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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-18 & 31-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1-16 have been canceled. Accordingly, Claims 17-36 are pending.
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 17-18 & 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen (US 6556791 B1, hereinafter, "Oinen") in view of Yoon & Jeong (US 20210286149 A1, hereinafter, "Yoon") and Kwon et al (US 20220146912 A1, hereinafter, "Kwon").
Regarding Claim 17, Oinen teaches An optomechanical system, the optomechanical system comprising: a first lens arrangement defining a first optical axis (Oinen, Fig. 1, 102); a reflecting element configured to redirect light between the first lens arrangement and the image sensor, the reflecting element including at least three reflective surfaces, the first lens arrangement and the image sensor being arranged at a first side of the reflecting element (Oinen, [0015], ln. 5-8, "The optical system further includes an m.sup.th optical element located along the optical axis in the visual imaging channel for sizing, inverting and aiming an intermediate real image to form the virtual image in the viewfinder eyepiece. The m.sup.th optical element preferably is a three reflection prism."). Oinen does not teach an image sensor intersecting a second optical axis, the second optical axis extending in parallel to the first optical axis; and a first actuator configured to generate at least partial displacement of the first lens arrangement along the first optical axis or displacement of the reflecting element along a displacement axis parallel to the first optical axis. However, Yoon teaches an image sensor intersecting a second optical axis, the second optical axis extending in parallel to the first optical axis (Yoon, Fig. 2, [0051], ln. 5-6, "…the image sensor 400 may be disposed on one side of the housing 100 to have an optical axis C3 parallel to the optical axis C1 of the lens module 200."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoon with those of Oinen because it is widely known in the art to dispose an image sensor such that has an optical axis parallel to a first optical axis. Kwon teaches a first actuator configured to generate at least partial displacement of the first lens arrangement along the first optical axis or displacement of the reflecting element along a displacement axis parallel to the first optical axis (Kwon, Figs. 8 & 10, [0103], ln. 1-2, "FIG. 10 illustrates a state in which the focal length is additionally adjusted in FIG. 8. As the first reflective member 1310 moves in the Y direction, the moving distance of the rays may change."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kwon with those of Oinen and Yoon because it is widely known in the art to move a reflective member on an axis parallel to the optical axis.
Regarding Claim 18, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of Claim 17 as noted above. Oinen teaches the light entering an interior of the reflecting element via the first lens arrangement, the light being reflected sequentially within the interior of the reflecting element by several reflective surfaces of the at least three reflective surfaces, and the light exiting the reflecting element in a direction towards the image sensor (Oinen, [0015], ln. 5-8, "The optical system further includes an m.sup.th optical element located along the optical axis in the visual imaging channel for sizing, inverting and aiming an intermediate real image to form the virtual image in the viewfinder eyepiece. The m.sup.th optical element preferably is a three reflection prism.").
Regarding Claim 31, Oinen teaches An electronic apparatus comprising an optomechanical system, wherein the optomechanical system comprising a first lens arrangement defining a first optical axis (Oinen, Fig. 1, 102); a reflecting element configured to redirect light between the first lens arrangement and the image sensor, the reflecting element including at least three reflective surfaces, the first lens arrangement and the image sensor being arranged at a first side of the reflecting element (Oinen, [0015], ln. 5-8, "The optical system further includes an m.sup.th optical element located along the optical axis in the visual imaging channel for sizing, inverting and aiming an intermediate real image to form the virtual image in the viewfinder eyepiece. The m.sup.th optical element preferably is a three reflection prism."). Oinen does not teach an image sensor intersecting a second optical axis, the second optical axis extending in parallel to the first optical axis; and a first actuator configured to generate at least partial displacement of the first lens arrangement along the first optical axis or displacement of the reflecting element along a displacement axis parallel to the first optical axis. However, Yoon teaches an image sensor intersecting a second optical axis, the second optical axis extending in parallel to the first optical axis (Yoon, Fig. 2, [0051], ln. 5-6, "…the image sensor 400 may be disposed on one side of the housing 100 to have an optical axis C3 parallel to the optical axis C1 of the lens module 200."). Kwon teaches a first actuator configured to generate at least partial displacement of the first lens arrangement along the first optical axis or displacement of the reflecting element along a displacement axis parallel to the first optical axis (Kwon, Figs. 8 & 10, [0103], ln. 1-2, "FIG. 10 illustrates a state in which the focal length is additionally adjusted in FIG. 8. As the first reflective member 1310 moves in the Y direction, the moving distance of the rays may change.").
Regarding Claim 32, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 31 as noted above. Oinen teaches the light entering an interior of the reflecting element via the first lens arrangement, the light being reflected sequentially within the interior of the reflecting element by several reflective surfaces of the at least three reflective surfaces, and the light exiting the reflecting element in a direction towards the image sensor (Oinen, [0015], ln. 5-8, "The optical system further includes an m.sup.th optical element located along the optical axis in the visual imaging channel for sizing, inverting and aiming an intermediate real image to form the virtual image in the viewfinder eyepiece. The m.sup.th optical element preferably is a three reflection prism.").
Claims 19 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Eromaki (CN 112236991 B, hereinafter, "Eromaki").
Regarding Claim 19, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 31 as noted above. Eromaki teaches the first actuator is arranged coplanarly with at least one of the first lens arrangement, the reflecting element, or the image sensor within a first plane (Eromaki, pg. 2, para. 6, ln. 5-6, "…the first image sensor and the first optical mechanical unit are in a plane position."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Eromaki with those of Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon because it is widely known in the art to arrange a first image sensor and an actuator in a planar position.
Regarding Claim 33, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 31 as noted above. Eromaki teaches the first actuator is arranged coplanarly with at least one of the first lens arrangement, the reflecting element, or the image sensor within a first plane (Eromaki, pg. 2, para. 6, ln. 5-6, "…the first image sensor and the first optical mechanical unit are in a plane position.").
