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 .
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0158912), hereinafter “Wang”, in view of Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a lens module (see Figs. 1, 2, Paragraph 2) comprising: a lens (see Figs. 1, 2) comprising: a lens unit (110) having a refractive power (see Tables 1, 3); and a first coating layer and a second coating layer (111-113) formed on either one or both of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the lens unit in an optical axis direction of the lens unit (110) (see Figs. 1, 2); a rear lens group (120, 130) disposed on an image side of the lens (see Figs. 1, 2); a first barrel member (portion of 200 where lens 110 is held) in which the lens is disposed; and a second barrel member (portion of 200 where either lenses 120 or 130 are held) in which the rear lens group is disposed (see Figs. 1, 2 – the claim does not specify what a “lens member” comprises of outside of where the lenses/lens groups are disposed; “lens member” is interpreted as a portion of the lens barrel 200 which is configured to compliment the specific structure of the lens which is held in the corresponding portion of the lens barrel). Wang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a first refractive index of the first coating layer is greater than a second refractive index of the second coating layer, and the following conditional expressions are satisfied: 0.2000 ≤ T1sum/T2sum ≤ 0.3000 0.1900 < T1sum/(T1sum+T2sum) < 0.2100 where T1sum is a total thickness of the first coating layer, and T2sum is a total thickness of the second coating layer. In the same field of endeavor, Miyamoto discloses wherein a first refractive index of the first coating layer (“high refractive index layer”) is greater than a second refractive index of the second coating layer (“low refractive index layer”) (Paragraphs 54, 55, 73), and the following conditional expressions are satisfied: 0.2000 ≤ T1sum/T2sum ≤ 0.3000 0.1900 < T1sum/(T1sum+T2sum) < 0.2100 where T1 sum is a total thickness of the first coating layer (Table 1 – ZrO2), and T2sum is a total thickness of the second coating layer (Table 1 – SiO2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Wang with wherein a first refractive index of the first coating layer is greater than a second refractive index of the second coating layer, and the following conditional expressions are satisfied: 0.2000 ≤ T1sum/T2sum ≤ 0.3000 0.1900 < T1sum/(T1sum+T2sum) < 0.2100 where T1sum is a total thickness of the first coating layer, and T2sum is a total thickness of the second coating layer of Miyamoto for the purpose of providing a functional film on a lens material for imparting the desired optical effect on the lens (Paragraph 3). 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.
Regarding claim 21, Wang further discloses wherein the rear lens group (120, 130) comprises one or more plastic lenses (Paragraph 49).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (USPG Pub No. 2020/0158912) in view of Miyamoto (USPG Pub No. 2021/0199988) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0209434), hereinafter “Nakano”.
Regarding claim 22, Wang and Miyamoto disclose the claimed invention but do not specify further comprising a front lens group disposed on an object side of the lens. In the same field of endeavor, Nakano discloses further comprising a front lens group disposed on an object side of the lens (L17) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Wang and Miyamoto with further comprising a front lens group disposed on an object side of the lens of Nakano for the purpose of preventing an increase in light absorption loss and improving antireflective performance of the lens (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 23, Wang further discloses wherein the front lens group comprises one or more glass lenses (170) (Paragraph 72). Furthermore, 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.
Response to Arguments
It is noted that Applicant has requested a citation of the English translation of CN 113031119 A and WO 2019/188970 A1 on form PTO-892, however the references have been properly cited in the PTO-892 dated 09/04/2025 as required by MPEP 707.05 for published documents. There is no requirement for a machine language translation to be cited as it itself is not a published document and only serves as a translation of the published documents. The translation is part of the official record. Any machine translation provided by the Office is a courtesy in order to assist with examination/prosecution of the application. To make the document a separate entry into the record, the translated document is attached to this action as a separate distinct file of record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19 and 21-23 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. Wang cures the deficiencies of Miyamoto and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/24/2026
