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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 28, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 16 and has canceled claim 4.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to include the phrase “a second curved surface … a curvature of the second curved surface being concave” that is not positively supported by the specification of originally filed.
Claim 2-3 and 5-15 inherit the rejection from their based claim.
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 1-3 and 5-16 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 1 and 16 have been amended to include the phrase “a second curved surface … a curvature of the second curved surface being concave” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear the “concave” is measured and defined with respective to what. For the purposed of examination, the concave is interpreted as “curved inward toward the image sensor”. However proper clarification and correction are required.
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Alspach et al (US 2019/0091872 A1) in view of the patent issued to Carney et al (PN. 9,684,115) and US patent application publication by Singer et al (US 2018/0299678 A1).
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Alspach et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 16, an optical arrangement for reducing reflection in a camera, (please see Figures 1 and 5) wherein the arrangement is comprised of an image sensor (130), comprising a light-sensitive surface and an optical filter layer (123, Figure 5) arranged at a first distance from the light sensitive surface along an optical axis of the optical arrangement. The optical filter layer (123) is to reduce glare or improper reflection of one or more optical signals emitted by the sensor (130, please see paragraph [0034]).
Alspach et al teaches that the optical filter layer (123) may comprise a coating or a pattern applied to a membrane. The optical filter layer implicitly comprises a first curved surface facing the light sensitive surface and a second curved surface opposite to the first curved surface. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the optical filter layer or filter is configured to reflect the light between the first curved surface and the second curved surface inside the filter.
Carney et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a curved waveguide (120, Figure 1C) that has a first curved surface and a second curved surface opposite to the first curved surface that is capable of eliminating glare or stray light reflection, (please see column 3, lines 4-5). Carney et al teaches that the light enters inside the curved waveguide that will undergo reflection within the curved waveguide, (please see column 5, lines 37-39). As demonstrated by Singer et al light enters curved waveguide at an incident angle greater than critical angle of the curved waveguide will undergo total internal reflection between the first curved surface and the second curved surface, (please see 12A). This means the curved waveguide will trap the light enters the waveguide, at angle greater than critical angle, will be trapped within the waveguide so that the glare or unwanted stray light will be eliminated.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Carney et al and Singer et al to modify the optical filter layer to include a structure of curved waveguide for the benefit of using curved waveguide to trap the unwanted reflection light (specifically from the sensor to the optical filter) for the benefit of reducing the unwanted glare.
In light of Alspach et al, Carney et al and Singer et al the light sensitive surface of the sensor (130, Figure 1) is configured to receive light and reflect the received light toward the optical filter layer.
With regard to claim 16, the optical arrangement taught by Alspach et al in light of Carney et al and Singer et al, as described in claim 1 above, also implicitly teaches the method of reducing reflections in a camera, (please see paragraph [0034] of Alspach et al) implemented by the optical arrangement, (please see Figures 1 and 5). Alspach et al teaches the optical arrangement is comprised of an image sensor (130), comprising a light-sensitive surface and an optical filter layer (123, Figure 5), serves as the filter having a first curved surface that faces the light sensitive surface of the image sensor (130) and a second surface that is opposite to the first curved surface. The method comprises receiving light on the light sensitive surface of the image sensor (130), reflecting the light towards the filter (123) that is arranged at a first distance from the light sensitive surface along an optical axis of the optical arrangement. In light of curved waveguide taught by the Carney et al in combination with the teachings of Singer et al, (details stated above) the reflecting the light between the first curved surface and the second surface inside the filter to reduce reflection between the filter and the light-sensitive surface.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to include the phrase “a second curved surface opposite to the first curved surface, a curvature of the second curved surface being concave”.
Alspach et al in light of Singer et al teaches that the teaches that the filter (123, Figures 1 and 5 of Alspach et al and Figure 12A of Singer et al) comprises a first curved surface and a second curved surface that is opposite to the first curved surface wherein a curvature of the second curved surface is concave, i.e. curved inward toward the sensor, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 2, Alspach et al teaches that the image sensor comprises a cover (135, Figure 6) having cover surface.
