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 .
Examiner’s Comments
In view of the amendments, the prior objection of claim 18 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2007/0217036), hereinafter “Miyauchi”, in view of Kim et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0329734), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Miyauchi discloses a lens module (see Fig. 1), comprising: a lens barrel (10) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 39, Line 1); a plurality of lenses (11-12) disposed in the lens barrel (10) along an optical axis (see Fig. 1); and a fixing member (26/29) configured to fix at least one of the plurality of lenses (11-12) to the lens barrel (Paragraphs 41, Lines 4-5; Paragraph 42, Lines 13-16), wherein the lens barrel (10) comprises a through-hole which accommodates a portion of the fixing member (26/29) (see Fig. 1), wherein a first end of the fixing member (26/29) protrudes outwardly of the through-hole, and wherein a diameter of the first end of the fixing member (26/29) is greater than a diameter of the through-hole (see Fig. 1). Miyauchi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the fixing member penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction. In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the fixing member (300, 600, 224, 524) penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction (see Figs. 3, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyauchi with wherein the fixing member penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction of Kim for the purpose of providing improved optical characteristics while maintaining miniaturization (Paragraphs 7-8). The recitation that a fixing member penetrates a through-hole in an optical axis direction is capable of being interpreted as either in a direction towards or perpendicular the optical axis or in a direction parallel to the optical axis. With the former interpretation, Miyauchi would read on the limitation and Kim is presented to provide further evidence of the latter interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the fixing member (26/29) comprises: a fixing portion which contacts at least one of the plurality of lenses (11-12), and an accommodating portion which is accommodated in the through-hole of the lens barrel (10) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the diameter of the first end of the fixing member (26/29) is greater than a diameter of the accommodating portion (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the fixing portion is connected to the accommodating portion (see Fig. 1), and wherein the fixing portion is in contact with a lens (11) which is disposed on an outermost side of the lens barrel (10) in a positive direction of the optical axis from among the plurality of lenses (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 41, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the lens barrel (10) comprises a support portion (20) which supports a lens (12) disposed on an outermost side of the lens barrel (10) in a negative direction of the optical axis from among the plurality of lenses (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the lens barrel (10) comprises a groove portion (17/21) in which the fixing portion is disposed (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the accommodating portion has a length in the optical axis direction, and the fixing portion has a length in a direction, perpendicular to the optical axis direction (see Fig. 1). In the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a length in an optical axis direction”, is thickness or width of the accommodating portion.
Regarding claim 10, Miyauchi further discloses wherein the fixing member (26/29/35) is provided in a plural number (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Miyauchi and Kim teach the lens module set forth above for claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein the fixing member is disposed symmetrically with respect to the optical axis (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens module of Miyauchi with the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Miyauchi discloses a lens module (see Fig. 1), comprising: a lens barrel (10) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 39, Line 1); a plurality of lenses (11-12) disposed in the lens barrel (10) along an optical axis (see Fig. 1); and a fixing member (26/29) configured to fix at least one of the plurality of lenses (11-12) to the lens barrel (Paragraphs 41, Lines 4-5; Paragraph 42, Lines 13-16), wherein a first side of the fixing member contacts the lens barrel (10), wherein a second side of the fixing member is in contact with one of the plurality of lenses (11-12), and wherein the fixing member (26/29) is fixed to the lens barrel (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 41, Lines 4-5; Paragraph 42, Lines 13-16), wherein the lens barrel (10) comprises a through-hole in which a portion of the fixing member (26/29) is accommodated (see Fig. 1). Miyauchi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and wherein the fixing member penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction. In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses and wherein the fixing member (300, 600, 224, 524) penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction (see Figs. 3, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyauchi with wherein the fixing member penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction of Kim for the purpose of providing improved optical characteristics while maintaining miniaturization (Paragraphs 7-8). The recitation that a fixing member penetrates a through-hole in an optical axis direction is capable of being interpreted as either in a direction towards or perpendicular the optical axis or in a direction parallel to the optical axis. With the former interpretation, Miyauchi would read on the limitation and Kim is presented to provide further evidence of the latter interpretation.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Miyauchi further discloses further comprising a spacer (31 disposed between two lenses disposed adjacently among the plurality of lenses (11-12) (see Figs. 1, 2, Paragraph 44, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Miyauchi and Kim teach the lens module set forth above for claim 12, Kim further discloses wherein the first side of the fixing member (300, 600) is plate-shaped (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens module of Miyauchi with the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 12.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi (USPG Pub No. 2007/0217036) in view of Kim (USPG Pub No. 2022/0329734) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Komori et al. (JP 2008039895 A), hereinafter “Komori”.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Miyauchi and Kim disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the fixing member is formed of a plastic material. In the same field of endeavor, Komori discloses wherein the fixing member (50) is formed of a plastic material (Pg. 5, Paragraph 4, Lines 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyauchi and Kim with wherein the fixing member is formed of a plastic material of Komori for the purpose of preventing damage to other elements in the lens module (Pg. 5, Paragraph 4, Lines 4-7 of the provided translation). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi (USPG Pub No. 2007/0217036) in view of Kim (USPG Pub No. 2022/0329734) and Takada (USPG Pub No. 2022/0196962).
Regarding claim 17, Miyauchi discloses a lens module (see Fig. 1), comprising: a lens barrel (10) comprising a through-hole (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 39, Line 1); a plurality of lenses (11-12) disposed in the lens barrel (10) on an optical axis (see Fig. 1); and a fixing pin (26/29) configured to fix a first lens of the plurality of lenses (11-12) to the lens barrel (10) (Paragraphs 41, Lines 4-5; Paragraph 42, Lines 13-16), wherein the fixing pin (26/29) is disposed in the through-hole (see Fig. 1), wherein a first end of the fixing pin (26/29) contacts the lens barrel (10) and the first lens (11/12) (see Fig. 1). Miyauchi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the fixing pin penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction, and wherein a second end of the fixing pin is welded to the lens barrel to cover the through-hole. In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the fixing pin (300, 600, 224, 524) penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction (see Figs. 3, 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyauchi with wherein the fixing pin penetrates the through-hole in an optical axis direction of Kim for the purpose of providing improved optical characteristics while maintaining miniaturization (Paragraphs 7-8). In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Takada discloses and wherein a second end of the fixing pin is welded to the lens barrel to cover the through-hole (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 85, Lines 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens module of Miyauchi and Kim with and wherein a second end of the fixing pin is welded to the lens barrel to cover the through-hole of Takada for the purpose of providing a preferred and more convenient method of attachment (Paragraph 85). The recitation that a fixing pin penetrates a through-hole in an optical axis direction is capable of being interpreted as either in a direction towards or perpendicular the optical axis or in a direction parallel to the optical axis. With the former interpretation, Miyauchi would read on the limitation and Kim is presented to provide further evidence of the latter interpretation.
Regarding claim 18, Miyauchi further discloses wherein a diameter of the first end of the fixing pin (26/29) is greater than a diameter of the through-hole (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Miyauchi, Kim and Takada teach the lens module set forth above for claim 17, Takada further discloses wherein a diameter of the second end of the fixing pin (31) is greater than a diameter of a lower end of the through-hole (41b) (see Fig. 4, Paragraph 34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens module of Miyauchi and Kim with the teachings of Takada for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 17. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Kim cures the deficiencies of Miyauchi and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights