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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Palve does not disclose “an inner surface of the lens holder is provided with an inwardly protruding staircase, and the first area is formed on an inner side of the staircase, a cross- sectional area of the lens disposed in the first area is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the lens disposed in the second area, the lens disposed at an uppermost end of the first area and the lens disposed at a lowermost end of the second area are coupled by an adhesive, and the plurality of lenses disposed in the first area are coupled in an optical axis direction”, however, Applicant fails to make reference to any of the prior rejection that addressed these features.
As noted in the prior rejection Palve teaches an inner surface of the lens holder is provided with an inwardly protruding staircase, and the first area is formed on an inner side of the staircase (figure 6 shows that the lens barrel has an inwardly protruding staircase for the different sized lenses), wherein a cross-sectional area of the lens disposed in the first area is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the lens disposed in the second area (figure 6 shows that a cross-sectional area of the top lens is greater than a cross-sectional area of the bottom lens), and wherein the plurality of lenses disposed in the first area are coupled in an optical axis direction (figure 6 exhibits the lenses coupled together via the lens barrel). Regarding “the lens disposed at an uppermost end of the first area and the lens disposed at a lowermost end of the second area are coupled by an adhesive” this was taught by the combination of Palve in view of Mei (Mei figure teaches 1 adhesive 300 applied between two surfaces of two lenses as disclosed at paragraph 90). As Applicant provided no arguments as to why Palve in view of Mei fails to teach these features, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the functional coupling relationship between lenses disposed in different regions, the specific location of a reference seating plane at the boundary of regions with different cross-sectional areas, and the controlling distance changes due to temperature by forming the reference plane in the middle region rather than at the bottom of the lens barrel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the foregoing, the examiner is not persuaded and therefore the claims stand rejected as detailed below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 26 claims a “reference seating position”. However, there is no mention of this in the specification as filed. The specification does not use the terms seating or position anywhere (“reference” is used, but only as a means to direct readers to a location). Applicant’s Remarks make reference to an indentation in the lens barrel, however, the term “reference seating position” has not been given a special definition by the specification as filed. Therefore, the term “reference seating position” is being interpreted as a position that references where an object is seated, however, it does not connote a specific structural part of the lens holder as implied by Applicant’s Remarks.
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, 5-9, 12-15 and 21-26 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lens" in line 15 and again in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim claims a plurality of lenses and specifically claims “an outermost lens” and “a lowermost lens”, however, it is unclear which lens each recitation of “the lens” refers to. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 5-9, 12-15 and 21-26 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 12-15, 21, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palve et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0357546), hereinafter referenced as Palve, in view of Mei et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0279097), hereinafter referenced as Mei.
Regarding claim 1, Palve discloses a camera module comprising: a housing including a first space (figure 6 exhibits lens holder 202 with an open central space as disclosed at paragraph 35); a lens holder which that is disposed at least partially in the first space and includes a second space (figure 6, as annotated exhibits lens barrel 100 disposed in holder 202 and which includes a central second space as disclosed at paragraph 35); a lens module which that is disposed in the second space and includes a plurality of lenses (figure 6 exhibits a plurality of lenses disposed in the lens barrel); and a printed circuit board which that is disposed under the housing and has an image sensor disposed on the upper surface thereof (figure 6 exhibits PCB 204 which includes an image sensor as disclosed at paragraph 35), the image sensor being aligned with the lenses (figure 6 shows that the sensor is aligned with the lenses), wherein the second space includes a first area having a first cross-sectional area and a second area having a second cross-sectional area greater than the first cross-sectional area (figure 6, as annotated below shows an lower area with a smaller cross-sectional area than an upper area), wherein the plurality of lenses includes an outermost lens disposed in the second area, a lowermost lens disposed in the first area, and a plurality of central lenses disposed between the outermost lens and the lowermost lens, and wherein a portion of the plurality of the central lenses is disposed in the first area, and another portion of the plurality of the central lenses is disposed in the second area (figure 6, as annotated below shows uppermost and lowermost lenses with a plurality of central lenses, a portion of which are in the first area and a portion of which are in the second area), wherein an inner surface of the lens holder is provided with an inwardly protruding staircase, and the first area is formed on an inner side of the staircase (figure 6 shows that the lens barrel has an inwardly protruding staircase for the different sized lenses), wherein a cross-sectional area of the lens disposed in the first area is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the lens disposed in the second area (figure 6 shows that a cross-sectional area of the top lens is greater than a cross-sectional area of the bottom lens), and wherein the plurality of lenses disposed in the first area are coupled in an optical axis direction (figure 6 exhibits the lenses coupled together via the lens barrel). However, Palve fails to disclose wherein the lens disposed at an uppermost end of the first area and the lens disposed at a lowermost end of the second area are coupled by an adhesive.
PNG
media_image1.png
1342
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mei is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Mei teaches a camera module wherein the motivation of ensuring that lenses remain properly spaced after calibration thereby ensuring proper focusing of the lens system would have prompted a predictable variation of Palve by applying Mei’s known principal of providing an adhesive that bonds the lens disposed at an uppermost end of the first area and the lens disposed at a lowermost end of the second area (figure 1 adhesive 300 applied between two surfaces of two lenses as disclosed at paragraph 90). When applying this known technique to Palve, it would have been obvious to glue the lenses at the edge of the first and second areas in order to ensure that the lenses in each respective area remain aligned even though they are different in size thereby compensating for any defects of the lens barrel during the manufacturing process.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that lenses remain properly spaced after calibration thereby ensuring proper focusing of the lens system one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Palve.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein a length of the housing, relative to an optical axis direction, is longer than a length from a top of the first area to a bottom of the housing (as shown in the annotated figure 6, above, the housing extends past the top of the first area and therefore the length of the housing is greater than the length from the top of the first area to the bottom of the housing).