Claims 20 & 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang et al (WO 2022037591 A1, hereinafter, "Wang").
Regarding Claim 20, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 31 as noted above. Wang teaches wherein the first actuator is arranged at a second side of the reflecting element, the second side being opposite the first side of the reflecting element, and wherein the first actuator is configured to generate movement of the reflecting element along the displacement axis (Wang, pg. 19, para. 6, ln. 1-2, "Wherein, the focal length adjusting assembly includes: a first reflective element actuator connected with the reflective element, and the first reflective element actuator is connected with the reflective element."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Wang with those of Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon because it is widely known in the art to connect a reflective element actuator with a reflective element.
Regarding Claim 34, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 31 as noted above. Wang teaches the first actuator is arranged at a second side of the reflecting element, the second side being opposite the first side of the reflecting element, and wherein the first actuator is configured to generate movement of the reflecting element along the displacement axis (Wang, pg. 19, para. 6, ln. 1-2, "Wherein, the focal length adjusting assembly includes: a first reflective element actuator connected with the reflective element, and the first reflective element actuator is connected with the reflective element.").
Claims 22 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen in view of Yoon, Kwon, Wang, and Hatakeyama et al (US 20220353428 A1, hereinafter, "Hatakeyama").
Regarding Claim 22, Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang teach the limitations of dependent Claim 20 as noted above. Hatakeyama teaches the first actuator comprises a voice coil motor, a stepper motor, a piezoelectric motor, or a shape memory alloy (Hatakeyama, Fig. 1, [0032], ln. 3-4, "An image stabilizing control unit 108 that has received an image stabilizing command from the lens microcomputer 111 drives an image stabilizing actuator including a voice coil motor or the like…" In the broadest reasonable interpretation, "or the like" encapsulates all of the motor types listed, as it is well known in the art to use them interchangeably.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Hatakeyama with those of Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang because it is widely known in the art to use a voice coil motor or the like to drive an image stabilizing actuator.
Regarding Claim 36, Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang teach the limitations of dependent Claim 20 as noted above. Hatakeyama teaches the first actuator comprises a voice coil motor, a stepper motor, a piezoelectric motor, or a shape memory alloy (Hatakeyama, Fig. 1, [0032], ln. 3-4, "An image stabilizing control unit 108 that has received an image stabilizing command from the lens microcomputer 111 drives an image stabilizing actuator including a voice coil motor or the like…" In the broadest reasonable interpretation, "or the like" encapsulates all of the motor types listed, as it is well known in the art to use them interchangeably.).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen in view of Yoon, Kwon, Wang, and Li & Zhu (CN 217385943 U, hereinafter, "Li").
Regarding Claim 23, Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang teach the limitations of dependent Claim 20 as noted above. Li teaches a tunable lens arranged between the first lens arrangement and the reflecting element, the first actuator being arranged coplanarly with the reflecting element and being configured to actuate the tunable lens at least partially along the first optical axis, the tunable lens being configured to engage the first lens arrangement such that actuation of the tunable lens generates movement of at least one lens within the first lens arrangement along the first optical axis (Li, Fig. 3, pg. 6, para. 5 [all lines] & para. 7, ln. 1, "The lens module 1200 may include a plurality of lenses, and the propagation direction of the light changed by the reflection module 1100 passes through the lenses. The lens module 1200 may include a plurality of lens brackets 1210, 1220, and 1230. The example shows that a plurality of lens bracket is illustrated as three lens bracket, and can be more than one lens bracket. In the example, a plurality of lenses can be respectively contained in the lens barrel, and the lens barrel can be fixedly coupled to the lens bracket 1210, 1220, and 1230…In this example, all three lens bracket 1210. 1220 and 1230 can move in the optical axis direction…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Li with those of Oinen, Yoon, Kwon, and Wang because it is widely known in the art to arrange multiple movable lenses on a plane with a reflection module.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinen in view of Yoon, Kwon, and Li.
Regarding Claim 24, Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon teach the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Li teaches a second lens arrangement, the second lens arrangement defining the second optical axis and being arranged between the reflecting element and the image sensor (Li, Fig. 3, pg. 6, para. 5 [all lines] & para. 7, ln. 1, "The lens module 1200 may include a plurality of lenses, and the propagation direction of the light changed by the reflection module 1100 passes through the lenses. The lens module 1200 may include a plurality of lens brackets 1210, 1220, and 1230. The example shows that a plurality of lens bracket is illustrated as three lens bracket, and can be more than one lens bracket. In the example, a plurality of lenses can be respectively contained in the lens barrel, and the lens barrel can be fixedly coupled to the lens bracket 1210, 1220, and 1230…In this example, all three lens bracket 1210. 1220 and 1230 can move in the optical axis direction…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Li with those of Oinen, Yoon, and Kwon because it is widely known in the art to use a plurality of lenses to create a second optical axis with lenses located between the reflection module and the image sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 25-30, & 35 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.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious a printed circuit board arranged adjacent to a second side of the reflecting element, the printed circuit board comprising the first actuator, the second side being opposite the first side of the reflecting element.
Regarding Claim 25, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious a second actuator arranged adjacent to at least one of the first lens arrangement or the image sensor, and wherein the second actuator is configured to generate at least one of movement of the first lens arrangement or movement of the image sensor in directions perpendicular to the first optical axis and the second optical axis.
Regarding Claim 26, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 27, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 28, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 29, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 30, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 29 which is dependent on Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 35, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious a printed circuit board arranged adjacent to a second side of the reflecting element, the printed circuit board comprising the first actuator, the second side being opposite the first side of the reflecting element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
