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 Status
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuzawa et al (US 8,283,621) in view of Wang et al (CN112828470A).
With regards to claim 1, Tatsuzawa et al discloses a method (a method for constructing lens unit 100, Fig. 2), comprising: aligning a first optically transmissive substrate for mounting to a housing component (aligning second lens 102 for mounting to retaining collar 103, Fig. 2), the first optically transmissive substrate comprising a first material that is different from a second material of the housing component (retaining collar 103 is made of resin, col 5, lines 53-55 and second lens 102 using PC resin, col 9, lines 56-57); and bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component by irradiating the first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate (laser beam source 302 is used to bond retaining collar 103 to second lens 102, Fig. 3).
Tatsuzawa et al does not disclose wherein a distance between a first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate and a second surface of the housing component is between about 0.1 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers.
Wang et al teaches wherein a distance between a first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate and a second surface of the housing component is between about 0.1 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers (the gap between the stacked first glass 4 and the second glass 5 is less than 5 micrometers, such as 1 micrometer, 2 micrometers, 3 micrometers, or 4 micrometers, page 5, lines 10-12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tatsuzawa et al and Wang et al before him or her, to modify the gap between the first optically transmissive substrate and second surface of the housing component of Tatsuzawa et al to include the gap as taught by Wang et al because the combination allows for good shear strength and sealing performance.
With regards to claim 2, Tatsuzawa et al discloses bonding a second optically transmissive substrate to the first optically transmissive substrate by irradiating a fourth surface of the second optically transmissive substrate (bonding first lens 101 to retaining collar 103 by laser point 104, Fig. 3), using the pulsed laser beam that is transmitted through the second optically transmissive substrate (laser beam are irradiated at more than one point for laser point 104, col 9, lines 25-30), and wherein bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component comprises bonding an assembly comprising both the first optically transmissive substrate and the second optically transmissive substrate to the housing component (first lens 101 is bonded to retaining collar 103 at laser point 1044 via protrusion 107, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 3, Tatsuzawa et al discloses wherein bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component comprises: bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to one or more structural components by irradiating one or more surfaces of the first optically transmissive substrate, a respective surface of the one or more structural components, and bonding an assembly comprising both the first optically transmissive substrate and the one or more structural components to the housing component (edge of retaining collar 103 is bonded to the edge of second lens 102 wherein the edge of retaining collar 103 and edge of second lens 102 are considered structural components, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 4, Tatsuzawa et al discloses wherein bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component comprises: selecting a bonding pattern for the one or more passes of the pulsed laser beam, wherein the first optically transmissive substrate is bonded to the housing component at one or more bonding zones based at least in part on the bonding pattern, and wherein the bonding pattern comprising a pattern of respective locations over the first surface (joints between the second lenses 102 and the retaining collars 103 by laser welding are indicated by a reference character W, col 6 , lines 45-50).
With regards to claim 6, Wang et al teaches wherein the distance between the first surface and the second surface is being between about 0.50 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers (the gap between the stacked first glass 4 and the second glass 5 is less than 5 micrometers, such as 1 micrometer, 2 micrometers, 3 micrometers, or 4 micrometers, page 5, lines 10-12).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatsuzawa et al and Wang et al as applied to claim 1 above, Freeman et al (US 7,490,999).
With regards to claim 5, Tatsuzawa et al and Wang et al does not teach applying one or more absorbing layers to the first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate, wherein the one or more absorbing layers comprise a metallic material, and wherein bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component is based at least in part on irradiating the one or more absorbing layers.
Freeman et al discloses applying one or more absorbing layers to the first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate (moisture prevention coating 24 comprises a metal oxide applied to optical cover 12, col 4, lines 63-67), wherein the one or more absorbing layers comprise a metallic material (moisture prevention coating 24 comprises a metal oxide, col 4, lines 63-67), and wherein bonding the first optically transmissive substrate to the housing component is based at least in part on irradiating the one or more absorbing layers (after metallization of the optical cover 12 and/or housing 11, the optical cover is bonded to the housing. This can be done by laser soldering or brazing. If the melting point of the solder is low enough, the optical cover 12 can be reflowed to the housing 11, col 4, lines 56-59).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tatsuzawa et al, Wang et al and Freeman et al before him or her, to modify the first lens of Tatsuzawa et al and Wang et al to include metal oxide of Freeman et al because the combination allows moisture prevention when a lens assembly is manufactured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach the amended limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Examiners response: Applicant amended claim 1 to include “wherein a distance between a first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate and a second surface of the housing component is between about 0.1 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers”. Tatsuzawa et al alone does not disclose the above amended limitation. Wang et al teaches wherein a distance between a first surface of the first optically transmissive substrate and a second surface of the housing component is between about 0.1 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers (the gap between the stacked first glass 4 and the second glass 5 is less than 5 micrometers, such as 1 micrometer, 2 micrometers, 3 micrometers, or 4 micrometers, page 5, lines 10-12). Claim 6 has been amended to include the limitation “a distance between the first surface and the second surface is between about .5 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers”. Wang et al teaches wherein the distance between the first surface and the second surface is being between about 0.50 micrometers and about 7.0 micrometers (the gap between the stacked first glass 4 and the second glass 5 is less than 5 micrometers, such as 1 micrometer, 2 micrometers, 3 micrometers, or 4 micrometers, page 5, lines 10-12).
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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights