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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface are inclined so that they approach each other as they approach the one surface of the body portion” in lines 16-18. However, Examiner notes that it is unclear as to how to determine how the at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface “are inclined” since determination of the inclination of the recited portions of the inner and outer circumferential surfaces relies on a reference such as a particular point, plane, surface, structure, or the like from which inclination can be determined. Since the claim lacks a particular point, plane, surface, structure, or the like required for determining the inclination of the “at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface,” the recitation of “at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface are inclined” renders the claim as a whole to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the recitation of “at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface are inclined so that they approach each other as they approach the one surface of the body portion” will be broadly interpreted as “at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface approach the one surface of the body portion.” Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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, 5, 8-9, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (U.S. 2014/0160581).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a lens assembly (2, Fig. 7; page 1, para [0025]) comprising:
a first lens (314, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0047]);
a second lens (315, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0046]) spaced apart from the first lens (314, Fig. 7) along an optical axis (I, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039]); and
a first spacer (5, Figs. 7-8; page 3, para [0047]) disposed between the first lens (314, Fig. 7) and the second lens (315, Fig. 7),
wherein the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) comprises:
a body portion (51, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0047]) comprising an opening (opening of 5 surrounded by 52, Figs. 7-8) penetrating the first spacer (5, Figs. 7-8) in a direction of the optical axis (I, Figs. 7-8), and
a first extension portion (55, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0047]) protruding from one surface (upper surface of 51, Figs. 7-8) of the body portion (51, Figs. 7-8) and extending toward the first lens (55 protrudes from upper surface of 51 and extends toward 314, Figs. 7-8),
the one surface (upper surface of 51, Figs. 7-8) of the body portion (51, Figs. 7-8) is spaced apart from the first lens in the optical axis direction (such as portions of the upper surface of 51 are spaced apart from the first lens 314 in the optical axis I direction, Fig. 7),
the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) contacts and supports the first lens (55 contacts and supports the first lens 314, Fig. 7),
the body portion (5, Fig. 7) further comprises:
an inner circumferential surface (54, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0047]) surrounding the opening (opening of 5 surrounded by 52, Figs. 7-8); and
an outer circumferential surface (outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24, Figs. 2 and 7; page 2, para [0026]) surrounding the body portion (5, Figs. 7-8), and
at least a portion of the inner circumferential surface (54, Fig. 7) and at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface (outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24, Figs. 2 and 7) approach the one surface of the body portion (since 54 and the outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24 approach the one surface comprising the upper surface of the body portion 51, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) comprises at least three protrusions (at least 3 protrusions of 55, Figs. 7-8) protruding from the one surface (upper surface of 51, Figs. 7-8), extending toward the first lens (314, Fig. 7), and spaced apart from each other (the at least 3 protrusions of 55 are spaced apart from each other, Fig. 8), and
each of the at least three protrusions contacts and supports the first lens (each of the at least three protrusions of 55 contacts and supports the first lens 314, Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) is spaced apart from the inner circumferential surface (54, Fig. 7) and the outer circumferential surface (outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24, Figs. 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the inner circumferential surface (54, Fig. 7) and the outer circumferential surface (outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24, Figs. 2 and 7) have different shapes when viewed in the optical axis (I, Figs. 7-8) direction (since the inner circumferential surface 54 has a convex shape and the outer lateral surface of 51 contacting 24 has a linear shape, Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the inner circumferential surface (54, Fig. 7) has a circular shape when viewed in the optical axis direction (since the inner circumferential surface 54 has an overall circular shape when viewed in the optical axis direction, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Cho disclose a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first lens (314, Fig. 7), the second lens (315, Fig. 7), and the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) each have a length in a first direction (such as a whole vertical length of 314, Fig. 7; such as a whole vertical length of 315, Fig. 7; such as a whole vertical length of 51, Fig. 7) greater than a length in a second direction (such as a length of a portion of 314 overlapping 51 and perpendicular to the whole vertical length of 314 and optical axis I, Fig. 7; such as a length of a portion of 315 overlapping 51 and perpendicular to the whole vertical length of 315 and optical axis I, Fig. 7; such as a length of 55 perpendicular to the whole vertical length of 51 and optical axis I, Fig. 7), and the first direction (vertical direction, Fig. 7) and the second direction (direction perpendicular to the vertical direction and optical axis I, Fig. 7) are perpendicular to each other and intersect the optical axis (since the vertical direction and direction perpendicular to the vertical direction are perpendicular to each other and intersect the optical axis, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) further comprises a second extension portion (53, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0042]) protruding from another surface (bottom surface of 51, Fig. 7) of the body portion (51, Fig. 7) and extending toward the second lens (315, Fig. 7), the other surface (bottom surface of 51, Fig. 7) being on an opposite side of the body portion (51, Fig. 7) from the one surface (upper surface of 51, Fig. 7),
the other surface (bottom surface of 51, Fig. 7) of the body portion (51, Fig. 7) is spaced apart from the second lens (315, Fig. 7) in the optical axis (I, Fig. 7) direction, and
the second extension portion (53, Fig. 7) contacts and supports the second lens (53 contacts and supports the second lens 315, Fig. 4).
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.
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) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (U.S. 2014/0160581).
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses a height of the body portion (51, Fig. 7) of the spacer (5, Fig. 7) is 0.3 mm (height of body portion 51 is 0.3 mm, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0035]). Cho does not expressly disclose wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.00333 < h2/h1 < 0.667
where h1 is a height of the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) including the body portion (51, Fig. 7) and the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) in the optical axis direction (I, Fig. 7), and h2 is a height of the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) in the optical axis direction.
However, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to configure h1 and h2 of Cho to satisfy the conditional expression:
0.00333 < h2/h1 < 0.667
through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that satisfying the conditional expression:
0.00333 < h2/h1 < 0.667
is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. 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. Furthermore, Cho discloses that the purpose of the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) is to compensate for any unevenness of the body portion (51, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure h1 and h2 of Cho to satisfy the conditional expression:
0.00333 < h2/h1 < 0.667
in order to obtain the benefits of optimizing the body portion (51, Fig. 7) to have reduced unevenness as evidenced by Cho (page 3, para [0048]) since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 15, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 14 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the following conditional expressions are satisfied:
0.1 mm ≤ h1 ≤ 3 mm, and
0.01 mm ≤ h2 ≤ 2 mm.
However, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to configure h1 and h2 of Cho to satisfy the conditional expressions:
0.1 mm ≤ h1 ≤ 3 mm, and
0.01 mm ≤ h2 ≤ 2 mm
through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that satisfying the conditional expressions:
0.1 mm ≤ h1 ≤ 3 mm, and
0.01 mm ≤ h2 ≤ 2 mm
is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. 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. Furthermore, Cho discloses that the purpose of the first extension portion (55, Fig. 7) is to compensate for any unevenness of the body portion (51, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0048]) and that the height of the body portion (51, Fig. 7) of the spacer (5, Fig. 7) is 0.3 mm (height of body portion 51 is 0.3 mm, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0035]), which is in the same order of magnitude as the recited conditional expressions:
0.1 mm ≤ h1 ≤ 3 mm, and
0.01 mm ≤ h2 ≤ 2 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure h1 and h2 of Cho to satisfy the conditional expressions:
0.1 mm ≤ h1 ≤ 3 mm, and
0.01 mm ≤ h2 ≤ 2 mm
in order to obtain the benefits of optimizing the body portion (51, Fig. 7) to have reduced unevenness as evidenced by Cho (page 3, para [0048]) since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose a second spacer disposed between the first lens (314, Fig. 7) and the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) and contacting the first lens and the first spacer. However, Cho discloses a plurality of light shielding spacers (4, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0031]) that can be disposed between lens components (311, 312, and 313, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0031]) such that they are contacting the lens components in order to block stray light (page 1, para [0003]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the light shielding spacer (4, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0031]) of Cho as a second spacer (4, Fig. 7) disposed between the first lens (314, Fig. 7) and the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) and contacting the first lens and the first spacer in order to obtain the benefits of increasing the effectiveness of blocking stray light as taught by Cho (page 1, para [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Cho discloses a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses wherein a height of the second spacer (4, Fig. 7) in the optical axis (I, Fig. 7) direction is smaller than a height of the first spacer (5, Fig. 7) in the optical axis (I, Fig. 7) direction.
Regarding claim 18, Cho disclose a lens assembly with all the limitations of claim 16 above and further discloses wherein the first spacer (314, Fig. 7) and the second spacer (4, Fig. 7) are made of different materials (since the first spacer 5 is made of plastic and the second spacer 4 is made of an opaque material, Fig. 7; page 2, para [0031]; page 3, para [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10-13, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art as presently searched does not disclose the optical assembly of claim 3 (having all the combination of features including wherein the first extension portion comprises a plurality of protrusions protruding from the one surface, extending toward the first lens, and spaced apart from each other, a width of each of the plurality of protrusions in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis decreases as the protrusions extend toward the first lens), does not disclose the optical assembly of claim 6 (having all the combination of features including wherein the first lens comprises: an optical portion; and a flange portion extending from an edge of at least a portion of the optical portion in a direction away from the optical axis, the optical portion comprises: a first edge and a second edge disposed on opposite sides of the optical axis in a first direction; and a third edge and a fourth edge disposed on opposite sides of the optical axis in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the third edge connects a first end of the first edge to a first end of the second edge, the fourth edge connects a second end of the first edge to a second end of the second edge, and a shortest distance between the first edge and the second edge is greater than a shortest distance between the third edge and the fourth edge), and does not disclose the optical assembly of claim 10 (having all the combination of features including wherein the outer circumferential surface comprises: a first outer surface and a second outer surface disposed on opposite sides of the optical axis in a first direction; and a third outer surface and a fourth outer surface disposed on opposite sides of the optical axis in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the third outer surface connects a first end of the first outer surface to a first end of the second outer surface, the fourth outer surface connects a second end of the first outer surface to a second end of the second outer surface, and a shortest distance between the first outer surface and the second outer surface is greater than a shortest distance between the third outer surface and the fourth outer surface). Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent on claim 3. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent on claim 6. Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871