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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “through hole” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “by attaching to a lens module” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “lens” and the “lens module” are neither required by nor positively recited in the claimed invention.
Therefore the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“A lens protection structure comprising: a main body defining a receiving space, the main body comprising an air escape structure, the receiving space being connected to an external environment via the air escape structure, wherein the main body comprises a base, a double side tape, and an antistatic silica gel, the double side tape and the antistatic silica gel are arranged between the base and the lens module, and the double side tape is sandwiched between the antistatic silica gel and the base, each of the base, the double side tape and the antistatic silica gel defines a through hole, the through holes cooperatively defining a receiving space for receiving the lens of the lens module; wherein the air escape structure comprises: an air flow channel comprising a first opening communicating with the external environment and a second opening communicating with the receiving space; a diversion connected in the air flow channel, the diversion diverting airflows therethrough; and a retention connecting to the diversion, the retention harvesting impurities and dust in airflows through the air escape structure.”
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215499198 (hereinafter CN ‘198) in view of CN 216599795 (hereinafter CN ‘795).
As regarding claim 1, CN ‘198 discloses the claimed invention for a lens protection structure comprising: a main body defining a receiving space, the main body comprising an air escape structure, the receiving space being connected to an external environment via the air escape structure, wherein the air escape structure comprises: an air flow channel (12) comprising a first opening (112) communicating with the external environment and a second opening (111) communicating with the receiving space; a diversion (inner ‘region’ of groove 12 in fig. 3) connected in the air flow channel, the diversion diverting airflows therethrough; and a retention (bottom of inner ‘region’ of groove 12) connecting to the diversion, the retention harvesting impurities and dust in airflows through the air escape structure.
CN ‘198 does not disclose the main body comprises an antistatic silica gel. CN ‘795 teaches the main body comprises an antistatic silica gel ([0015] and [0021]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the main body comprises an antistatic silica gel as taught by CN ‘795 in order to reduce static electricity and dust adhesion.
CN ‘198 as modified discloses the main body comprises a base (1), a double side tape, and the antistatic silica gel (CN ‘795 - [0015] and [0021]), the double side tape and the antistatic silica gel are arranged between the base and the lens module, and the double side tape is sandwiched between the antistatic silica gel and the base, each of the base, the double side tape and the antistatic silica gel defines a through hole (14), the through holes cooperatively defining a receiving space for receiving the lens of the lens module.
As regarding claim 3, CN ‘198 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘198 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the main body comprising: a base (1); a protective film cover (4) on the base; the base comprises a side wall (fig. 4; no number) defining a perimeter of the receiving space, the side wall comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the protective film being covered on the first surface, the base being attached to the lens module on the second surface via the layer of glue, the air escape structure being arranged in the side wall.
As regarding claim 11, CN ‘198 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘198 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the base is made of injection molding materials. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the base is made of injection molding materials in order to enhance lens protective structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As regarding claim 12, CN ‘198 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘198 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first opening (112 of figs. 3-4) is recessed from the first surface, and the second opening (111 of figs. 3-4) is arranged on a side of the first opening facing away from the protective film (4 of fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights