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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/520632, filed on 11/28/2023.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US PGPub2019/0230262 A1) in view of Li et al (US PGPub 20240219809 A1) and Nishitsuji et al (US PGPub 2022/0139986 A1).
With regard to claims 1 and 11: Wang discloses in the 8th embodiment (shown in Figures 99-120) a imaging lens assembly module 8-1 which comprises an imaging lens assembly having an optical axis (8-340, optical axis 8-O); and a variable aperture module 8-400 disposed on an object side of the imaging lens assembly (shown assembled in Figure 99, see Figure 100 showing exploded view with 8-400 on the object side of the lens assembly 8-340), the optical axis passing through a center of the variable aperture module (see ¶0612). The variable aperture module of Wang is disclosed as having a light blocking sheet set comprising at least two light blocking sheets (element 8-432, eight of which are shown by Wang), arranged to be mutually stacked along a circumferential direction surrounding the optical axis to form a variable aperture opening 8-434 (stacking is best visible in Figure 108); a fixed element (combination of 8-420 and 8-450) which is indirectly connected to the light blocking sheet set (the fixed element is connected to the light blocking sheet set indirectly by forming an accommodation space in which the sheet set is held, and indirectly by the connection of the blades to 8-410 using connecting elements 8-432D, 8-410 being connected to 8-420 and 8-450). The fixed element has a sidewall structure (best seen in Figure 101, the sidewall is primarily defined by the inner portion of 8-420); and a movable element 8-440 which is connected to the light blocking sheet set (via connecting pins 8-432B). The sidewall structure of the fixed element is configured to extend from an image side to the object side of the imaging lens assembly (the sidewalls of element 8-420 extend vertically in Figure 101, which is taken along line 8-A in Figure 99, see ¶0602), and wherein the movable element drives the light blocking sheet set to move relative to the fixed element so that an aperture size of the variable aperture opening is variable (see ¶0622, ¶0624, ¶0626 discussing the reaction of the aperture assembly to movement of the movable portion).
Wang does not disclose the inclusion of an annular “light blocking portion” which extends along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis to surround the optical axis and forms a fixed aperture opening (as the term would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, this limitation requires that the annular light blocking portion be positioned/sized such that it blocks light which would otherwise pass through the imaging lens assembly and form an image), with the diameter of the fixed aperture being bigger than a diameter of a minimum aperture of the imaging lens assembly. As no annular light blocking portion is disclosed by Wang, Wang does not disclose or teach that such an annular light blocking portion should be configured to have a shape in which the portion gradually shrinks and interests as it approaches the optical axis so as to present a pencil tip-shaped profile or that the light blocking portion gradually extends from the fixed aperture opening in a direction away from the optical axis and close toward the imaging lens assembly (that is, the side of the portion facing the imaging lens assembly slopes away from the optical axis) or that it extends in a direction away from the minimum aperture of the imaging lens assembly.
Li teaches the inclusion of a fixed aperture member 150 associated with an aperture mechanism of similar overall design as that of Wang (stacked blades 15 driven by relative rotation of two annular members, one fixed 13 and one moving 14, with the assembly positioned on the object side of a lens assembly as shown in Figure 4). Li teaches that such a member is configured with an inner opening 1501 which is smaller than the through hole of the fixed portion 13. From the description of the member as a “light shielding plate”, see ¶0118, it is apparent that the member acts to prevent light (presumably undesirable light) from passing through the portions of the member which are not the opening.
Li does not discuss the profile of the inner (fixed aperture opening) edge of the fixed aperture member and thus does not teach the claimed pencil tip shape or extension profiles.
Nishitsuji teaches that aperture defining members within camera optical systems (a category of element which the light shielding plate of Li falls within) should be formed to have an acute (pencil-tip) shaped profile which approaches the point of the tip by gradually converging from both sides of the aperture member. This arrangement is taught as reducing the reflection of harmful light which is not desired to be imaged, see ¶0071-0072 and Figure 7).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to include a fixed aperture member in the arrangement of Wang in order to block unwanted light (as taught by Li), and to have configured that fixed aperture member to have a pencil-tip shaped profile with gradually extending members on both the object and image side of the aperture in order to reduce reflection of undesirable light (as taught by Nishitsuji).
With regard to claims 4 and 14: Wang discloses the inclusion of a frame element 8-410 which is coupled to the fixed element to become part of the fixed element assembly. In the combination with Li the annular light blocking portion is attached to the fixed element (as Li teaches in ¶0118 positioning the member on the fixed portion of the aperture driving mechanism).
With regard to claims 5 and 15: Wang discloses that the variable aperture module is coupled with the imaging lens assembly (see ¶0633 indicating that the aperture assembly can be coupled to 8-340 to aid in miniaturization).
With regard to claims 6 and 16: Wang does not specifically indicate the spacing between the light blocking sheet set and a minimum aperture of the imaging lens assembly. Wang however does repeatedly emphasize the importance of miniaturizing the assembly (see ¶0612, 0633, and 0637), and correspondingly a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the claimed range of distances obvious as a matter of reducing the distance between optical elements to the maximum extent practicable to reduce the overall dimension of the completed assembly while still retaining some bare minimum clearance of between the elements (preventing, for example, the blades of the aperture from impacting and potentially scratching the first lens element of the optical assembly).
With regard to claims 8 and 18: Wang does not disclose the material from which the light blocking sheet set is made, and thus does not disclose that the elements are formed of a plastic material, but Wang does indicate that elements of the aperture assembly may be formed of plastic in order to prevent the possibility of short circuits and interference between the elements and surrounding electronics (see ¶0605).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have applied the teaching of Wang ¶0605 to the sheet set and to have formed the light blocking sheet set out of a plastic material to prevent the sheet set from potentially interfering with other electronic elements around the camera module.
With regard to claims 9-10 and 19-20: Wang discloses that the imaging lens assembly can be used as part of a camera module used within an electronic device (see ¶0816).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Li, and Nishitsuji in further view of Nakada (US Patent 11,953,820 B2).
With regard to claims 2 and 12: Wang does not disclose configuring a shortest distance between the light blocking sheet and the fixed aperture opening along a direction parallel to the optical axis d1 within the claimed range.
Nakada indicates that the distance between a set of blades which define a variable aperture and a fixed aperture element defining the maximum aperture of the unit should be minimized because variation in the position can cause reduced optical performance (see column 12 lines 14-37). Nakada includes a structure which has a variation in distance between the blades and the element behind the blades in order to selectively support the blades when they attempt to warp, see column 13 lines 1-15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the claimed range of distance d1 between the blades and the fixed aperture opening obvious as Nakada indicates that a close arrangement would support the blades and reduce the likelihood of the blades warping (which would reduce the optical performance of the assembly due to variation in the position of the aperture opening).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While positioning fixed aperture opening defining members on a fixed member of an aperture driving system which meets the claimed configuration (or is similar enough to the claimed configuration to be combinable with an aperture having the other features of the claimed invention) is known in the art, the prior art does not teach positioning such a member on the movable element of an aperture system as claimed win claims 3 and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights