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 § 102
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, 5, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN 206431351).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a lens barrel, comprising:
a lens barrel body which is hollow and open at both ends (11), and
a support wall bending and extending inwardly from an object-side end of the lens barrel body and enclosing a light-through hole (12),
wherein an image-side surface of the support wall is provided with a plurality of extinction regions protruding in a direction of an optical axis of the lens barrel, and the plurality of extinction regions are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the support walt (122);
wherein each of the plurality of extinction regions includes a plurality of linear extinction strips protruding from the image-side surface, and the plurality of linear extinction strips are all disposed in each of the plurality of extinction regions ([0022]-[0025]); and
wherein each of the plurality of linear extinction strips extends from one end of the image-side surface of the support wall adjacent to the lens barrel body to one end of the image-side surface of the support wall adjacent to the optical axis (Fig. 2), and adjacent two linear extinction strips are spaced apart from each other to form a vent slot for venting ([0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses wherein four extinction regions are provided and are equally spaced apart (Fig. 5 shows at least four extinction regions equally spaced apart).
Regarding claim 7, Wei discloses a lens module, comprising a lens barrel and a lens group mounted in the lens barrel, wherein the lens barrel includes a lens barrel body which is hollow and open at both ends (11), and a support wall bending and extending inwardly from an object-side end of the lens barrel body and enclosing a light-through hole (12);
wherein an image-side surface of the support wall is provided with a plurality of extinction regions protruding in a direction of an optical axis of the lens barrel, and the plurality of extinction regions are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction of the support wall (122);
wherein each of the plurality of extinction regions includes a plurality of linear extinction strips protruding from the image-side surface, and the plurality of linear extinction strips are all disposed in each of the plurality of extinction regions ([0022]-[0025]);
wherein each of the plurality of linear extinction strips extends from one end of the image-side surface of the support wall adjacent to the lens barrel body to one end of the image-side surface of the support wall adjacent to the optical axis, and adjacent two linear extinction strips are spaced apart from each other to form a vent slot for venting ([0015]); and
wherein an object-side surface of the lens group is abutted against the plurality of extinction regions (Figs. 2-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2-4, 6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Wei does not disclose wherein the vent slot has a width in a range of 10 µm to 30 µm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of optical design includes manipulation of known result effective variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the width of the vent slots to be within 10-30 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the slot width of the vents to be within the claimed range motivated by improving air flow.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Wei does not disclose wherein the vent slot has a slot depth in a range of 2 µm to 10 µm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of optical design includes manipulation of known result effective variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the depth of the vent slots to be within 2-10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the slot depth of the vents to be within the claimed range motivated by improving air flow.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Wei does not disclose wherein a linear scanning extinction roughness Rt of each of the plurality of extinction regions is in a range of 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of optical design includes manipulation of known result effective variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the roughness of the vent slots to be within 1-10 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the slot depth of the vents to be within the claimed range motivated by improving air flow.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Wei does not disclose wherein a number of the plurality of linear extinction strips in each of the plurality of extinction regions is 70, and a size of a spacing region between adjacent two extinction regions is half a size of a single extinction region.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of optical design includes manipulation of known result effective variables in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the number of strips to 70 and the spacing between adjacent regions to half that of a single region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the number and size of slots in order to improve air flow.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wei discloses wherein four extinction regions are provided and are equally spaced apart (Fig. 5 shows at least four extinction regions equally spaced apart).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights