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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a testing module in claims 1 and 7 (20 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0040]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (CN 105807552B hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1; Chen discloses a lens loosening test device (10 @ figure 1) configured to detect whether a lens to be tested is loose or not, comprising:
a frame (13 @ figure 1), a testing module (20 @ figures 1, 3, and 4A-4B) fixed on the frame (13 @ figure 1), and a testing picture card (312 @ figure 3) fixed on the frame (13 @ figure 1) and adjacent to the testing module (20 @ figures 1, 3, and 4A-4B), wherein:
the testing module (20 @ figures 1, 3, and 4A-4B) includes a base (11 @ figures 1-3) fixed to the frame (13 @ figure 1), a rotating drive component (21 @ figures 3-4) fixed to the base (11 @figure 3-4), a rotating bracket (22 @ figure 3 and 4A-4B) connected to and driven by the rotating drive component (21 @ figure 3 and 4A-4B) to rotate, a knocking component (41, 43 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) fixed to the rotating bracket (22 @ figure 3 and 4A-4B), an imaging component (camera module A @ figures 4A-4B) fixed to the rotating bracket (22 @ figure 3 and 4A-4B), and a fixing component (42 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) fixed to the rotating bracket (22 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B), wherein the knocking component (41, 43 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) and the fixing component (42 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) are arranged adjacent to the imaging component (A @ figures 4A-4B), the fixing component (42 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) is configured to fix the lens (lens module A2 @ figure 4B) to be tested to enable the lens (A2 @ figure 4B) to be tested to be arranged at top of the imaging component (A @ figure 4A-4B), the knocking component (41, 43 @ figures 3 and 4A-4B) is configured to knock the lens (A2 @ figure 4B) to be tested, and the imaging component (A @ figures 4A-4B) is configured to capture an image of the testing picture card (312 @ figure 2) by the lens (A2 @ figure 4B) to be tested and determine whether the lens to be tested is loose or not based on the image (figures 4A-4B: e.g., When the camera module A is in working state, closing the said seal groove piece 212 downwards, in the closed position, the lens module is stably mounted on the test fixture 21 in the mounting groove 213. wherein, the seal groove 212 is a cover or a rotation of the handle member, through manually or automatically in the form of mounting slot 213 camera module A sealed in the test fixture 21, which effectively prevents the module B). See figures 1-7
Regarding claim 4; Chen discloses the imaging component (A @ figures 4A-4B) comprises an adjusting component (A1, 212, 213 @ figures 4A-4B) fixed to the rotating bracket (22 @figures 4A-4B) and a sensor component (A @ figures 4A-4B) fixed on top of the adjusting component (A1, 212, 213 @ figures 4A-4B), wherein the adjusting component (A1, 212, 213 @ figures 4A-4B) is configured to adjust a position of the sensor component (figures 4A-4B: e.g., the lens module A2 of the camera module A is arranged below the sealing groove part 212 of the mounting groove 213, the seal groove 212 can be opened and closed is mounted on the mounting groove 213 so as to maintain an open position or a closed position).
Regarding claim 6; Cheng discloses there are a plurality of testing picture cards (312, 322 @ figure 3), and the imaging component (A @ figures 4a-4B) is configured to capture images of the plurality of testing picture cards (312, 322 @ figure 3) by the lens to be tested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-16 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a lens loosening test device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the knocking component comprises a first fixing frame fixed on the rotating bracket, a knocking cylinder fixed on the first fixing frame, and a knocking portion connected to the knocking cylinder and driven by the knocking cylinder, wherein the knocking cylinder is configured to drive the knocking portion to knock the lens to be tested in set forth of claim 2.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a lens loosening test device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the fixing component comprises a second fixing frame fixed on the rotating bracket, a clamping cylinder fixed on the second fixing frame, and a clamping portion connected to the clamping cylinder and driven by the clamping cylinder, wherein the clamping cylinder is configured to drive the clamping portion to clamp the lens to be tested in set forth of claim 3.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a lens loosening test device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the adjusting component comprises a horizontal adjusting component fixed on the rotating bracket and a vertical adjusting component fixed on the horizontal adjusting component, wherein the sensor component is fixed on top of the vertical adjusting component, and the vertical adjusting component is configured to adjust the position of the sensor component along a vertical direction, and the horizontal adjusting component is configured to adjust a position of the vertical adjusting component to adjust the position of the sensor component along a horizontal direction in set forth of claim 5.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a lens loosening test device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including there are 5 testing picture cards, in which 4 testing picture cards are arranged on four sides of the testing module, respectively, and 1 testing picture card is arranged directly above the testing module in set forth of claim 7.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a lens loosening test device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the lens loosening test method comprises placing the lens to be tested on an imaging component, and fixing, by a fixing component, the lens to be tested; capturing, by the imaging component, a first image of a testing picture card, and calculating a first spatial frequency response (SFR) value based on the first image; knocking, by a knocking component, the lens to be tested; capturing, by the imaging component, a second image of the testing picture card, and calculating a second SFR value based on the second image; driving, by a rotating drive component, a rotating bracket, to drive the knocking component, the imaging component, and the fixing component installed on the rotating bracket to rotate to a predetermined position; knocking, by the knocking component, the lens to be tested, and driving, by the rotating drive component, the rotating bracket, the knocking component, the imaging component, and the fixing component installed on the rotating bracket to return; capturing, by the imaging component, a third image of the testing picture card, and calculating a third SFR value based on the third image; and determining whether the lens to be tested is loose or not based on the first SFR value, the second SFR value, and the third SFR value in set forth of claim 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Peng et al (US 21013/0278924) discloses the bearing assembly is rotatably received between the two supporting plates. The receiving element is positioned on the bearing assembly and configured for receiving a lens module. The operation element penetrates the slot and connects to the bearing assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
October 8, 2025
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877