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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/26/2023 and 8/21/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1 and 15. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (20230273411).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an optical lens (Fig 1N – Fig 1R, [0141], imaging lens assembly 100), comprising: a composite lens (110), comprising: an optical portion (Fig 1N, 111), wherein an optical axis (X) passes through the optical portion ([0141], optical axis X passing through the optical elements), and the optical portion (111) comprises: a first optical surface (1111), wherein a light passes ([0141], optical axis X passing through the optical elements) through the first optical surface (1111) to enter the optical portion (111); a second optical surface (1112) corresponding to the first optical surface (Fig 1F), and the light passing through (Fig 1F) the second optical surface (1112) to exit the optical portion (111); and a connecting surface (Fig 1R, 1113) surrounding the optical axis (X) and connected to the first optical surface (1111) and the second optical surface (1112); and an extending portion (112) surrounding and covering the connecting surface (Fig 1R, 1113), and the extending portion (112) supporting and fixing the optical portion (111); wherein the optical portion (111) is made of glass material ([0144], glass effective optical portion), the extending portion (112) is made of plastic material ([0156], plastic outer peripheral portion), and the extending portion (112) comprises at least two gate traces axially and symmetrically disposed on the extending portion ([0125], optical element can have at least three gate traces).
Regarding claim 32, Chang discloses an electronic device ([0139], electronic device), comprising: the optical lens (Fig 1N – Fig 1R, [0141], imaging lens assembly 100) of claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (20230273411) in view of Zou (20100018252).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein a glass transition temperature of the optical portion is TgO, a glass transition temperature of the extending portion is TgE, and the following condition is satisfied: 147oC ≤ TgO-TgE ≤ 643oC. However, within a similar endeavor, Zou teaches wherein a glass transition temperature of the optical portion is TgO, a glass transition temperature of the extending portion is TgE, and the following condition is satisfied: 147oC ≤ TgO-TgE ≤ 643oC ([0067], [0080], Tg-TMA: Glass transition temperature, Table 4 shows a temperature within the claimed range). It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144. Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical system as taught by Chang to have the additional feature of TgO-TgE value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Zou.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (20230273411) in view of Zou (20100018252) and in further view of Wu (20200341228).
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Zou discloses the invention as described within claim 2 but does not teach wherein the extending portion is opaque, and the extending portion and the optical portion are integrally formed. However, Wu teaches wherein the extending portion is opaque (Fig 3B, [0092], 360 is made of a black plastic material), and the extending portion and the optical portion are integrally formed (Fig 3B, [0092], 360 includes two gate traces 369). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Chang and Zou with the components of Wu for the purpose of enhancing the light blocking efficiency with a lens formation (Wu, [0062]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (20230273411) in view of Wu (20200341228).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the extending portion further comprises a light diminishing structure, and a surface contour of the extending portion is undulating via the light diminishing structure. However, Wu teaches wherein the extending portion further comprises a light diminishing structure, and a surface contour of the extending portion is undulating via the light diminishing structure (Fig 3A – 3C, [0093], each of the wedge structures 364 is tapered toward the optical axis z, i.e., a V-shaped groove is formed between adjacent two of the wedge structures). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Chang with the components of Wu for the purpose of enhancing the light blocking efficiency with a lens formation (Wu, [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-31 and 33 are allowed.
Claims 4-13 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art of Chang taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical lens including the specific arrangement: “wherein the extending portion is attached to the optical portion and extends towards a direction close to the optical axis, a light through hole is formed on one of the first optical surface and the second optical surface via the extending portion, a contour of the light through hole is defined via an inner peripheral surface, an angle between the inner peripheral surface and the optical axis is θa, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 degrees <θa < 73 degrees”. Claims 5-10 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 4.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 11, the prior art of Chang taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical lens including the specific arrangement: “further comprising: a lens element adjacently disposed with the composite lens along the optical axis, a diameter of the lens element is φL, a diameter of the optical portion is φO, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.04 <φL/φO < 3.1”. Claims 12 and 13 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 11.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 15, the prior art of Chang taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical lens including the specific arrangement: “a composite lens, comprising: an optical portion, wherein an optical axis passes through the optical portion, and the optical portion comprises: a first optical surface, wherein a light passes through the first optical surface to enter the optical portion; a second optical surface corresponding to the first optical surface, and the light passing through the second optical surface to exit the optical portion; and a connecting surface surrounding the optical axis and connected to the first optical surface and the second optical surface; and an extending portion surrounding and covering the connecting surface, wherein the extending portion is attached to the optical portion and extends towards a direction close to the optical axis, and a first light through hole and a second light through hole are formed on the first optical surface and the second optical surface via the extending portion, respectively; wherein the optical portion is made of glass material, the extending portion is made of plastic material, a contour of the first light through hole is defined via a first inner peripheral surface, a contour of the second light through hole is defined via a second inner peripheral surface, an angle between the first inner peripheral surface and the second inner peripheral surface is θt, and the following condition is satisfied: 27 degrees <θt < 171 degrees”. Claims 16-31 and 33 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsai (20200292779), Shirotori (20190302393), and Bone (20150323757) are examples of a lens assembly containing molded components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872