DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement between Inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on March 13, 2025 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn. Claims 19-31 , directed to Invention II are no longer withdrawn from consideration.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 18-19 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches an imaging lens module, comprising: at least one lens element, having an optical axis (L, fig. 1; see also ¶ 8, “a lens barrel with a lens about an axis”); a lens carrier (10, fig. 1), accommodating the at least one lens element, the lens carrier comprising: an object-side portion (top of 10), has an object-side opening (bottom of 10) configured for light entering the imaging lens module, wherein the object-side portion forms a minimum opening of the lens carrier at the object-side opening; an image-side portion, opposite to the object-side portion; and a tubular portion (inside of 10), connected to and located between the object-side portion and the image-side portion; and a variable through hole assembly (2-7, fig. 1), disposed on the object-side portion (fig. 15), the variable through hole assembly comprising: a plurality of rotatable blades (6), rotatably disposed about the optical axis and configured to form a through hole, wherein a size of the through hole is variable (abstract teaches aperture is variable); and a blade driving part, comprising: a rotatable member (4), connected to the plurality of rotatable blades (abstract, “:the blades cooperate with each other to form an aperture, are coupled to the rotor, and are relatively movable with respect to the rotor”), wherein the rotatable member drives the plurality of rotatable blades to vary the size of the through hole (¶ 8, “the rotor rotates about the axis and moves the blades, whereby the size of the aperture is varied”); at least one driving magnet (90) and at least one driving coil (33), wherein the at least one driving magnet and the at least one driving coil are disposed opposite to each other along a direction parallel to the optical axis (fig. 8): wherein the object-side portion further has a guiding structure 2, the guiding structure guides movement of the plurality of rotatable blades and is located further away from the optical axis than the minimum opening (fig 10); wherein the object-side portion and the image-side portion form an air sleeve therebetween (see annotated figs. 10 and 15), and the air sleeve is located further away from the optical axis than the tubular portion; wherein the rotatable member 4 is located between the plurality of rotatable blades 6 and the guiding structure 2 of the object-side portion (figs. 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 8, the blade driving part further comprises: at least two rolling members (800, see fig. 10), disposed between the guiding structure and the rotatable member along a direction parallel to the optical axis so as to support rotation motion of the rotatable member. (see ¶ 57 “The device for variable aperture 100 according to the second embodiment of the present invention has bearings 800 inserted between the base 200 and the rotor 400. Furthermore, yokes 900 are attached to the base 200 of the device for variable aperture 100.”)
Regarding claim 18, paragraph 2 teaches that the device is for smartphones and tablet computers.
Regarding claim 19, Yusuke teaches an imaging lens module, comprising: at least one lens element, having an optical axis(L, fig. 1; see also ¶ 8, “a lens barrel with a lens about an axis”); a lens carrier, accommodating the at least one lens element (10, fig. 1), the lens carrier comprising: an object-side portion (top of 10), has an object-side opening (bottom of 10) configured for light entering the imaging lens module, wherein the object-side portion forms a minimum opening of the lens carrier at the object-side opening; an image-side portion, opposite to the object-side portion; and a tubular portion (inside of 10), connected to and located between the object-side portion and the image- side portion; and a variable through hole assembly (2-7, fig. 1), disposed on the object-side portion (fig. 15), the variable through hole assembly comprising: a plurality of rotatable blades (6), rotatably disposed about the optical axis and configured to form a through hole, wherein a size of the through hole is variable (abstract teaches aperture is variable); and a blade driving part, comprising: at least one driving magnet (90); and at least one driving coil (33), wherein the at least one driving magnet and the at least one driving coil are disposed opposite to each other along a direction parallel to the optical axis (fig. 8); wherein the object-side portion further has a guiding structure (2), the guiding structure guides movement of the plurality of rotatable blades and is located further away from the optical axis than the minimum opening (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 31, paragraph 2 teaches that the device is for smartphones and tablet computers.
Claim(s) 19, 22 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413361). Fu teaches an imaging lens module, comprising: at least one lens element 7, having an optical axis, (O); a lens carrier 5, accommodating the at least one lens element, the lens carrier comprising: an object-side portion 127, has an object-side opening (top of 12/128, fig. 4) configured for light entering the imaging lens module, wherein the object-side portion forms a minimum opening of the lens carrier at the object-side opening; an image-side portion 41, opposite to the object-side portion; and a tubular portion 12, connected to and located between the object-side portion and the image- side portion; and a variable through hole assembly 11, disposed on the object-side portion, the variable through hole assembly comprising: a plurality of rotatable blades (11, see para 37), rotatably disposed about the optical axis and configured to form a through hole, wherein a size of the through hole is variable (see fig. 4 and para 37); and a blade driving part 1, comprising: at least one driving magnet 31; and at least one driving coil 410, wherein the at least one driving magnet and the at least one driving coil are disposed opposite to each other along a direction parallel to the optical axis (see fig. 4); wherein the object-side portion further has a guiding structure 123/124, the guiding structure guides movement of the plurality of rotatable blades (see ¶¶ 59 and 62) and is located further away from the optical axis than the minimum opening (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 22, the blade driving part further comprises: a rotatable member 21, connected to the plurality of rotatable blades, wherein the rotatable member drives the plurality of rotatable blades to vary the size of the through hole (¶ 62).
Regarding claim 31, Fu teaches an electronic device (smartphone 9, see fig. 1 and ¶32) with the imaging lens module of claim 19.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039) in view of Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409028). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for an auto-focus driving part, the auto-focus driving part comprising: at least one auto-focus magnet; and at least one auto-focus coil, disposed opposite to the at least one auto-focus magnet; wherein one of the at least one auto-focus magnet and the at least one auto-focus coil is disposed in the air sleeve, and the auto-focus driving part drives the lens carrier to move along a direction parallel to the optical axis. Tsai teaches an auto-focus driving part, the auto-focus driving part (abstract, auto focus function) comprising: at least one auto-focus magnet (220a); and at least one auto-focus coil (210a), disposed opposite to the at least one auto-focus magnet (¶65, “The first driving component 210a is electrically conductive for an electric current to flow through. The second driving component 220a is disposed on the casing 11a and provides a permanent magnetic field toward the first driving component 210a.”); wherein one of the at least one auto-focus magnet and the at least one auto-focus coil is disposed in the air sleeve (see 210a in fig. 6), and the auto-focus driving part drives the lens carrier to move along a direction parallel to the optical axis (¶65, “The electromagnetic driving component assembly 200a can drive the imaging lens assembly 100a to move with respect to the second driving component 220a in the direction parallel to the optical axis 101a by a Lorentz force generated by an electromagnetic interaction between the first driving component 210a and the second driving component 220a so as to achieve the auto-focus function of the imaging lens module 10a.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Tsai for the purpose of auto focusing.
Regarding claim 5, the auto-focus driving part comprising: at least one auto-focus magnet; and at least one auto-focus coil, disposed opposite to the at least one auto-focus magnet; wherein the image-side portion has a recess, one of the at least one auto-focus magnet and the at least one auto-focus coil is disposed in the recess, and the auto-focus driving part drives the lens carrier to move along a direction parallel to the optical axis.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 1<h2/hl <2.95. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 1<h2/hl <2.95 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range for miniaturization. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 0.005 < Ha/Hb < 0.9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 0.005 < Ha/Hb < 0.9 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 1.4<FNO 4.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 1.4<FNO 4.0 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, the blade driving part comprises a rotatable member 4, connected to the plurality of rotatable blades, wherein the rotatable member drives the plurality of rotatable blades to vary the size of the through hole.
Regarding claim 23, the blade driving part further comprises: at least two rolling members 800, disposed between the guiding structure and the rotatable member along the direction parallel to the optical axis so as to support rotation motion of the rotatable member.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039). Yusuke teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 1<h2/hl <2.95. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 1<h2/hl <2.95 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range for miniaturization. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 25, the at least two rolling members are located away from the optical axis than the first lateral wall.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039) in view of Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409028). Yusuke as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 1.4<FNO 4.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 1.4<FNO 4.0 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke (WP2022/052039) in view of Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409028). Yusuke as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413361). Fu teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 0.9< Do/Di < 2.5 and 4 [mm] ≤Dt<Di<Do≤30 [mm] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413361) in view of Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0409028). Fu teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for an auto-focus driving part, the auto-focus driving part comprising: at least one auto-focus magnet; and at least one auto-focus coil, disposed opposite to the at least one auto-focus magnet; wherein the image-side portion has a recess, one of the at least one auto-focus magnet and the at least one auto-focus coil is disposed in the recess, and the auto-focus driving part drives the lens carrier to move along a direction parallel to the optical axis. Tsai teaches an auto-focus driving part comprising: at least one auto-focus magnet 220a; and at least one auto-focus coil 210a, disposed opposite to the at least one auto-focus magnet; wherein the image-side portion has a recess, one of the at least one auto-focus magnet and the at least one auto-focus coil is disposed in the recess (see fig. 5), and the auto-focus driving part drives the lens carrier to move along a direction parallel to the optical axis (see ¶ 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Tsai for the purpose of focusing an image.
Regarding claim 29, Fu as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 1.4<FNO 4.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to set 1.4<FNO 4.0 for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 30 Fu as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to 50 [deg.] < FOV 105 [deg.] for the purpose of utilizing an optimum range. The applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 26-27 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 15-25 and 28-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852