being stacked at least indirectly, or optically stacked, on MLA1, microlens array); and a third individual microlens array (MLA3, microlens array) where third microlenses having the same or different focus distances (f3, focal length; [0068]), the third individual microlens array being stacked on the second individual microlens array (Examiner notes that using the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stacked", Figure 1 depicts MLA3, microlens array, being stacked at least indirectly, or optically stacked, on MLA2, microlens array), wherein, as seen in a plane, an array form of the first to third microlenses are configured with two microlenses (Figures 1 and 5 depict at least two microlenses).
Although Tillkorn does not teach the microlens array is for obtaining a multi-focus plenoptic image, the Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Tillkorn fails to teach where the first microlenses are arranged on a first substrate; where second microlenses are arranged on a second substrate, where third microlenses are arranged on a third substrate, and wherein two microlenses are spaced apart from each other by an interval corresponding to one microlens in a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, on one of the first to third substrates. Tillkorn and Wippermann are related because both teach a microlens array.
Wippermann teaches a microlens array where the first microlenses are arranged on a first substrate (Figure 21l depicts first microlenses arranged on a first substrate; [0084]); where second microlenses are arranged on a second substrate (Figure 21l depicts second microlenses arranged on a second substrate; [0084]), where third microlenses are arranged on a third substrate (Figure 21l depicts third microlenses arranged on a third substrate; [0084]), and wherein two microlenses are spaced apart from each other by an interval corresponding to one microlens in a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, on one of the first to third substrates (at least Figure 6 depicts microlenses, to be spaced apart from each other by a distance of an adjacent microlens in the x and y axis; pairing this teaching that the microlenses are arranged 2 dimensionally with Figure 21l, it is interpreted that each of the microlens arrays on each substrate are arranged in a 2 dimensional configuration spread over the x and y axis; thus a particular microlens from one substrate can be chosen to be spaced apart by another particular microlens from another substrate such that the interval corresponds to one microlens in a vertical and horizontal axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tillkorn to incorporate the teachings of Wippermann and provide the first, second, and third microlenses to be arranged on a first, second, and third substrate, respectively, and wherein two microlenses are spaced apart from each other by an interval corresponding to one microlens in a vertical axis and a horizontal axis, on one of the first to third substrates. Doing so would allow for improved durability and adequate adjustment of focus.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 1, wherein the second individual microlens array is phase-shifted by a diameter of a microlens in one direction of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (Figure 9, 90, phase shifter; [0097-0098, 0101]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 1, further comprising an n.sup.th individual microlens array (MLA4, microlens array; [0057]) where n.sup.th microlenses having the same focus distance (f4, focal length; [0068]) are arranged on an n.sup.th substrate (Wippermann: Figure 21l depicts each microlens array to be arranged on an individual substrate, thus the same rationale may be used to provide a fourth microlens array on a fourth substrate), the n.sup.th individual microlens array being stacked on the first to third individual microlens arrays (Examiner notes that using the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stacked", Figure 1 depicts MLA4, microlens array, being stacked at least indirectly, or optically stacked, on MLA3, microlens array).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 1, wherein focus distances of the first to third microlenses differ (at least [0068]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 1, wherein focus distances of the first to third microlenses are equal to one another ([0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Tillkorn discloses a method of manufacturing a microlens array (at least Figure 1, 1, optical assembly), the method comprising: a step of forming a first microlens (MLA1, microlens array) having a first focus distance (f1, focal length; [0068]) to manufacture a first individual microlens array (MLA1, microlens array); a step of forming a second microlens (MLA2, microlens array) having a second focus distance (f2, focal length; [0068]) to manufacture a second individual microlens array (MLA2, microlens array); a step of forming a third microlens (MLA3, microlens array) having a third focus distance (f3, focal length; [0068]) to manufacture a third individual microlens array (MLA3, microlens array); and a step of stacking the first to third individual microlens arrays (Examiner notes that using the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stacking", Figure 1 depicts MLA1, MLA2, and MLA3, microlens arrays, being stacked at least indirectly, or optically stacked).
Although Tillkorn does not teach the microlens array is for obtaining a multi-focus plenoptic image, the Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Tillkorn fails to teach the first microlens is formed on a first substrate, the second microlens is formed on a second substrate, and the third microlens is formed on a third substrate. Tillkorn and Wippermann are related because both teach a method of manufacturing a microlens array.
Wippermann teaches a method of manufacturing a microlens array wherein a first microlens is formed on a first substrate (Figure 21l depicts first microlenses arranged on a first substrate; [0084]), a second microlens is formed on a second substrate (Figure 21l depicts second microlenses arranged on a second substrate; [0084]), a the third microlens is formed on a third substrate (Figure 21l depicts third microlenses arranged on a third substrate; [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tillkorn to incorporate the teachings of Wippermann and provide the first, second, and third microlenses to be arranged on a first, second, and third substrate, respectively. Doing so would allow for improved durability for the microlenses.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Tillkorn discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: a step of forming an n.sup.th microlens (MLA4, microlens array; [0057]) having an n.sup.th focus distance (f4, focal length; [0068]) on an n.sup.th substrate (Wippermann: Figure 21l depicts each microlens array to be arranged on an individual substrate, thus the same rationale may be used to provide a fourth microlens array on a fourth substrate) to manufacture an n.sup.th individual microlens array (MLA4, microlens array; [0057]); and a step of stacking the n.sup.th individual microlens array on the first to third individual microlens arrays (Examiner notes that using the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stacking", Figure 1 depicts MLA1, MLA2, MLA3, and MLA4 microlens arrays, being stacked at least indirectly, or optically stacked).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 7, wherein focus distances of the first to third microlenses differ (at least [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 7, wherein focus distances of the first to third microlenses are equal to one another ([0057]).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Tillkorn discloses the method of claim 7, wherein array forms of first to third microlenses respectively arranged in the first to third individual microlens arrays are equal to one another (at least Figure 5).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillkorn et al. (2021/0165234) in view of Wippermann et al. (2010/0033829) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Powell (2017/0261651).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Tillkorn discloses the microlens array of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a coating surface is provided in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays. The modified Tillkorn and Powell are related because both teach a microlens array.
Powell teaches a microlens array wherein a coating surface is provided in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays (at least [0057] teaches surfaces of the array of lenslets can be optically coated with anti-reflective coatings to minimize loss and scatter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tillkorn to incorporate the teachings of Powell and provide wherein a coating surface is provided in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays. Doing so would allow for reduction of unwanted scattering and reflection, thereby improving light quality.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Tillkorn discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to teach further comprising a step of forming a coating surface in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays. The modified Tillkorn and Powell are related because both teach a method of manufacturing a microlens array.
Powell teaches a method of manufacturing a microlens array comprising a step of forming a coating surface in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays (at least [0057] teaches surfaces of the array of lenslets can be optically coated with anti-reflective coatings to minimize loss and scatter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tillkorn to incorporate the teachings of Powell and provide a step of forming a coating surface in at least one of the first to third individual microlens arrays. Doing so would allow for reduction of unwanted scattering and reflection, thereby improving light quality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillkorn et al. (2021/0165234) in view of Wippermann et al. (2010/0033829) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tajiri (2012/0229688).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Tillkorn discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the first to third individual microlens arrays are manufactured by a nano imprinting process. The modified Tillkorn and Tajiri are related because both teach a method of manufacturing a microlens array.
Tajiri teaches a method of manufacturing a microlens array wherein the individual microlens arrays are manufactured by a nano imprinting process (at least [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified Tillkorn to incorporate the teachings of Tajiri and provide wherein the first to third individual microlens arrays are manufactured by a nano imprinting process. Doing so would allow for accurate and efficient manufacturing of the microlens array.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitts et al. (2013/0033636) in view of Shroff et al. (2012/0300091).
Regarding claim 14, Pitts discloses a multi-focus plenoptic image obtaining device (Figure 6, 600, optical assembly) comprising: an image sensor configured to perform imaging of light (101, photosensor array); a first individual microlens array (602A, layer, of 202, pixel-level MLA) where a first microlens having a first focus distance is arranged (Examiner notes 602A, layer, necessarily has a first focus distance based on the radius of curvature and thickness of each lens of the layer), a second individual microlens array (602B, layer, of 202, pixel-level MLA) where a second microlens having a second focus distance is arranged (Examiner notes 602B, layer, necessarily has a second focus distance based on the radius of curvature and thickness of each lens of the layer), the second individual microlens array being stacked on the first individual microlens array (Figure 6); and a third individual microlens array (102, plenoptic MLA) where a third microlens having a third focus distance is arranged (Examiner notes 102, plenoptic MLA, necessarily has a third focus distance based on the radius of curvature and thickness of each lens of the layer), the third individual microlens array being stacked on the second individual microlens array (Figure 6), wherein a microlens array including the first to third individual microlens arrays transfers the light to the image sensor at a plurality of different focus distances (Figure 6, the spacing between each MLA layer is considered to incorporate different focus distances).
Pitts fails to teach a main lens configured to collect light from an object; the first individual microlens array being disposed between the main lens and the image sensor; and consequently light collected by the main lens. Pitts and Shroff are related because both teach a plenoptic image obtaining device.
Shroff teaches a plenoptic image obtaining device (Figure 1), comprising: a main lens configured to collect light from an object (Figure 1, 110, primary lens, collects light from 150, object; [0031]); the first individual microlens array being disposed between the main lens and the image sensor (120, lenslet array, is disposed between 110, primary lens, and 130, sensor); and consequently light collected by the main lens (light from 110, primary lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pitts to incorporate the teachings of Shroff and provide a main lens configured to collect light from an object; wherein the first individual microlens array being disposed between the main lens and the image sensor; and consequently light collected by the main lens. Doing so would allow for improved image quality of captured images by the optical assembly.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Pitts discloses the multi-focus plenoptic image obtaining device of claim 14, wherein the microlens array further comprises an n.sup.th individual microlens array ([0062] teaches any number of 601, layers, of 202, pixel-level MLA, can be provided; Examiner notes "601" is interpreted to be read as "602" in Figure 6) where n.sup.th microlenses having the same focus distance are arranged on an n.sup.th substrate (at least [0062]), the n.sup.th individual microlens array being stacked on the first to third individual microlens arrays (at least [0062], Figure 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takashima (2021/0250481), Powell (9,945,988), Georgiev (2017/0038502), Liang (2016/0029017), Liang (9,420,276), El-Ghoroury (8,854,724) disclose relevant optical assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights