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 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) 1-2, 4, 7-11 and 13-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2001/0040639) in view of Sekimoto et al (US 2017/0235095).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki shows in Figs.1-8 and 14B the following elements of applicant’s claim: an imaging element (1; paragraph 46; Figs.7 and 13A-14B) that has an aspherical curved shape, wherein the imaging element includes: a solid-state imaging element that has a first surface (a front surface of the imaging element 1) corresponding to a light receiving surface, wherein the light receiving surface includes light receiving elements in a two-dimensional lattice pattern, and a protection member (in view of paragraph 45, a resin sheet [i.e. a protective member] is stuck on the semiconductor film 13, on which the image pickup device has been formed) on a side of the light receiving surface with respect to the solid state imaging element; and a curved portion that includes a first curve portion (a curved portion extending to two-third of the length of the element 1 when measuring from the left edge of the element 1) from the light receiving surface of the solid-state imaging element toward a second surface (the back surface of the element 1) of the solid state imaging element, wherein the second surface of the solid state imaging element is opposite to the first surface of the solid state imaging element (Figs.4A-8 and Fig.14B), and a second curved portion (the remaining curved portion [i.e. one-third of the length] of the element 1); and a pedestal that has a recess corresponding to the aspherical curved shape of the imaging element (Figs.6-7, 14B). While Iwasaki discloses that its camera system comprises a lens, it doesn’t specifically mention the use of an actuator for driving a lens in a direction opposite to the solid-state imaging element. However, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Sekimoto et al (paragraph 4) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize the teachings in the device of Iwasaki in view of achieving the desired focus.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation therein is disclosed in paragraph 45 of Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.6-7 and 14B of Iwasaki.
Regarding claims 7-8, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.7 pf Iwasaki (it should be noted that (a curved portion extending to two-third of the length of the element 1 when measuring from the left edge of the element 1 is considered as the recited first curved portion which has on vertex).
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.7 pf Iwasaki.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the provision of a groove in a seat surface of a holder member is well known in the art and such use would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the desire to effectively provide an area for receiving adhesive resin resulting in improving the placement of an imaging element.
Regarding claim 13 and 20, the modified device of Iwasaki differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically mention that the curved portion is formed by applying a pressure to the imaging element with a pushing tool. However, in view of paragraph 72, Iwasaki discloses that the feature of utilizing a jig for forming a curved portion of an imaging element is known in the art. Although there would be a trade-off for choosing one technique over another, the choice between the conflicting consideration of improved reliability versus manufacturing cost would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on design requirements. Therefore, the choice between the two system would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would have been well within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that the feature of using a pushing tool would be functionally equivalent to the feature of using an air blow system for the purpose of applying a pressure to an imaging element to form a curved portion.
Regarding claim 14, Iwasaki shows in Figs.1-8 and 14B the following elements of applicant’s claim: an imaging element (1; paragraph 46; Figs.7 and 13A-14B) that has an aspherical curved shape, wherein the imaging element includes: a solid-state imaging element that has a first surface (a front surface of the imaging element 1) corresponding to a light receiving surface, wherein the light receiving surface includes light receiving elements in a two-dimensional lattice pattern, and a protection member (in view of paragraph 45, a resin sheet [i.e. a protective member] is stuck on the semiconductor film 13, on which the image pickup device has been formed) on a side of the light receiving surface with respect to the solid state imaging element; a curved portion curved from the light receiving surface of the solid-state imaging element toward a surface of the solid state imaging element that is on an opposite side of the light receiving surface (Figs.4A-8 and Fig.14B); a pedestal that has a recess corresponding to the aspherical curved shape of the imaging element (Figs.6-7, 14B); and a lens unit (7A, 7B; Fig.8) that includes at least one lens on the light receiving surface of the imaging element. While Iwasaki discloses (Fig.8) that its camera system comprises a lens group including one or more lenses, it doesn’t specifically mention the use of an actuator for driving a specific lens of the at least one lens in a direction opposite to the solid-state imaging element. However, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Sekimoto et al (paragraph 4) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize the teachings in the device of Iwasaki in view of achieving the desired focus.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation therein is shown in Figs.6-7 and 14B of Iwasaki.
Regarding claims 17, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.7 pf Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 18, as far as the claim is understood, the limitations therein are shown in Fig.7 pf Iwasaki.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2001/0040639) in view of Sekimoto et al (US 2017/0235095), and further in view of Itoi et al (US 2008/0185603).
Regarding claim 3, while the modified device of Iwasaki discloses (paragraph 45) that a resin sheet is formed on a light receiving surface of a semiconductor film, it does not specifically mention the use of a glass substrate. However, such use is well known in the art as disclosed by Itoi et al (Fig.2B) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Itoi et al in the modified device of Iwasaki in view of the desire to provide more sturdy protection for the imaging element.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2001/0040639) in view of of Sekimoto et al (US 2017/0235095), and further in view of Takeda et al (JP 2004-297683).
Regarding claim 12, although the modified device of Iwasaki dose not specifically mention the use of a UV material, the feature of setting one of members to transmit UV rays when bonding members together using a UV curable adhesive is known in the art as disclosed by Takeeda et al (Fig.1; paragraph 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Takeda et al in the modified device of Iwasaki in view of the desire to allow a UV adhesive to be used to securely bond the imaging element and the retaining member.
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The main point of applicant’s argument is that, while Sekimoto discloses the use of a lens driving device for driving an imaging lens in three-axis direction (paragraph 4), it doesn’t explicitly recite the feature of driving a lens in a direction opposite to a solid-state imaging element. However, the examiner disagrees with this argument.
First, it should be noted that Sekimoto clearly discloses the feature of using a lens driving device for driving a lens in three-axis-directions (as even stated by the applicant’s remark section; page 10) and nothing in the Sekimoto reference exclude the possibility of moving a lens in a positive direction or a negative direction of an optical axis of the lens. In fact, it is perfectly valid to assume that a movable lens (1a) of Sekimoto is able to move in a direction opposite to a solid-state imaging element in view of achieving the desired focus. Thus, contrary to the applicant’s argument, Sekimoto discloses the applicant’s broadly recited claim limitations and it should be noted that it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specification, that are anticipated or unpatentable. Furthermore, it should also be noted that examiner’s interpretation is well within their right to use the broadest most reasonable interpretation.
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 KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878