With regard to claim 3, Alspach et al does not teach explicitly that the first distance is ranged from 0.1 mm up to 10 mm, however such modification is considered to be obvious matters of design choice for the benefit of providing a suitable size of the camera.
With regard to claim 5, Alspach et al in light of Carney et al and Signer et al teaches that a curvature of the first curved surface matches a curvature of the second surface, (please see 123, Figure 5 of Alspach et al, 120, Figure 1C of Carney et al and 42, Figure 12A of Singer et al).
With regard to claim 6, these references do not teach explicitly that the radius of the curvature of at least one of the first curved surface, the second curved surface lies in the range from 1 millimeters to 300 millimeters. But Carney et al does teach that the curvature of the curved waveguide is designed to allow glare to be eliminated, (please see column 3, lines 1-5). It is therefore within general level skills in the art to modify and design the radius of curvature of the surfaces to achieve the stray reflection light elimination.
With regard to claim 7, these references do not teach explicitly that the optical filter is a bandpass filter. The specification of instant application does not teach how could the passband filtering have anything to do with reducing the reflection light from the sensor, such feature can only be examined as an arbitrary feature of the filter that does not relate to the reduction of the reflection. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the optical filter also has certain wavelength filtering property such as infrared filter this is provided in a typical camera.
With regard to claim 8, Alspach et al teaches that the camera may comprise a time-of-flight sensor, which makes the camera either a direct or indirect time-of-flight camera (please see paragraph [0028]).
With regard to claim 9, Carney et al teaches that the curve waveguide serves as the optical filter may comprise glass, (please see column 3, lines 6-8).
With regard to claim 10, these references do not teach explicitly that the optical filter is manufactured using hot forming, however this limitation is considered as product-by-process that is not given patentability for it does not differentiate final product from prior art, (please see MPWP 2173.05(p)).
With regard to claim 11, Alspach et al does not teach explicitly that the cover of the sensor is made of glass. However, such modification is considered to be obvious matters of design choice one skilled in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alspach et al, Carney et al and Singer et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Webster et al (US 2019/0132537 A1).
The optical arrangement for reducing reflection in a camera taught by Alspach et al in combination with the teachings of Carney et al and Singer et al as described in claim 1 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, Alspach et al teaches a time-of-flight camera, (please see paragraph [0028]) comprises the optical arrangement, (please see Figures 1, 3 and 5). This reference does not teach explicitly that camera comprises light source and a lens as claimed. Webster in the same field of endeavor teaches a time of flight camera that is comprised of an optical element comprises the sensor (120, Figure 1), a lens (116) arranged in front of the optical arrangement wherein an optical axis of the optical arrangement coincide with an optical axis of the lens and a light source (102) that is arranged to emit light when in use wherein when in use the light source emits light that the light pass through the les and is incident at the optical arrangement, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Webster to explicitly make the camera comprises a lens and a light source.
With regard to claim 13, Alspach et al in light of Webster would either implicitly or obviously modified by one skilled in the art to design the lens based on a curvature of the filter layer.
With regard to claim 14, these references do not teach explicitly that the operation range of the image sensor in the optical arrangement is from 0.1 meter to 200 meters. However, for a typical camera, the operation range should be at least partially within the claimed range.
With regard claim 15, Alspach et al teaches that the camera may comprise a time-of-flight sensor, which makes the camera either a direct or indirect time-of-flight camera (please see paragraph [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and rejected for the reasons stated above.
In response to applicant’s arguments which state that the cited Alspach reference does not teach that the second curved surface, facing away from a light sensitive surface, that has a concave curvature, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated below. Firstly, the instant specification fails to teach that a concave curvature is defined for curved surface facing away from light sensitive surface. In fact, it is known in the art that a concave surface or curvature is defined as “a surface curved inward”. A concave curved surface is not facing away from a light sensitive surface. Secondly, the cited Alspach reference teaches that the second curved surface is curved toward the light sensitive surface which satisfies the definition of the concave surface or curvature. Thirdly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “second curved surface, facing away from a light sensitive surface, that has a concave curvature”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
