DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) — (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration
2. Oath and declaration filed on 3/29/2023 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The prior art documents submitted by application in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/29/2023 and 11/20/2024 and 2/18/2025 have all been considered and made of record ( note the attached copy of form PTO – 1449).
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness -type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 respectively U.S.Patent Application No. 17//433,611.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical they are not patentable distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
The claims of the instant application corresponds to the patented claim as follows:
Instant application 18/029,108
Regarding claim 1,A lens unit comprising: a plurality of lenses aligned with each other along an optical axis; and a lens barrel that accommodates and holds the plurality of lenses. wherein a first lens located closest to an object side among the plurality of lenses and an optical component adjacent to the first lens on an image side are bonded together to be waterproofed with a low-moisture permeable adhesive.
U.S.Patent Application No. 17/433,611
Regarding claim 1, A lens unit comprising: an optical element including at least a lens group in which a plurality of lenses are arranged along an optical axis; a cylindrical lens barrel having an inner accommodation space for accommodating and holding the optical element; and a sealing member for sealing a space inside the lens barrel between a first lens and the lens barrel, wherein the lens group includes [[a]] the first lens located closest to the object side thereof; and a second lens adjacent to the first lens on the image side thereof ,optical elements and/or the optical element and the lens barrel are bonded to each other in an airtight state, such that an inter-lens space between the first lens and the second lens is sealed to the outside, facing surfaces of the first lens and the second lens facing each other in the optical axis direction are bonded to each other using an adhesion medium, in a manner such that the inter- lens space is sealed to the outside, and adhesive areas of the facing surfaces of the first lens and the second lens that are bonded to each other by the adhesion medium face the space inside the lens barrel that is sealed by the sealing member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuruoka et al (2022/0019051 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuruoka et al discloses (refer to figures 1-4) a lens unit (1) comprising: a plurality of lenses (L1 and L2) (paragraph 0034) aligned with each other along an optical axis; and a lens barrel (paragraph 002) that accommodates and holds the plurality of lenses (paragraph 0034) . wherein a first lens located closest to an object side (La and Lb) (paragraph 0043) among the plurality of lenses and an optical component adjacent to the first lens on an image side are bonded together to be waterproofed with a low-moisture permeable adhesive (i.e., low protective film 19 , paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuruoka et al discloses wherein the first lens L1 and and the lens barrel are bonded together to be waterproofed with the low-moisture permeable adhesive (figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuruoka et al discloses wherein an outer circumferential surface of the first lens and an inner circumferential surface of the lens barrel are bonded together to be waterproofed with the low-moisture permeable adhesive(figures 1-4) .
Regarding claim 4,. Tsuruoka et al discloses wherein an end surface on the image side of the first lens and a surface that intersects with an axial direction of the lens barrel are bonded together to be waterproofed with the low-moisture permeable adhesive (figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, , Tsuruoka et al discloses A camera module comprising the lens unit according (figures 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the low-moisture permeable adhesive has an elastic modulus of 1 MPa to 1000 MPa and a Tg of 40°C to 60°C. Conclusion
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 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, 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.
/MOHAMMED A HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/29/2025