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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species E (figure 3I; claims 1-15, 17-24, and 35-36) in the reply filed on 11/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species A and B are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because claims 16 and 25-34 are directed to multiple species. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Regarding the discussion of Species H: The sixth embodiment (figure 5R), the examiner apologizes for any confusion resulting from the typographical errors. It should be corrected to Species H: The sixth embodiment (figure 5A). The applicant’s understanding is appreciated, and the applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner for clarification regarding such issues.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-15, 17-24, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Masui et al. (WO 2017/168959).
Regarding claim 1, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses an imaging lens assembly comprising a plurality of optical elements (12, 14, 16, 18, 20), and defining an optical axis (S) passing through the optical elements, the optical elements comprising at least one mixing optical element, the at least one mixing optical element comprising:
a glass effective optical portion (16), the optical axis (S) passing through the glass effective optical portion, and the glass effective optical portion comprising:
an object-side surface facing towards an object side of the imaging lens assembly (figure 1);
an image-side surface facing towards an image side of the imaging lens assembly and disposed opposite to the object-side surface (figure 1); and
a connecting surface (16B) surrounding the optical axis (S) and connecting the object-side surface and the image-side surface; and
a plastic outer peripheral portion (lens barrel 50) surrounding and physically contacting the glass effective optical portion (16), and forming an aperture hole (figure 2; see at least paragraph 0060), the plastic outer peripheral portion having at least three recess structures (60) arranged and disposed along a circumference direction around the optical axis, the at least three recess structures extending from one of the object side and the image side of the imaging lens assembly to the other thereof along a direction parallel to the optical axis (S), each of the recess structures comprising:
an outer surface (64);
an inner surface (62) disposed opposite to the outer surface and closer to the optical axis than the outer surface to the optical axis; and
two side surfaces connecting the outer surface and the inner surface;
wherein the connecting surface (16B) of the glass effective optical portion is closer to the optical axis than the inner surface of each of the recess structures to the optical axis (figure 1);
wherein the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion overlaps with the inner surface of each of the recess structures along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (16B; figure 1).
Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 0.1<D/T<0.8. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a maximum thickness of the plastic outer peripheral portion (50) along the direction parallel to the optical axis is T, a maximum depth of at least one of the recess structures (60) extending along the direction parallel to the optical axis is D, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.1<D/T<0.8 (along S direction). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein each of the recess structures (60) is formed by the outer surface, the inner surface and the two side surfaces connecting to each other and surrounding an inner space.
Regarding claim 3, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a connecting position of the object-side surface and the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion has an object-side edge line, and the object-side edge line defines a maximum contour of the object-side surface (50 and 16B; figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a connecting position of the image-side surface and the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion has an image-side edge line, and the image-side edge line defines a maximum contour of the image-side surface (50 and 16B; figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein the object-side edge line and the image-side edge line are shaded by the plastic outer peripheral portion corresponding to observations on the at least one mixing optical element from both of the object side and the image side of the imaging lens assembly along the direction parallel to the optical axis (see at least paragraphs 0049-0054).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 6, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a bottom surface is exposed from the inner space corresponding to an observation on the inner space of each of the recess structures from the object side or the image side of the imaging lens assembly along the direction parallel to the optical axis (60; figure 1).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 7, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein both of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the glass effective optical portion physically contact the plastic outer peripheral portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses , wherein both of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the glass effective optical portion overlap with the plastic outer peripheral portion along the direction parallel to the optical axis (figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 1<CTEp/CTEg<50. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a linear expansion coefficient of the glass effective optical portion is CTEg, a linear expansion coefficient of the plastic outer peripheral portion is CTEp, and the following condition is satisfied: 1<CTEp/CTEg<50 (the lens barrel 50 is made of polyphenylene sulfide and the lens is a glass lens made of glas; see at least paragraphs 0017 and 0051). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 10, Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 9 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 5<CTEp/CTEg<25. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the linear expansion coefficient of the glass effective optical portion is CTEg, the linear expansion coefficient of the plastic outer peripheral portion is CTEp, and the following condition is satisfied: 5<CTEp/CTEg<25 (the lens barrel 50 is made of polyphenylene sulfide and the lens is a glass lens made of glas; see at least paragraphs 0017 and 0051). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 11, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses an imaging lens assembly comprising a plurality of optical elements (12, 14, 16, 18, 20), and defining an optical axis (S) passing through the optical elements, the optical elements comprising at least one mixing optical element, the at least one mixing optical element comprising:
a glass effective optical portion (16), the optical axis (S) passing through the glass effective optical portion, and the glass effective optical portion comprising:
an object-side surface facing towards an object side of the imaging lens assembly (figure 1);
an image-side surface facing towards an image side of the imaging lens assembly and disposed opposite to the object-side surface (figure 1); and
a connecting surface (16B) surrounding the optical axis (S) and connecting the object-side surface and the image-side surface; and
a plastic outer peripheral portion (lens barrel 50) surrounding and physically contacting the glass effective optical portion (16), and forming an aperture hole (figure 2; see at least paragraph 0060), the plastic outer peripheral portion having at least three recess structures (60) arranged and disposed along a circumference direction around the optical axis, the at least three recess structures extending from one of the object side and the image side of the imaging lens assembly to the other thereof along a direction parallel to the optical axis (S), each of the recess structures comprising:
an outer surface (64);
two side surfaces connecting the outer surface and the inner surface;
wherein the connecting surface (16B) of the glass effective optical portion is closer to the optical axis than the inner surface of each of the recess structures to the optical axis (figure 1);
wherein the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion overlaps with the inner surface of each of the recess structures along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (16B; figure 1).
Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 0.1<D/T<0.8. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a maximum thickness of the plastic outer peripheral portion (50) along the direction parallel to the optical axis is T, a maximum depth of at least one of the recess structures (60) extending along the direction parallel to the optical axis is D, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.1<D/T<0.8 (along S direction). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 12, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein each of the recess structures (60) is formed by the outer surface, the inner surface and the two side surfaces connecting to each other and surrounding an inner space.
Regarding claim 13, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a connecting position of the object-side surface and the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion has an object-side edge line, and the object-side edge line defines a maximum contour of the object-side surface (50 and 16B; figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a connecting position of the image-side surface and the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion has an image-side edge line, and the image-side edge line defines a maximum contour of the image-side surface (50 and 16B; figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 22 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 30%<Ro, wherein Ro=1−ΣAo/(ψDo×π); and 10%<Ri<95%, wherein Ri=1−ΣAi/(ψDo×π). Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a coaxiality of the maximum diameter ψDo of the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion and the maximum diameter ψDp of the at least one bearing structure of the plastic outer peripheral portion is Co, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 mm<Co<0.005 mm (21, 22 and 50; figure 1). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 17, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a part of the object-side edge line and a bottom surface are exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures (60 or 70; figure 5) corresponding to an observation on each of the recess structures from the object side of the imaging lens assembly along the direction parallel to the optical axis.
Regarding claim 18, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a part of the image-side edge line and a bottom surface are exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures (60 or 70; figure 5) corresponding to an observation on each of the recess structures from the image side of the imaging lens assembly along the direction parallel to the optical axis.
Regarding claim 19, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein both of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the glass effective optical portion physically contact the plastic outer peripheral portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein both of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the glass effective optical portion overlap with the plastic outer peripheral portion along the direction parallel to the optical axis (figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein the plastic outer peripheral portion further comprises: at least one bearing structure used to bear at least one of the optical elements adjacent to the bearing structure; and at least one optical aligning structure used to align the at least one optical element adjacent to the optical aligning structure (21, 22 and 50).
Regarding claim 22, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses wherein a maximum diameter of the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion is ψDo, a minimum diameter of the optical aligning structure of the plastic outer peripheral portion is ψDa, a maximum diameter of the at least one bearing structure of the plastic outer peripheral portion is ψDp, and the following condition is satisfied: ψDo<ψDa<ψDp (21, 22 and 50).
Regarding claim 23, Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 22 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 0 mm<Co<0.005 mm. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a coaxiality of the maximum diameter ψDo of the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion and the maximum diameter ψDp of the at least one bearing structure of the plastic outer peripheral portion is Co, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 mm<Co<0.005 mm (21, 22 and 50; figure 1). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 24, Masui et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 23 above. However, Masui et al. is silent regarding 0 mm<Co1<0.003 mm. Masui et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein a coaxiality of the maximum diameter ψDo of the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion and the minimum diameter ψDa of the optical aligning structure of the plastic outer peripheral portion is Co1, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 mm<Co1<0.003 mm (21, 22 and 50; figure 1). 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 lens as taught by Masui et al. in order to obtain a lens unit capable of securing the strength of a lens barrel while maintaining good optical characteristics even when the external temperature rises.
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.
Regarding claim 35, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses a camera module, comprising: the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Regarding claim 36, Masui et al. (figures 1-5) discloses an electronic device, comprising: the camera module of claim 35; and an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the camera module (110).
7. The imaging lens assembly of claim 5,.
8. The imaging lens assembly of claim 7.
.
15. The imaging lens assembly of claim 14, wherein corresponding to an observation on each of the recess structures from the object side or the image side along the direction parallel to the optical axis, an arc length of a part of the object-side edge line exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures is Ao, a sum of the arc lengths of the object-side edge line exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures is ΣAo, an arc length of a part of the image-side edge line exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures is Ai, a sum of the arc lengths of the image-side edge line exposed from the inner space of each of the recess structures is ΣAi, a shading ratio of the object-side edge line shaded by the plastic outer peripheral portion is Ro, a shading ratio of the image-side edge line shaded by the plastic outer peripheral portion is Ri, a maximum diameter of the connecting surface of the glass effective optical portion is ψDo, and at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
30%<Ro, wherein Ro=1−ΣAo/(ψDo×π); and
10%<Ri<95%, wherein Ri=1−ΣAi/(ψDo×π).
Conclusion
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