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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2023 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 and 10-13 in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/03/2025.
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) 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holderer et al. (US 20110025992 A1), hereinafter Holderer, in view of Sasaki (US 20090244736 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Holderer discloses a lens mount device, comprising:
a lens (101; Fig. 1; ¶0035); and
a lens mount member (110, 120, 125; Fig. 1) for holding the lens (101) (¶0035),
wherein the lens mount member (110, 120, 125) has an annular part surrounding the lens (101) (Fig. 1),
the annular part comprises a first annular part (125; Fig. 1; ¶0047) having a first inner peripheral surface such that a first space (140c; Fig. 1; ¶0042) having a first radial dimension is defined between the first inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface of the lens (101) (Fig. 1) and a second annular part (120; Fig. 1; ¶0040) having a second inner peripheral surface such that a second space (140b; Fig. 1; ¶0041) having a second radial dimension smaller than the first radial dimension is defined between the second inner peripheral surface and the outer peripheral surface of the lens (101) (Fig. 1), the first annular part (125) and the second annular part (120) being adjacent to each other in an axial direction of the lens (101) (Fig. 1), and
the second space (140b) is an air gap (Fig. 1; ¶0041).
Holderer does not disclose an elastomer member is placed in the first space without radial gaps.
However, Sasaki teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (14; Fig. 2; ¶0010), a lens mount member (10; Fig. 2; ¶0009), and a first space between the lens (14) and the lens holder (14), wherein an elastomer (15; Fig. 2; ¶0010) is placed in the first space without radial gaps (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holderer to incorporate the elastomer member of Sasaki for the purpose of having a waterproof and dustproof lens holder (¶0010 of Sasaki).
Regarding claim 2, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Holderer further discloses the lens mount member comprises a third annular part (110; Fig. 1; ¶0035) provided adjacent to the second annular part (120) (Fig. 1) to define a shoulder portion (110; Fig. 1) contacting an incident surface or an exit surface of the lens (101) (Fig. 1; ¶0035).
Regarding claim 3, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Holderer does not disclose the elastomer member extends continuously over an entire circumference of the first space.
However, Sasaki teaches the elastomer member (15) extends continuously over an entire circumference of the first space (o-ring; Figs. 1-2; ¶0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holderer to incorporate the elastomer member of Sasaki for the purpose of having a waterproof and dustproof lens holder (¶0010 of Sasaki).
Regarding claim 5, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Holderer does not disclose a material of the elastomer member is silicone rubber.
However, Sasaki teaches a material of the elastomer member (15) is silicone rubber (¶0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holderer to incorporate the elastomer member of Sasaki for the purpose of having a waterproof and dustproof lens holder (¶0010 of Sasaki).
Regarding claim 6, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 5, as set forth above. Neither Holderer nor Sasaki explicitly disclose the elastomer member has a radial width greater than or equal to 2% of an outer diameter of the lens.
However, it has been held that where the general 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Sasaki has the lens, lens holder, and elastomer member, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the radial width of the elastomer greater than or equal to 2% of the outer diameter of the lens for the purpose of having a lens holder with good structural integrity despite temperature fluctuations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elastomer member to have a radial width greater than or equal to 2% of an outer diameter of the lens for the purpose of having a lens holder with good structural integrity despite temperature fluctuations.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holderer (US 20110025992 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20090244736 A1) and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 5808817 A), hereinafter Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 4, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Holderer nor Sasaki disclose the elastomer member is provided in at least three positions of the first space at intervals in a circumferential direction.
However, Miyamoto teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (2, 3; Figs. 3A, 3B), a lens mount member (41; Fig. 3), and space walls provided in at least three positions at intervals in a circumferential direction (Fig. 3). It is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable ways of incorporating the elastomer member – either continuously in a ring shape, or in multiple positions at intervals in a circumferential direction. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elastomer member to be provided in at least three positions of the first space at intervals in a circumferential direction since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp and additionally since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holderer (US 20110025992 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20090244736 A1) and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20190235217 A1), hereinafter Hasegawa, as evidenced by Ulbrich (“What Is Austenitic Stainless Steel?” Ulbrich, www.ulbrich.com/blog/what-is-austenitic-stainless-steel/, 2020.).
Regarding claim 7, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Holderer nor Sasaki disclose a material of the lens is CaF2, and a material of the lens mount member is austenitic stainless steel.
However, Hasegawa teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (2; Fig. 1; ¶0021) and a lens mount member (3; Fig. 1), wherein a material of the lens (2) is CaF2 (¶0032).
Hasegawa does not teach a material of the lens mount member is austenitic stainless steel.
However, Spinali teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (108; Fig. 2) and a lens mount member (110; Fig. 2), wherein a material of the lens mount member (110) is stainless steel (col. 3 lines 50-60). Spinali does not explicitly state that the stainless steel type is austenitic stainless steel. However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known in the art that the most common type of stainless steel is austenitic stainless steel, as evidenced by Ulbrich.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a material of the lens to be CaF2 and a material of the lens mount member to be austenitic stainless steel since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holderer (US 20110025992 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20090244736 A1) and further in view of Spinali (US 6118599 A).
Regarding claim 10, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Holderer nor Sasaki disclose a lens assembly, comprising:
multiple lens mount devices each consisting of the lens mount device according to claim 1; and
a barrel accommodating the multiple lens mount devices along an optical axis direction,
wherein materials of the lens mount members of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other, and
a material of the barrel and the material of the lens mount members are same as each other.
However, Spinali teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (108, 208; Figs. 2, 7) and a lens mount member (110, 210; Figs. 2, 7). Spinali further teaches a lens assembly (Figs. 2, 7) comprising multiple lens mount devices each consisting of the lens mount device (Figs. 2, 7); and a barrel (118, 220; Figs. 2, 7) accommodating the multiple lens mount devices along an optical axis direction (Figs. 2, 7), wherein materials of the lens mount members (110, 210) of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other (made of stainless steel; col. 3 lines 50-60), and a material of the barrel (118, 220) and the material of the lens mount members (110, 210) are same as each other (made of stainless steel; col. 3 lines 50-60 and col. 6 lines 22-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a lens assembly comprising multiple of the lens mount devices according to claim 1 and a barrel accommodating the multiple lens mount devices since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and for the purpose of being able to have a lens assembly with multiple lenses.
Regarding claim 12, Holderer in view of Sasaki discloses the lens mount device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Holderer nor Sasaki disclose a lens assembly, comprising multiple lens mount devices arranged along an optical axis direction, each of the multiple lens mount devices consisting of the lens mount device according to claim 1,
wherein materials of the lens mount members of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other, and
the lens mount members of the lens mount devices that are adjacent to each other in the optical axis direction are coupled to each other by fasteners.
However, Spinali teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (108, 208; Figs. 2, 7) and a lens mount member (110, 210; Figs. 2, 7). Spinali further teaches a lens assembly (Figs. 2, 7) comprising multiple lens mount devices each consisting of the lens mount device (Figs. 2, 7), wherein materials of the lens mount members (110, 210) of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other (made of stainless steel; col. 3 lines 50-60), and the lens mount members (110) of the lens mount devices that are adjacent to each other in the optical axis direction are coupled to each other by fasteners (126; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a lens assembly comprising multiple of the lens mount devices according to claim 1 and fasteners since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and for the purpose of being able to have a lens assembly with multiple lenses.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holderer (US 20110025992 A1) in view of Sasaki (US 20090244736 A1), further in view of Spinali (US 6118599 A), and further in view of Hasegawa (US 20190235217 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Holderer in view of Sasaki and further in view of Spinali discloses the lens assembly according to claim 10, as set forth above. Neither Holderer, Sasaki, nor Spinali disclose materials of the lenses of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other.
However, Hasegawa teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (2; Fig. 1; ¶0021) and a lens mount member (3; Fig. 1), wherein a material of the lens (2) is CaF2 (¶0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for all of the lenses of the lens assembly to be made of CaF2 since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 13, Holderer in view of Sasaki and further in view of Spinali discloses the lens assembly according to claim 12, as set forth above. Neither Holderer, Sasaki, nor Spinali disclose materials of the lenses of the multiple lens mount devices are same as each other.
However, Hasegawa teaches a similar lens mount device comprising a lens (2; Fig. 1; ¶0021) and a lens mount member (3; Fig. 1), wherein a material of the lens (2) is CaF2 (¶0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for all of the lenses of the lens assembly to be made of CaF2 since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagayama (US 20140247488 A1) and Sudoh et al. (US 6144504 A) disclose similarly shaped lens mount members. Monti (US 7990632 B2) discloses a similar lens mount device comprising an elastomer member. Sudo et al. (US 6122114 A) discloses a lens assembly comprising a barrel and multiple lens mount devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 14th, 2025
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872