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 .
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:Claim 1, “an MTF value” should read “an MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) value”. Claim 19, “mould processing” should read “mold processing”.
Appropriate correction is 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 13-19, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI et al. (US PUB 2016/0116735; herein after “Hayashi”) in view of PARK et al. (US PUB 2024/0231048; herein after “Park”).
Hayashi and Park disclose an image display device with a camera module is mounted on a vehicle (e.g., an automobile). Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches an optical system (an image display device 1000, FIG. 1), applied to a vehicle (para. [0047]-[0048]), comprising: a lens group (elements 6-9, FIG. 1), comprising a plurality of lenses disposed sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (a concave mirror 7, a curved screen 8, and a concave mirror 9, para. [0049], as shown at least in FIGS. 1, 4 and 6); and a compensating lens (e.g., a microlens array used as the curved screen 8, para. [0107]), at least one of an object-side surface or an image-side surface of the compensating lens being a free-form surface (i.e., an optical component such as a freeform surface lens or the concave mirror 7 in the optical path between the two-dimensional deflector 6 and the curved screen 8, para. [0148], FIG. 11); wherein, the free-form surface of the compensating lens (8) is adapted to be disposed on an inner side of a windshield (10) of the vehicle (as shown in FIG. 1), such that the optical system and the windshield form a corrected optical system (i.e., the curved screen 8 to correct the scan line is eliminated or, put another way, the need of flattening a scan surface is eliminated, para. [0148], also see para. [0096] to [0105] and [0138], FIG. 5), and an MTF value of the corrected optical system is within a preset range (In FIG. 3, (B) illustrates MTF (modulation transfer function)-defocus characteristics, para. [0088], also see para. [0152] to [0157]).
Hayashi teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of a lens group, comprising a plurality of lenses disposed sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side and an MTF value of the corrected optical system is within a preset range.
However, in a related field of endeavor Park teaches as shown in FIGS. 1 to 5, a camera module 1000 according to an embodiment of the invention includes a lens barrel 500, a lens unit 100 having a plurality of lenses 111, 113, 115, see para. [0042].
The camera module 1000 according to an embodiment of the invention may be applied to an infrared camera or a driver monitoring camera. In addition, the angle of view of the camera module 1000 may be provided in a range of 50 degrees or more, for example, in the range of 50 degrees to 70 degrees. Here, when the lens unit 100 mixes and stacks plastic lenses and at least one glass lens, thermal strain due to the plastic lenses may be minimized. For example, since the first and second contact surfaces S21 and S31 of the second and third lenses 113 and 115 have the lengths D2 and T2 that may be compensated according to the thermal strains F2 and F3, the MTF change rate of the diffraction optical performance at a high temperature (e.g., 80 degrees to 105 degrees) compared to the room temperature (e.g., 20 degrees to 30 degrees) may be 10% or less. The high temperature may include a temperature inside the vehicle, see para. [0085].
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 device of Hayashi such that the first and second contact surfaces of the second and third lenses (compensating lenses) have the lengths that may be compensated according to the thermal strains, and the MTF change rate (preset range) of the diffraction optical performance as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module by providing a camera module having at least one lens capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi according to claim 1 further teaches the free-form surface is an upper-lower asymmetric free-form surface (i.e., the curved screen 8 is curved with curvatures varying between the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction, a spherical shape, in which the curved screen 8 is curved with a uniform curvature, or a freeform surface shape, para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi according to claim 1 further teaches the free-form surface is an upper-lower asymmetric and left-right asymmetric free-form surface (i.e., the curved screen 8 is curved with curvatures varying between the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction, a spherical shape, in which the curved screen 8 is curved with a uniform curvature, or a freeform surface shape, para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi fails to teach a maximum thickness d of the compensating lens in a direction parallel to the optical axis, and a length TTL in a direction of the optical axis from a first lens of the lens group to an image plane of the optical system, satisfy: d/TTL≤⅓.
However, Park teaches e.g., the thickness of the third lens 115 is 0.591 and TTL is 11mm, thus d/TTL = 0.591/11 = 0.034, see Table 1, [0078] and para. [0089].
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 device of Hayashi such that d/TTL = 0.591/11 = 0.034 as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module and capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi fails to teach the plurality of lenses comprise an optical filter and a protective glass.
However, Park teaches lens unit 100 having a plurality of lenses 111, 113, 115, spacing members 121, 123, 124, 125, and a main board 190 and an image sensor 192. The camera module 1000 may include an optical cover glass 194 and an optical filter 196, para [0042], FIG. 1-5.
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 device of Hayashi such that a plurality of lenses include an optical cover glass (a protective glass) and an optical filter as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module and capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi fails to teach the compensating lens is disposed between the optical filter and the protective glass.
However, Park teaches the third lens 115 is disposed between the second lens 113 and the optical filter 196 and may have the third flange portion 115A on the outside, para [0053], FIG. 1-5.
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 device of Hayashi such that the third lens (the compensating lens) is disposed between the second lens (the protective glass) and the optical filter as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module and capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi according to claim 13 further teaches the compensating lens is disposed on an object-side surface or an image-side surface of the optical filter, or is disposed on an object-side surface or an image-side surface of the protective glass.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi according to claim 15 further teaches the free-form surface of the compensating lens (8) is asymmetrically convex relative to the optical axis (as shown in FIG. 5, the curved screen 8 having a convex freeform surface, para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi according to claim 16 further teaches the free-form surface of the compensating lens (8) is convex in a half-droplet shape (as shown in FIG. 10(A), the curved screen 8 having a convex microlens structure 801 (a half-droplet shape), para. [0107]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi according to claim 1 further teaches the compensating lens (curved screen 8) is disposed on an object side or an image side of any one of the lenses in the lens group (as shown at least in FIGS. 1and 6).
Regarding claim 19, Hayashi fails to teach the compensating lens is prepared through at least one of: nanoimprinting, mould processing, or lamination.
However, Park teaches the second lens 113 and the third lens 115 may be injection molded from a plastic material, para. [0053].
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 device of Hayashi such that the third lens may be injection molded from a plastic material as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module and capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 21, Hayashi fails to teach the optical system satisfies at least one of:
d/TTL≤0.068, d/TTL≤0.1, 10≥R(+D)/R(-D)≥0.6, 5≥R(+D)/R(-D)≥1.1, 1≤R(+D)/R(-D)≤3.69, 0.5≤Rx/Ry≤15, 1≤Rx/Ry≤9.26, D/T≤3,or 0.86≤D/T≤1.85
However, Park teaches e.g., thickness of the third lens 115 is 0.591 and TTL is 11mm, this d/TTL = 0.591/11 = 0.034, see Table 1, [0078] and para. [0089].
wherein, a direction parallel to the optical axis is defined as a Z-axis direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis and lying in a meridian plane is defined as a Y-axis direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis and lying in a sagittal plane is defined as an X-axis direction, in a YZ plane, the free-form surface of the compensating lens comprises a first area located above the optical axis and a second area located below the optical axis, R(+D) is an approximate radius of curvature of the first area located above the optical axis of the free-form surface, R(−D) is an approximate radius of curvature of the second area located below the optical axis of the free-form surface, Rx is an approximate radius of curvature in the X-axis direction of the free-form surface in an XZ plane, Ry is an approximate radius of curvature in the Y-axis direction of the free-form surface in the YZ plane, d is a maximum thickness of the compensating lens in a direction parallel to the optical axis, and TTL is a length in a direction of the optical axis from a first lens of the lens group to an image plane of the optical system.
However, Park teaches (e.g., thickness of the third lens 115 is 0.591 and TTL is 11mm, thus d/TTL = 0.591/11 = 0.034, see Table 1, [0078] and para. [0089]).
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 device of Hayashi such that d/TTL = 0.591/11 = 0.034 as taught by Park, for the purpose of improving the reliability of the camera module and capable of mechanically thermal compensation.
Regarding claim 22, Hayashi teaches a vehicle-mounted camera (see FIG. 1, para. [0048]), comprising: an optical system (1000) according to claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1 above); and a photosensitive component circuit and a control component, for converting an optical image formed by the optical system into an electrical signal (para. [0061]-[0062]).
Further, Park teaches The image sensor 192 may be any one of a charge coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS), a CPD, and a CID. When there is a plurality of image sensors 192, one may be a color (RGB) sensor, and the other may be a black and white sensor, para. [0082].
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi teaches a vehicle (a vehicle (e.g., an automobile), para. [0048], FIG. 1), comprising: a windshield (10); and an optical system according to claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1 above), wherein the optical system is disposed on an inner side of the windshield (as shown at least in FIG. 1), such that the optical system and the windshield form a corrected optical system (i.e., the curved screen 8 to correct the scan line is eliminated or, put another way, the need of flattening a scan surface is eliminated, para. [0148]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-12 and 20 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:
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art HAYASHI et al. (US PUB 2016/0116735) or PARK et al. (US PUB 2024/0231048) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the MTF value of the corrected optical system for the optical path at the at least one field-of-view in the portion below the optical axis is greater than or equal to 45% @60 lp/mm.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art HAYASHI et al. (US PUB 2016/0116735) or PARK et al. (US PUB 2024/0231048) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding an MTF value of the corrected optical system for optical path at a target field-of-view is greater than an MTF value of the optical system for optical path at the target field-of-view, wherein, the optical path at the target field-of-view is optical path at at least one field-of-view in a portion below the optical axis; or wherein the MTF value of the corrected optical system for the optical path at the target field-of-view is improved by at least 10%, relative to the MTF value of the optical system for the optical path at the target field-of-view.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art HAYASHI et al. (US PUB 2016/0116735) or PARK et al. (US PUB 2024/0231048) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding a direction parallel to the optical axis is defined as a Z-axis direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis and lying in a meridian plane is defined as a Y-axis direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis and lying in a sagittal plane is defined as an X-axis direction, wherein, in a YZ plane, the free-form surface of the compensating lens satisfy: 0.1 ≤ R(+D)/R(_D) ≤ 10.
Claims 8-12 depend upon allowable claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art HAYASHI et al. (US PUB 2016/0116735) or PARK et al. (US PUB 2024/0231048) does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding a maximal aberration value generated by the windshield of the vehicle is L1, and compensate for an astigmatism generated by the windshield, such that a maximal aberration value on the image plane of the corrected optical system is L1′, wherein, L1′ ≤ 1/2L1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Teraoka et al. (US PUB 20120019905) teaches “a lens unit configured such that one or more lenses are held in a barrel, and also relates to a vehicle-mounted infrared lens unit included, for example, in an infrared camera mounted on a vehicle for night time imaging.”, paragraph 0002.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights