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
The information disclosure statement submitted on 5/8/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/14/2026.
The reply filed on 4/14/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s):
extra/unintended edits such as strikethroughs (and/or hyphens possibly; e.g., in ¶ 167: “10-6Substitute Specification – Marked Up (but not in Substitute Specification – Clean)
the reformatting of “10-6mm/°C” to “10-6 mm/°C” on line 6 of ¶ 169 is not reflected in Substitute Specification – Marked Up (though Examiner notes the appropriate changes are reflected in Substitute Specification – Clean)
some deficiencies noted in the previous office action either remain unaddressed or were not fully remediated by the amendments; these are reflected/reiterated in the specification objections and 112(b) rejections below
Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, the amendment is accepted as an adequate reply to the last Office action and is acted upon below. Applicant is also reminded that amendments should be checked for compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 to maintain a clear record and to avoid non-entry of amendments and unnecessary prosecution delays.
Amendments to the abstract, to the specification, and to claims 1-3, 6-11, 17-18, and 21, filed 4/14/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Corrected FIGs. 1 and 13-14, filed 4/14/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 12, filed 11/14/2023, remains in effect.
Due to the amendments, the previous drawing objections and claims objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pgs. 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose limitations newly amended into claims 1 and 6. Examiner disagrees and refers to the updated rejections below, where Kawasaki is cited for their disclosure of lenses inside the lens barrel consist of three lenses, while Chou is cited for their disclosure of the second flange portion has an outer surface comprising the first contact surface in surface contact with the inner sidewall of the lens barrel and a first non-contact surface extending from a sensor-side end of the first contact surface and spaced apart from the inner sidewall of the lens barrel.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 1-4, the first sentence’s list remains ill-formed. Proper sentence structure would read “The camera module includes a lens barrel […], a lens part disposed in […], and an image sensor” or similar. See also ¶ 13A of the previous office action
On lines 5-7, “Each of the first to third lenses includes first to third flange portions” is ambiguous and unclear. See also the related rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous office action
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 82, lines 10 and 14, there are sporadic breaks in the paragraph without any new paragraph numbers.
In ¶ 93, line 2, “lower barrel portion 550” should read “lower barrel portion 510”. See also ¶ 15K of the previous office action
In ¶ 95, lines 1-4, the first sentence of the paragraph is redundant and unclear; the phrases “a second diameter […] with respect to the optical axis” and “where the upper portion […] contacts with respect to the optical axis” lack clear meaning
In ¶ 95, lines 12-14, the sentence reading “That is, for the radius […]” is generally unclear or possibly misplaced. The discussed radii are abruptly introduced without adequate context, while “radius along the optical axis” lacks clear meaning
¶s 167 and 169, in general, are disorganized and difficult to parse due to their mixture of formulas and extended narration, leaving the information/definitions cluttered, imprecise, and unclear. These problems are exacerbated by numerous grammatical issues. For example, on lines 1-2 of ¶ 167, “A means […], the condition may satisfy” contains a comma splice that improperly joins two clauses, “A means […]” is nonidiomatic and unclear (try “A represents”, “A is defined as”, etc.), and the phrase “the condition [which condition?] may satisfy: [some condition]” is improper and apparently redundant/self-referencing.
There remain improperly formatted equations – e.g. unclosed parentheses for formulas in ¶ 167, lines 2-3, 5-6; ¶ 169 lines 2-3, 5-6. See also ¶ 15Q of the previous office action
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
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 1-11 and 13-21 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, lines 22-23 recite “an axial position of an upper portion of the image sensor and the lens barrel are in contact”. However, it appears that this is inconsistent with the disclosure, and that the image sensor does not make any direct physical contact with the lens barrel itself (see, e.g., ¶ 52: “image sensor 192 outside the lens barrel 500”, ¶ 94: “192 may be disposed inside a lower end portion 507 [of lens barrel 500]”, and FIG. 1 showing that image sensor 192’s does not radially extend past the lower walls of lens barrel 500). For examination purposes, the quoted limitation shall be read as “an axial position of an upper portion of the image sensor” – following the interpretation of the previous 112(b) rejection. See also ¶ 22 of the previous office action, where the same issue was identified – but from which Examiner’s interpretation (i.e. suggested amendment) was not fully implemented.
Regarding claim 6, lines 17-18 recite “an outer surface of the first support portion…, an outer surface of the second support portion…, an outer surface of the third support portion…”. However, lines 14-15 of the same claim already recited “the first, second, and third support portions include… an outer surface”. It is thus unclear whether the same claim element is being referred to, or whether new “outer surfaces” are being defined in the recited limitation. For examination purposes, each instance of “an outer surface of the [first/second/third] support portion” shall be read as “the outer surface of the [first/second/third] support portion”. See also ¶ 24 of the previous office action.
Regarding claim 18, lines 4-5 recite “a thickness of the second flange support portion” which was already recited on line 35 of the claim 1. It is thus unclear whether the same claim element is being referred to, or whether a new “thickness” is being defined in the recited limitation. For examination purposes, “a thickness of the second flange portion” shall be read as “the thickness of the second flange portion”.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejections above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-3, 6, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 20210141128) in view of Kawasaki (US 20080180814).
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses (see FIG. 1B, annotated below) a camera module (imaging lens assembly 100) comprising:
a lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) having a through hole therein;
a lens part disposed in the through hole of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) and having a first lens (first imaging lens element 121), a second lens (second imaging lens element 122), and a third lens (third imaging lens element 123) in which an optical axis (X) is aligned from an object side toward a sensor side; and
an image sensor (image surface 140; note ¶ 69: “the image sensor is disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly”),
wherein each the first lens (first imaging lens element 121), the second lens (second imaging lens element 122), and the third lens (third imaging lens element 123) respectively include a first flange portion, a second flange portion, and a third flange portion extending from the optical axis (X) toward an inner sidewall of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110),
wherein the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) includes a first support portion disposed outside the first flange portion, a second support portion disposed outside the second flange portion, and a third support portion disposed outside the third flange portion,
wherein an outer diameter of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) at an axial position where an upper portion of the first flange portion and the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) are in contact is a first outer diameter,
wherein an outer diameter of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) at an axial position where an upper portion of the second flange portion and the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) are in contact is a second outer diameter,
wherein an outer diameter of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) at an axial position where an upper portion of the third flange portion and the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) are in contact is a third outer diameter,
wherein an outer diameter of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) at an axial position of an upper portion of the image sensor (image surface 140) and the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) are in contact is a fourth outer diameter,
wherein the third outer diameter is smaller than the fourth outer diameter and greater than the second outer diameter,
wherein the first lens (first imaging lens element 121) on the optical axis (X) comprises an object-side first surface and a sensor-side second surface,
wherein an object-side third surface and a sensor-side fourth surface of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122) have different radii of curvature on the optical axis (X),
wherein a center of a first contact surface of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122) in which the second flange portion contacts an inner surface of the second support portion is located closer to a side having a greater radius of curvature (i.e. “third surface” side in annotated FIG. 1B) between the third surface and the fourth surface relative to a center of a thickness of the second flange portion, and
wherein the second flange portion has an outer surface comprising the first contact surface in surface contact with the inner sidewall of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) and a first non-contact surface extending from a sensor-side end (i.e. facing image surface 140) of the first contact surface and spaced apart from the inner sidewall of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1B of Chou is annotated to highlight various features. Note that groups of numbered annotations (“1st – 3rd”, etc.) are generally ordered with incrementing numerals arranged from left to right.)]
Chou does not disclose:
wherein a material of the second lens and a material of the first lens are different,
wherein a refractive index of the second lens is lower than a refractive index of the first lens,
wherein the lenses inside the lens barrel consist of three lenses.
Chou and Kawasaki are commonly related to camera modules.
Kawasaki discloses (see ¶s 75-76, FIG. 2 for general features; see also ¶s 108-111, Table 5, and FIG. 9 regarding Example 3):
wherein a material (“polycarbonate-based plastic material”) of the second lens (L2) and a material (i.e. glass) of the first lens (L1) are different,
wherein a refractive index (Nd(3) = 1.583) of the second lens (L2) is lower than a refractive index (Nd(1) = 1.58913) of the first lens (L1),
wherein the lenses (L1-L3) inside the lens barrel (lens frame 55) consist of three lenses (L1-L3).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chou with Kawasaki’s lens designs, in order to provide a smaller, high-performance image pickup apparatus (Kawasaki ¶s 8, 60).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 1.
Chou further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B above) wherein the first outer diameter is smaller than the third outer diameter.
Kawasaki further discloses (see ¶s 109-110):
wherein the first lens (L1) is made of glass, and
wherein the second lens (L2) is made of plastic.
Regarding claim 3, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 1.
Kawasaki further discloses (see FIG. 9 and ¶s 109-110 regarding Example 3; see also FIG. 2 and ¶s 67-79 for more on structure – beyond/including those of Example 3 cited above):
comprising an optical filter (F) disposed inside a lower end of the lens barrel (casing 53) and disposed between the third lens (L3) and the image sensor (CMOS type image pickup element 51),
wherein the first lens (L1) is made of glass, and
wherein the third lens (L3) is made of plastic.
Regarding claim 6, Chou discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B, accompanying claim 1 above) a camera module (imaging lens assembly 100) comprising:
a lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) having a through hole therein; and
a first lens (first imaging lens element 121), a second lens (second imaging lens element 122), and a third lens (third imaging lens element 123) disposed in the through hole of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) and aligned with an optical axis (X) from an object side toward a sensor side,
wherein the first lens (first imaging lens element 121), the second lens (second imaging lens element 122), and the third lens (third imaging lens element 123) respectively include a first flange portion, a second flange portion, and a third flange portion extending from the optical axis (X) toward an inner surface of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110),
wherein the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) includes a first support portion disposed outside the first flange portion, a second support portion disposed outside the second flange portion, and a third support portion disposed outside the third flange portion,
wherein the first, second, and third support portions include sections in which an inner sidewall and an outer surface of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) are parallel to each other from outside of each of the first, second, and third lenses (first, second, and third imaging lens elements 121, 122, and 123),
(Regarding items F-G below, see also the newly annotated FIG. 1B below)
wherein an outer surface of the first support portion has a first depth, an outer surface of the second support portion has a second depth, and an outer surface of the third support portion has a third depth, relative to an imaginary straight-line parallel to the optical axis on the outer surface of a lower end of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110),
wherein the second depth is smaller than the first depth and greater than the third depth,
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1B of Chou is newly annotated, now to highlight depths. Note again that groups of numbered annotations (“1st – 3rd”, etc.) are generally ordered with incrementing numerals arranged from left to right.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
580
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Regarding items H-K below, refer back to the annotated FIG. 1B accompanying claim 1 above)
wherein the first lens (first imaging lens element 121) on the optical axis (X) comprises an object-side first surface and sensor-side second surface,
wherein an object-side third surface and a sensor-side fourth surface of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122) have different radii of curvature on the optical axis (X),
wherein a center of a first contact surface of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122) in which the second flange portion contacts an inner surface of the second support portion is located closer to a side having a greater radius of curvature (i.e. “third surface” side in annotated FIG. 1B) between the third surface and the fourth surface relative to a center of a thickness of the second flange portion,
wherein the second flange portion has an outer surface comprising the first contact surface in surface contact with the inner sidewall of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) and a first non-contact surface extending from a sensor-side end (i.e. facing image surface 140) of the first contact surface and spaced apart from the inner sidewall of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110).
Chou does not disclose:
wherein a material of the second lens and a material of the first lens are different,
wherein a refractive index of the second lens is lower than a refractive index of the first lens,
wherein the lenses inside the lens barrel consist of three lenses, and
Chou and Kawasaki are commonly related to camera modules.
Kawasaki discloses (see ¶s 75-76, FIG. 2 for general features; see also ¶s 75-76, ¶s 108-111, Table 5, and FIG. 9 regarding Example 3):
wherein a material (“polycarbonate-based plastic material”) of the second lens (L2) and a material (i.e. glass) of the first lens (L1) are different,
wherein a refractive index (Nd(3) = 1.583) of the second lens (L2) is lower than a refractive index (Nd(1) = 1.58913) of the first lens (L1),
wherein the lenses (L1-L3) inside the lens barrel (lens frame 55) consist of three lenses (L1-L3).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chou with Kawasaki’s lens designs, in order to provide a smaller, high-performance image pickup apparatus (Kawasaki ¶s 8, 60).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
771
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1B is again annotated to highlight support portions and inclined portions. Note again that groups of numbered annotations (“1st – 3rd”, etc.) are generally ordered with incrementing numerals arranged from left to right.)]Chou also discloses the comprising: a first inclined portion extending obliquely from the first support portion toward the second support portion; and a second inclined portion extending from the second support portion toward the third support portion. (See newly annotated FIG. 1B below)
Regarding claims 11 and 18, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 1 and the camera module of claim 6.
Chou further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1B, accompanying claim 1 above):
wherein an inner surface of the second support portion is in contact with the outer surface of the second flange portion, and
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1B is scaled up and again annotated to show relative proportions of the first contact surface and second flange portion)]
PNG
media_image7.png
420
1018
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein a length of the first contact surface in which the second flange portion of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122) contacts an inner surface of the second support portion is 20% to 50% of the thickness of the second flange portion. (See also the newly annotated FIG. 1B below; by visual inspection, one can determine that the first contact surface spans a length that falls just below 50% of the second flange portion thickness (roughly 40% or so, well within the claimed range))
Regarding claims 13 and 19, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 11 and the camera module of claim 18.
Chou further discloses wherein the center of the first contact surface is located closer to the object side than the center of the thickness of the second flange portion of the second lens. (Recalling from claims 11+18 and accompanying FIG. 1B that the first contact surface largely spans a half (the left/object half) of the second flange portion, it follows that the first contact surface center is closer to the object side than the second flange portion center is.)
Regarding claim 14, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 11.
Kawasaki further discloses wherein a difference in radius of curvature between the third surface and the fourth surface is 1mm or more. (See Table 5; R(3) – R(4) = 6.860 – 1.876 = 4.984mm).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 14.
Chou further discloses wherein the center of the first contact surface is located closer to the object side than the center of the thickness of the second flange portion of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122). (Recalling from claim 11 and accompanying FIG. 1B that the first contact surface largely spans a half (the left/object half) of the second flange portion, it follows that the first contact surface center is closer to the object side than the second flange portion center is.)
Kawasaki further discloses (see Table 5) wherein the radius of curvature of the third surface (R(3) = 6.860) is greater than the radius of curvature of the fourth surface (R(4) = 1.876).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 15.
Chou further discloses (see FIG. 1B) wherein a diameter of the first lens (first imaging lens element 121) is smaller than a diameter of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 18.
Chou further discloses wherein the center of the first contact surface is located closer to the object side than the center of the thickness of the second flange portion of the second lens (second imaging lens element 122). (Recalling from claim 11 and accompanying FIG. 1B that the first contact surface largely spans a half (the left/object half) of the second flange portion, it follows that the first contact surface center is closer to the object side than the second flange portion center is.)
Kawasaki further discloses (see Table 5):
wherein a difference in radius of curvature between the third surface and the fourth surface is 1mm or more (R(3) – R(4) = 6.860 – 1.876 = 4.984mm),
wherein the radius of curvature of the third surface (R(3) = 6.860) is greater than the radius of curvature of the fourth surface (R(4) = 1.876).
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Kawasaki, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and in further view of Nomura et al (US 20110043932 A1, hereinafter “Nomura”).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 1 and the camera module of claim 6.
Modified Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first support portion is a minimum distance between an inner surface and an outer surface of the first support portion, and is equal to a thickness of the second support portion.
Chou and Nomura are commonly related to camera modules.
Nomura discloses wherein a thickness of the first support portion (first barrel section 12a) is a minimum distance between an inner surface and an outer surface of the first support portion (first barrel section 12a), and is equal to a thickness of the second support portion (second barrel section 12b). (See ¶ 16-17 and FIG. 1; lens barrel 12 includes three barrel portions 12(a-c), each depicted as having fairly uniform/minimum widths that are all equal to one another.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chou with design aspects of Nomura by equalizing barrel/support section widths to better support higher-lying lenses or otherwise provide more longitudinally uniform distribution of materials for improved stress tolerance.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 4 and the camera module of claim 8.
Nomura further discloses wherein the thickness of the second support portion (second barrel section 12b) is a minimum distance between an inner surface and an outer surface of the second support portion (second barrel section 12b), and is equal to a thickness of the third support portion (third barrel section 12c). (See ¶ 16-17 and FIG. 1; lens barrel 12 includes three barrel portions 12(a-c), each depicted as having fairly uniform/minimum widths that are all equal to one another.)x
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Kawasaki, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Shih and Chen (US 20160282585 A1, hereinafter “Shih”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 6.
Kawasaki further discloses (see FIG. 9 and ¶s 109-110 regarding Example 3; see also FIG. 2 and ¶s 67-79 for more on structure – beyond/including those of Example 3 cited above):
comprising an optical filter (F) disposed inside a lower end of the lens barrel (casing 53) and disposed between the third lens (L3) and the image sensor (CMOS type image pickup element 51)
wherein an object-side fifth surface and a sensor-side sixth surface (“Surface No. 6”) of the third lens (L3) are aspherical (see Table 6 regarding Example 3).
Modified Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second surfaces of the first lens are spherical.
Chou and Shih are commonly related to lens systems.
Shih discloses wherein the first and second surfaces of the first lens (L11) are spherical. (See FIG. 1, ¶ 98: “A spherical lens is easier for manufacture than an aspheric lens so selecting a spherical lens as the first lens L11 is advantageous to cost reduction. Another reason for selecting a spherical lens as the first lens L11 is that the influence on the resolution of the lens assembly 1 will be smaller.”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chou with design aspects of Shih by using a spherical first lens, in order to simplify manufacturing and reduce costs (Shih ¶ 87).
Claims 17 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Kawasaki, as applied to claims 6 and 18 above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 6.
Kawasaki further discloses (see ¶s 109-110 and Table 5 regarding Example 3):
wherein the first lens (L1) is made of glass,
wherein the second lens (L2) is made of plastic,
wherein a refractive index (Nd(5) = 1.53180) of the third lens (L3) is lower than the refractive index (Nd(1) = 1.58913) of the first lens (L1),
Chou further discloses wherein the third flange portion of the third lens (third imaging lens element 123) includes a second contact surface in contact with an inner surface of the third support portion of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) (see annotated FIG. 1B accompanying claim 1 above).
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1B is again scaled up and annotated to show relative proportions of the second contact surface and third flange portion)]
PNG
media_image9.png
482
1041
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Modified Chou thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the second contact surface is 20% to 50% of a thickness of the third flange portion. Note, however, that Chou discloses a length of the second contact surface which apparently comes close to the claimed range, without directly overlapping with it. (See newly annotated FIG. 1B below; by visual inspection, one can determine that the first contact surface spans a length that is approximately equal to 50% of the second flange portion thickness. Absent any further specific information, however, Examiner shall consider these details in a more conservative light, finding FIG. 1B to suggest a value that comes close to the claimed range, rather than explicitly overlapping with it.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chou by reducing the second contact portion length relative to the third flange portion thickness, in order to reduce friction between them and prevent deformation, e.g. in instances with thermal expansion/contraction – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, modified Chou discloses the camera module of claim 18.
Kawasaki further discloses (see ¶s 108-111 and Table 5 regarding Example 3):
wherein a material (“polyolefin-based plastic material”) of the third lens (L3) and the material (i.e. glass) of the first lens (L1) are different,
wherein a refractive index (Nd(5) = 1.53180) of the third lens (L3) is lower than the refractive index (Nd(1) = 1.58913) of the first lens (L1).
Chou further discloses wherein the third flange portion of the third lens (third imaging lens element 123) includes a second contact surface in contact with an inner surface of the third support portion of the lens barrel (dual molded optical element 110) (see annotated FIG. 1B accompanying claim 1 above).
Modified Chou thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the second contact surface is 20% to 50% of a thickness of the third flange portion. Note, however, that Chou does disclose a length of the second contact surface which apparently comes close to the claimed range, without directly overlapping with it. (See newly annotated FIG. 1B accompanying claim 17 above; by visual inspection, one can determine that the first contact surface spans a length that is approximately equal to 50% of the second flange portion thickness. Absent any further specific information, however, Examiner shall consider these details in a more conservative light, finding FIG. 1B to suggest a value that comes close to the claimed range, rather than explicitly overlapping with it.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chou by reducing the second contact portion length relative to the third flange portion thickness, in order to reduce friction between them and prevent deformation, e.g. in instances with thermal expansion/contraction – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (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 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights