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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as amended in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang (figure 1) discloses a lens assembly as claimed including the lens assembly further comprises an adhering part (40), wherein a second optical wall of the optical filter and the inner wall are arranged to space apart from each other to form an adhesive filling channel, and the adhering part fills the adhesive filling channel and is connected to the adhesive storage groove, the platform part, the inner wall and the optical filter, wherein the lens barrel further comprises a plurality of positioning parts (portions of 10) provided on the inner wall, and the optical filter is positioned by the plurality of positioning parts. The examiner merely relies on Kim (figures 1-2) for the teaching of wherein the optical filter comprises a second outer wall, and wherein the second outer wall is parallel to the optical axis and the inner wall faces the second outer wall wherein a distance between the second outer wall and the inner wall is greater than 50 microns (502, 506, 510; see at least page 3, last paragraph). 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 distance as taught by Kim in order to achieve less polymeric skin layers, a small molded part (e.g. base, barrel, etc.) which make it uniquely suitable for camera module. In addition, Wei (figure 4) teaches wherein the inner wall is arc-shaped, and the plurality of positioning parts are arc-shaped lugs protruding from the inner wall towards the optical axis (21, 24, 233). 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 inner wall as taught by Wei in order to improve the reliability of the lens system. The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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, 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 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 202975438) in view of Kim (CN 106164172); further in view of Wei (US 2020/0049932).
Regarding claim 1, Wang (figure 1) discloses a lens assembly, comprising:
a lens barrel (10);
a lens group (10; see at least paragraph 0012) with an optical axis accommodated in the lens barrel;
a pressure ring (30) arranged on an image side of the lens group and abutting against the lens group; and
an optical filter (20) abutting the pressure ring;
wherein an outer diameter of the optical filter is larger than an outer diameter of the pressure ring, the lens barrel comprises a cylinder with an accommodating space, and the lens group, the pressure ring and the optical filter are accommodated in the accommodating space (figure 1);
wherein the cylinder comprises a boss (portion of 10 being attached to 30) and an inner wall connected to the boss, and the inner wall is arranged at an end of the cylinder close to the image side; and
wherein the pressure ring comprises a first outer wall and an adhesive storage groove (40) connected to the first outer wall and close to the image side, the boss comprises a platform part and a side wall part that are connected to each other, and the side wall part abuts against the first outer wall;
the lens assembly further comprises an adhering part (40), wherein a second optical wall of the optical filter and the inner wall are arranged to space apart from each other to form an adhesive filling channel, and the adhering part fills the adhesive filling channel and is connected to the adhesive storage groove, the platform part, the inner wall and the optical filter,
wherein the lens barrel further comprises a plurality of positioning parts (portions of 10) provided on the inner wall, and the optical filter is positioned by the plurality of positioning parts.
Wang discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Wang is silent regarding wherein the optical filter comprises a second outer wall, and wherein the second outer wall is parallel to the optical axis and the inner wall faces the second outer wall; wherein a distance between the second outer wall and the inner wall is greater than 50 microns; and the inner wall is arc-shaped, and the plurality of positioning parts are arc-shaped lugs protruding from the inner wall towards the optical axis.
Kim (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the optical filter comprises a second outer wall, and wherein the second outer wall is parallel to the optical axis and the inner wall faces the second outer wall wherein a distance between the second outer wall and the inner wall is greater than 50 microns (502, 506, 510; see at least page 3, last paragraph). 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 distance as taught by Kim in order to achieve less polymeric skin layers, a small molded part (e.g. base, barrel, etc.) which make it uniquely suitable for camera module.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Wei (figure 4) teaches wherein the inner wall is arc-shaped, and the plurality of positioning parts are arc-shaped lugs protruding from the inner wall towards the optical axis (21, 24, 233). 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 inner wall as taught by Wei in order to improve the reliability of the lens system.
Regarding claim 4, Wang (figure 1) discloses wherein the plurality of positioning parts are arranged in a form of a circular array on the inner wall (lens barrel 10).
Regarding claim 8, Wang (figure 1) discloses wherein the plurality of positioning parts are arranged in a form of a circular array on the inner wall (lens barrel 10).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim and Wei; further in view of Yoshimura (C 102483504).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Wang is silent regarding wherein a distance between an end of a positioning part of the plurality of positioning parts away from the inner wall and the inner wall is less than 20 microns. Yoshimura (figure 1) teaches wherein a distance between an end of a positioning part of the plurality of positioning parts away from the inner wall and the inner wall is less than 20 microns (see at least page 3; 4th paragraph). 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 walls as taught by Yoshimura in order to correct image surface bending and prevent reduction of resolution.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights