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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed October 1, 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Namely, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose the newly added limitation, “wherein the adhesive is in contact with the first lens, the barrel, and the front cover at the same time, and the adhesive dispensing is required only once, so that the first lens and the front cover are fixed to the barrel”. However, as noted in the previous office action, in Figure 2, Gao et al. discloses an adhesive 15 (see e.g. paragraph [0030]) disposed in the annular accommodating space 134 and in contact with the outer annular surface of the first lens 13, the first stepped surface of the barrel 12, and the first portion of the front cover 11. It was further noted that the front cover was contacting the adhesive at least indirectly. Therefore the adhesive is in contact with the first lens, the barrel, and the front cover “at the same time”. Further, the limitation, “wherein the adhesive is in contact with the first lens, the barrel, and the front cover at the same time, and the adhesive dispensing is required only once, so that the first lens and the front cover are fixed to the barrel” is a product by process limitation and has been fully considered by the examiner. However, it is further noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see e.g. MPEP 2113).
Applicant further asserts that the adhesive 15 as disclosed by Gao et al., is not in contact with the front cover. It is noted that a direct contact is not required by the claim and that the front cover is in at least indirect, or thermal contact with the adhesive.
Applicant further points out that additional adhesive material 17 of Gao et al. is not in contact with the first lens and thus could not be considered to teach the cited limitation. However, it is noted that the claim was not rejected using element 17. If the claim had been rejected using said element, it is noted that the front lens would be in a state of indirect contact with the front lens.
Therefore claims 1-11 are rejected, as cited below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 2023/0213727 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Gao et al. discloses a lens module 10, defining a central axis O-O’, an object side (on the side of O), and an image side (on the side of O’) opposite to the object side, and the lens module comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a barrel 12 comprising an object-side surface, a stepped portion, and an outer annular surface (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below),
wherein the stepped portion is disposed on the object-side surface and comprises a first stepped surface and a second stepped surface (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below and note that the steps of the surface on the object side),
the first stepped surface is closer to the central axis than the second stepped surface (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), and
the outer annular surface of the barrel is close to the object side (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below);
a front cover 11 comprising a first portion and a second portion,
wherein the first portion corresponds to the first stepped surface of the barrel 12, the second portion corresponds to the second stepped surface of the barrel 12 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), and
the barrel 12 is disposed in the front cover 11;
an optical lens assembly disposed in the barrel 12 and comprising a first lens 13,
wherein the first lens 13 is a lens of the optical lens assembly closest to the object side O,
the first lens 13 comprises an outer annular surface (i.e. surface of 13), and
an annular accommodating space 134 (denoted “glue-holding slot”, see e.g. paragraph [0030]) is formed by the outer annular surface of the first lens 13, the first stepped surface of the barrel 12, and the first portion of the front cover 11; and
an adhesive 15 (see e.g. paragraph [0030]) disposed in the annular accommodating space 134 and in contact with the outer annular surface of the first lens 13, the first stepped surface of the barrel 12, and the first portion of the front cover 11 (note contact with the front cover is at least via intermediate layers, see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below),
wherein the adhesive 15 is in contact with the first lens 13, the barrel 12, and the front cover 11 at the same time (note contact with the front cover is at least via intermediate layers, see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below), and the adhesive dispensing is required only once, so that the first lens 13 and the front cover 11 are fixed to the barrel 12 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, attached below and note that the limitation, “the adhesive dispensing is required only once” is a product by process limitation).
Note that the product by process limitation, “ . . . the adhesive dispensing is required only once . . . ” has been fully considered by the examiner. However, it is further noted that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (see e.g. MPEP 2113).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first portion of the front cover is a protruding portion (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), and the annular accommodating space 134 is formed by the protruding portion, the outer annular surface of the first lens 13, and the first stepped surface of the barrel (see e.g. annotated Figure 2).
In regard to claim 3, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
wherein the second portion of the front cover 11 is a recessed portion (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), an air space is formed between the recessed portion and the second stepped surface of the barrel 12 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), and the air space is in communication with the annular accommodating space 134 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 and note that the communication is at least via intermediate layers).
In regard to claim 4, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein a channel is provided between the annular accommodating space 134 and the air space, and the adhesive 17 is disposed in the channel and the air space (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 and paragraph [0041]).
In regard to claim 8, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first portion of the front cover 11 has a radial surface facing the central axis, and a gap is provided between the radial surface and the outer annular surface of the first lens 13 (see e.g. Figure 2 and note the gap between elements 11 and 13).
In regard to claim 9, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the front cover 11 further comprises an inner annular surface (i.e. surface facing outer annular surface of barrel 12) surrounding and partially in contact with the outer annular surface of the barrel 12 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 and note that the surfaces are in at least indirect partial contact).
In regard to claim 10, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the front cover 11 further comprises an inclined surface adjacent to the first portion (see e.g. Figures 1 and 2 and note plural inclined surfaces), and partially in contact with a non-optical surface of the first lens 13 (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and note the contact is at least indirect via intermediate layers/components).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0213727 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first portion of the front cover is closer to the image side than the second portion, and the second stepped surface of the barrel is closer to the object side than the first stepped surface.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first portion of the front cover is closer to the image side than the second portion, and the second stepped surface of the barrel is closer to the object side than the first stepped surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the front cover and barrel. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) ).
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 device of Gao et al. with wherein the first portion of the front cover is closer to the image side than the second portion, and the second stepped surface of the barrel is closer to the object side than the first stepped surface.
Modifying the stepped surfaces of the front cover and barrel would allow the pieces to still fit together and hold the lens effectively and would be considered an obvious change of shape, which is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 6, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the first portion of the front cover 11 has a first image-side surface, a gap between the first image-side surface and the first stepped surface of the barrel is G1 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Gao et al. fails to disclose the following condition is satisfied: 0.074 mm ≤ G1 ≤ 0.160 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the following condition is satisfied: 0.074 mm ≤ G1 ≤ 0.160 mm, 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.
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 device of Gao et al. with the following condition is satisfied: 0.074 mm ≤ G1 ≤ 0.160 mm.
Selecting a size for the gap between layers would allow for a lens configuration that may be made as small as necessary in order to accommodate the size of the physical components. Minimizing the gap would allow for a configuration with a smaller set up while a larger gap would allow for accommodation of a thicker lens element.
In regard to claim 7, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein an axial distance between the first image-side surface of the front cover and the second stepped surface of the barrel is D2, D2 is less than or equal to 0.04 mm when a projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis does not overlap a projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis, and D2 is less than or equal to 0.046 mm when the projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis overlaps the projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize wherein using a configuration in which an axial distance between the first image-side surface of the front cover and the second stepped surface of the barrel is D2, D2 is less than or equal to 0.04 mm when a projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis does not overlap a projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis, and D2 is less than or equal to 0.046 mm when the projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis overlaps the projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis, 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.
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 device of Gao et al. with wherein an axial distance between the first image-side surface of the front cover and the second stepped surface of the barrel is D2, D2 is less than or equal to 0.04 mm when a projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis does not overlap a projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis, and D2 is less than or equal to 0.046 mm when the projection of the first portion of the front cover on the central axis overlaps the projection of the second stepped surface on the central axis.
Selecting a size for the gap between layers would allow for a lens configuration that may be made as small as necessary in order to accommodate the size of the physical components. Minimizing the gap would allow for a configuration with a smaller set up while a larger gap would allow for accommodation of a thicker lens element.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0213727 A1) in view of Chen (US 2009/0147381 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Gao et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the first portion of the front cover or the first stepped surface of the barrel comprises a roughened surface.
However, Chen discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein at least one of the first portion 1100 of the front cover 110 or the first stepped surface of the barrel comprises a roughened surface (see e.g. paragraph [0017]).
Given the teachings of Chen, 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 device of Gao et al. with wherein at least one of the first portion of the front cover or the first stepped surface of the barrel comprises a roughened surface.
Providing a roughened surface would prevent unwanted stray reflections of light from interfering with the image (see e.g. paragraph [0021] of Chen).
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871