Patent Application 18814523 - COMPACT FOLDED LENSES WITH LARGE APERTURES - Rejection
Patent Application 18814523 - COMPACT FOLDED LENSES WITH LARGE APERTURES
Title: COMPACT FOLDED LENSES WITH LARGE APERTURES
Application Information
- Invention Title: COMPACT FOLDED LENSES WITH LARGE APERTURES
- Application Number: 18814523
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2024-08-25T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2024-08-25T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 97479
- Art Unit: 2872
- Tech Center: 2800
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180059365 A1) in view of Aschwanden (US 20160202455 A1).
Re Claim 1, Bone discloses, on Fig. 6, a folded camera, comprising: a first lens element Li (first lens element 3) with a first optical axis (first axis I1); a light folding element (reflector 8); a plurality of additional lens elements L2-LN (lenses 5-6) with a common second optical axis (axis I2); and an image sensor (image plane 100 would inherently include an image sensing apparatus), wherein the light folding element is configured to fold light from the first optical axis to the second optical axis (reflector 8 folds light from the first axis I1 to the second axis I2) [Par 61], wherein L1 has a length A1 (A1 is not disclosed, but for scale G23/EPD≤1.2 [Par 10], Where G23= 5.2 mm, so EPD≥4.4) wherein OH marks an optical height (Depth= 6.043 mm [Par 69]), defined as a distance from a lowest of a bottom-most part of any of the lens elements L2...LN and the light folding element to a top-most part of Li.
But Bone does not explicitly disclose, wherein OH/A1< 1.4, and wherein the light folding element has a light entering surface and a light exiting surface, and wherein a diameter of the light exiting surface is smaller than a diameter of the light entering surface, and wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the length of the first lens such that the claimed expression of OH/A1 is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Bone [Par 10].
But Bone does not explicitly disclose, wherein the light folding element has a light entering surface and a light exiting surface, and wherein a diameter of the light exiting surface is smaller than a diameter of the light entering surface, and wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Aschswanden teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in lens systems for the light folding element to have a light entering surface (surface 80a) and a light exiting surface (surface 80b), and wherein a diameter of the light exiting surface is smaller than a diameter of the light entering surface (the diameter of 80a is greater than 80b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bone with Aschwanden in order to provide for facilitating the use of a fully illuminated rectangular sensor in the imaging plane 200 while keeping its size smaller, as taught by Aschwanden [Par 97].
But Aschwanden does not explicitly teach, wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, Aschwanden further teaches wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis (“This folding prism 80 has a rectangular footprint in the y-z-plane”, thus the length of prism 80 along the y-axis can be greater than the length along the Z-axis) [Par 97], for facilitating the use of a fully illuminated rectangular sensor [Par 97].
Optimizing the shape of a light folding element is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Aschwanden teaches the height H and width W of the light folding element as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the height and width and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the height and width of the light folding element since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 3, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 1, and Aschwanden further discloses, on Fig. 3, wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis (length of surface 80b) and a length A measured along the second optical axis (length of surface 80a), and wherein H <A (surface 80b is longer than surface 80 because the prism is a cut rectangle) [Par 97].
Re Claim 4, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 1, and Aschwanden further discloses, Fig. 3, wherein the light folding element is a prism (folding prism 80).
Re Claim 5, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 1, and Bone further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein L1 (lens 3) has an aperture cut ( the edges of Lens 3 that are orthogonal to the second optical axis are disposed at aperture 2) along the second optical axis ( the edges of lens 3, See annotated Fig. 6 below, are disposed along the second optical axis I2).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Bone Figure 6
Re Claim 6, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 1, and Bone further discloses, on Fig. 6, wherein L1 has positive refractive power (lens 3 is positive).
Re Claim 7, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 4, and Aschwanden further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the prism has a flat surface (surface 80a) parallel to the light entering surface (area of 80a where light rays enter) and intersecting the light exiting surface (surface 80b).
Re claim 8, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folded camera of claim 7, and Bone further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein L1 (lens 3) has an aperture cut ( the edges of Lens 3 that are orthogonal to the second optical axis are disposed at aperture 2) along the second optical axis ( the edges of lens 3, See annotated Fig. 6 above, are disposed along the second optical axis I2).
Re claim 9, Bone discloses, Bone discloses, on Fig. 6, a folded camera, comprising: a first lens element Li (first lens element 3) with a first optical axis (first axis I1); a light folding element (reflector 8); a plurality of additional lens elements L2-LN (lenses 5-6) with a common second optical axis (axis I2); and an image sensor (image plane 100 would inherently include an image sensing apparatus), wherein the light folding element is configured to fold light from the first optical axis to the second optical axis (reflector 8 folds light from the first axis I1 to the second axis I2) [Par 61], wherein L1 has a width
W
1
(Fig. 8: 0.973 mm), wherein OH marks an optical height (Depth= 6.043 mm [Par 69]), defined as a distance from a lowest of a bottom-most part of any of the lens elements L2...LN and the light folding element to a top-most part of Li.
But Bone does not explicitly disclose, wherein OH/
W
1
< 1.1, and the light folding element has a light entering surface and a light exiting surface, and wherein a diameter of the light exiting surface is smaller than a diameter of the light entering surface, wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Aschswanden teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in lens systems for the light folding element to have a light entering surface (surface 80a) and a light exiting surface (surface 80b), and wherein a diameter of the light exiting surface is smaller than a diameter of the light entering surface (the diameter of 80a is greater than 80b)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bone with Aschwanden in order to provide for facilitating the use of a fully illuminated rectangular sensor in the imaging plane 200 while keeping its size smaller, as taught by Aschwanden [Par 97].
But Bone in view of Aschwnaden does not explicitly disclose, wherein OH/
W
1
< 1.1, wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the width of the first lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Aschwanden [Par 50].
But Aschwanden does not explicitly teach, wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis, and wherein H<W.
However, Aschwanden further teaches wherein the light folding element has a height H measured along the first optical axis and a width W measured along an axis perpendicular to both the first optical axis and the second optical axis (“This folding prism 80 has a rectangular footprint in the y-z-plane”, thus the length of prism 80 along the y-axis can be greater than the length along the Z-axis) [Par 97], for facilitating the use of a fully illuminated rectangular sensor [Par 97].
Optimizing the shape of a light folding element is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Aschwanden teaches the height H and width W of the light folding element as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the height and width and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the height and width of the light folding element since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re claim 10, Bone in view of Aschwanden discloses, the folder camera of Claim 1.
But Bone in view of Aschwanden does not disclose, wherein
O
H
A
1
<
1.1
.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The lens depth disclosed by Bone, “The lens depth, Depth, refers to a distance in a direction of the first optical axis I1 from a first position P1 of the object-side surface 31 of the first lens element 3 intersecting the first optical axis I1 to a second position P2 of the optical imaging lens 10 farthest away from the first position P1 in the direction of the first optical axis II.” [Par 69], is analogous with the definition for optical height defined in Claim 1 of the instant application; “OH marks an optical height defined as a distance from a lowest of a bottom-most part of any of the lens elements L2...LN and the light folding element to a top-most part of Li.” Though Bone does not explicitly teach wherein the height of lens 3 in Fig. 6 (analogous to the instant application’s length
A
1
) satisfies the claimed expression. However, it can be seen on Fig. 6 that the ratio is between
2
>
O
H
A
1
>
1
. Hence, the general conditions of the limitation are taught.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the length of the first lens or the optical OH, such that the claimed expression is satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Bone [Par 10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (US 20060056048 A1) teaches an optical system with a light folding element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2800
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
✓
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
✓
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
✓
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide
