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 Objections
Claims 6, 13 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim limitation of claim 6, “wherein when a difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness is Ra1, Ra1 is 0.2 μm or more” should be “wherein
Claim 13, line 9, the phase “a surface of the flange portion” should be “the surface of the flange portion”; and
Claim limitation of claim 14, “wherein the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from the surface of the flange portion to the inside of the flange portion” should be “wherein the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from the surface of the flange portion to an inside of the flange portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim KR 20210044552A (see document of 18415743_2026-01-07_KR_20210044552_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a lens, in at least figs.1-3, comprising:
an optical portion (10) configured to refract light; and
a flange portion (20) extending from the optical portion,
wherein a first region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below) having first surface roughness, a second region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below) having second surface roughness, and a third region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below) having third surface roughness are sequentially disposed from the optical portion toward the flange portion (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below), on at least one of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the flange portion (see fig.1 and annotated figures 2 and 3 below, on an object-side surface of the flange portion),
wherein the first surface roughness and the third surface roughness are greater than the second surface roughness (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below and page 5, lines 21 and 22, discloses the surface roughness of CA1 is greater than and the surface roughness of NCA1), and
wherein a light blocking portion (each spacer provided with a light absorbing layer, page 3, line 8) is disposed in the second region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below, the light blocking portion is disposed in the second region and some portions of first region and third region).
PNG
media_image1.png
865
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the light blocking portion is black (page 3, lines 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the first region, the second region, and the third region are formed continuously in a circumferential direction of the flange portion (see figs.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the light blocking portion is continuously disposed in the circumferential direction of the flange portion (see figs.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the light blocking portion is spaced apart from the optical portion by at least a portion of the first region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the light blocking portion is spaced apart from an outer end of the flange portion by at least a portion of the third region (see annotated figures 2 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a lens assembly, in at least figs.1-3, comprising:
a plurality of lenses (L1-L6, see fig.1) disposed along an optical axis (see fig.1), and respectively including an optical portion (10) configured to refract light and a flange portion (20) extending from the optical portion; and
a lens barrel (2) accommodating the plurality of lenses (see fig.1),
wherein one or more lenses of the plurality of lenses include a light blocking portion (each spacer provided with a light absorbing layer, page 3, line 8) disposed on a surface of the flange portion (see fig.1),
wherein the light blocking portion is disposed at a position spaced apart from the optical portion by a predetermined distance (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below), and
wherein a surface (a surface of second region, see annotated figures 2 and 3 below) of the flange portion on which the light blocking portion is disposed has lower surface roughness than other surfaces (surfaces of first region and third region, see annotated figures 2 and 3 below) of the flange portion (see page 5, lines 21 and 22 discloses the surface roughness of CA1 is greater than and the surface roughness of NCA1).
PNG
media_image2.png
869
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim KR 20210044552A as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness is Ra1 (see fig.2).
Kim does not explicitly disclose Ra1 is 0.2 μm or more. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to have Ra1 is 0.2 μm or more through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. 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 Ra1 is 0.2 μm or more in the lens of Kim for the purpose of suppressing the occurrence of a flare (page 5, bottom up line 9).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim KR 20210044552A as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chou US 20170227735.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kim does not explicitly disclose the first surface roughness is greater in a portion, adjacent to the second region than in a portion, adjacent to the optical portion, or the first surface roughness becomes greater from the optical portion toward the second region.
Chou discloses a lens, in at least figs.3A, 3G, 3H and 3I, the first surface roughness (the first region with 331b) is greater in a portion, adjacent to the second region (the region without 331b and adjacent to the first region away from the optical portion) than in a portion, adjacent to the optical portion (see figs.3H and 3I and para.91, when the width of W increases, the surface roughness increases), or the first surface roughness (the first region with 331b) becomes greater from the optical portion toward the second region (the region without 331b and adjacent to the first region away from the optical portion)(see at least figs.3I and para.91, when the width of W increases, the surface roughness increases) for the purpose of diminishing light (para.89) and enhancing image quality of the modules (para.8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface roughness is greater in a portion, adjacent to the second region than in a portion, adjacent to the optical portion, or the first surface roughness becomes greater from the optical portion toward the second region as taught by Chou in the lens of Kim for the purpose of diminishing light and enhancing image quality of the modules.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim KR 20210044552A as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Chen TW I400550B (see document of 18415743_2026-01-08_TW_I400550_B_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the surface of the flange portion located between the light blocking portion and the optical portion has greater surface roughness than the surface of the flange portion on which the light blocking portion is disposed.
Kim does not explicitly disclose the surface of the flange portion located between the light blocking portion and the optical portion has greater surface roughness than the surface of the flange portion located between the light blocking portion and an outer end of the flange portion.
Chen discloses a lens assembly, in at least fig.1, the object side of the second lens or the third lens has a surface roughness increases from the optical portion toward the flange portion (see fig.1) for the purpose of having a camera module with lens module with anti-glare function and better shooting effect (page 1, bottom-up lines 2 and 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the object side of the second lens or the third lens has a surface roughness increases from the optical portion toward the flange portion as taught by Chen in the lens of Kim in order to have the surface of the flange portion located between the light blocking portion and the optical portion has greater surface roughness than the surface of the flange portion located between the light blocking portion and an outer end of the flange portion for the purpose of having a camera module with lens module with anti-glare function and better shooting effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 14-15 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from a surface of the second region to an inside of the flange portion, along with other claim limitations. Claims 4 and 5 are depended on claim 3 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Kim KR 20210044552A, Chou US 20170227735, Chen TW I400550B, Chou US 20170227735 and Yang US 2020/0103611, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from a surface of the second region to an inside of the flange portion, along with other claim limitations. Claims 4 and 5 are depended on claim 3 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from the surface of the flange portion to an inside of the flange portion, along with other claim limitations. Claim 15 is depended on claim 14 so it is allowable for the same reason.
Kim KR 20210044552A, Chou US 20170227735, Chen TW I400550B, Chou US 20170227735 and Yang US 2020/0103611, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of the light blocking portion is disposed to extend from the surface of the flange portion to an inside of the flange portion, along with other claim limitations. Claim 15 is depended on claim 14 so it is allowable for the same reason.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou US 20170227735 (figs.1A-4D, discloses three regions with a light blocking portion (1191)(see figs.1A-1D)) discloses claims 1,2,6-8, 11-13 as well and
Yang US 2020/0103611 (in at least figs.1-5, discloses three regions and does not a light blocking portion) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871