Regarding claim 8, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein a length of the first area is greater than one-tenth of a length of the lens holder (figure 6 shows that the length of the first area is greater than one-tenth the length of the lens holder in the optical axis direction).
Regarding claim 9, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein at least a portion of the lens holder is screwed into the first space (figure 6 exhibits threads which allow the lens barrel to be screwed into the lens holder as disclosed at paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 12, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein a top of the first area is located higher than a position corresponding to 1/10 of a total length of the lens holder based on an optical axis direction (figure 6 exhibits wherein the top of the first area is higher than an area which corresponds to the lowest 1/10 of the total length of the lends holder in the optical axis direction).
Regarding claim 13, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses comprising an adhesive portion disposed between the housing and the printed circuit board (figure 6 shows a glue joint between the housing and the circuit board).
Regarding claim 14, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 13, in addition, Palve discloses wherein, based on an optical axis direction, a length from a top of the housing to a top of the first area is shorter than a length from the top of the first area to a bottom of the housing (figure 6, as annotated above, exhibits wherein the top of the first area is below the top of the housing and in the upper half of the housing), therefore the length from the top of the housing to the top of the first area is less than the length of from the top of the first area to a bottom of the housing).
Regarding claim 15, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein an upper surface of the outermost lens protrudes upward beyond an upper surface of the lens holder (figure 4 shows that the top of the top lens protrudes beyond the upper surface of the lens barrel).
Regarding claim 21, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein the staircase is integrally formed with the lens holder (figure 6 shows that the staircase is an interior side of the lens holder).
Regarding claim 23, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein the first area and the second area are coaxially aligned along the optical axis (figure 6 shows that the lens groups and their respective areas are coaxially aligned on the optical axis).
Regarding claim 26, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, in addition, Palve discloses wherein a reference seating position of the lens module is defined by a coupling interface between the lens disposed at the lowermost end of the second area and the lens disposed at the uppermost end of the first area (figure 1 as annotated below shows a reference position between the bottom lens of the second group and the top lens of first lens group).
PNG
media_image2.png
839
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palve in view of Mei and further in view of Lu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0019940), hereinafter referenced as Lu.
Regarding claim 6, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, however, Palve fails to disclose wherein an outer surface of the lens holder includes a protrusion projecting outwardly and facing an upper surface of the housing, and an epoxy is disposed between the protrusion and the upper surface of the housing.
Lu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Lu teaches a camera module wherein the motivation of allowing for angular adjustment while providing a secure fit between the lens barrel and the lens holder would have prompted a predictable variation of Palve by applying Lu’s known principal of an outer surface of the lens holder includes a protrusion projecting outwardly and facing an upper surface of the housing, and an epoxy is disposed between the protrusion and the upper surface of the housing (figure 2 shows an outer surface of the lens barrel having a protrusion including axial face 34 which faces axial face 32 of the lens holder and has an adhesive 30 placed between the axial faces; paragraph 44 teaches that the adhesive is an epoxy).
In view of the motivations such as allowing for angular adjustment while providing a secure fit between the lens barrel and the lens holder one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of allowing for angular adjustment while providing a secure fit between the lens barrel and the lens holder.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Palve in view of Mei and further in view of Lu discloses the camera module of claim 6, in addition, the combination discloses wherein a length from a bottom of the protrusion to a top of the first area, relative to the optical axis direction, is less than a length from the top of the first area to a bottom of the housing (because the protrusion is set on the top of the lens holder and the top of the first area is in the upper half of the length of the lens holder, the distance between the top of the first area to the bottom of the protrusion must be less than a length from the top of the first area to the bottom of the housing).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palve in view of Mei and further in view of Inaba et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0146777), hereinafter referenced as Inaba.
Regarding claim 22, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, however, Palve fails to disclose wherein the adhesive coupling the lenses has a ring-shaped cross section.
Palve in view of Mei discloses an adhesive coupling lenses with an unknown cross section. Inaba discloses an adhesive for coupling optical components with a ring-shaped cross section (fig. 8 exhibits adhesive 40 which has a ring-shaped cross section). Because both Palve in view of Mei and Inaba teach adhesive mediums for coupling optical components, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adhesive for coupling optical components with a ring-shaped cross section taught by Inaba for the adhesive taught by Palve in view of Mei to achieve the predictable result of locking optical components in alignment with each other.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palve in view of Mei and further in view of Handshaw et al (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0083732), hereinafter referenced as Handshaw.
Regarding claim 24, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, however, Palve fails to disclose wherein the lens holder is formed of a plastic material and the housing is formed of a metal material.
Handshaw is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Handshaw teaches a camera module wherein the motivation of providing a housing which can protect the image sensor and a non-conductive lens barrel would have prompted a predictable variation of Palve by applying Handshaw’s known principal of the lens holder is formed of a plastic material (paragraph 26 teaches that the lens barrel is made of plastic) and the housing is formed of a metal material (paragraph 28 teaches that the chassis 70 is made of a metal material).
In view of the motivations such as providing a housing which can protect the image sensor and a non-conductive lens barrel one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Palve.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palve in view of Mei and further in view of Horiuchi et al (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0349475), hereinafter referenced as Horiuchi.
Regarding claim 25, Palve in view of Mei discloses the camera module of claim 1, however, Palve fails to disclose an infrared filter disposed between the lens module and the image sensor.
Horiuchi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Horiuchi teaches a camera module wherein the motivation of improving image quality by blocking infrared light would have prompted a predictable variation of Palve by applying Horiuchi’s known principal of providing an infrared filter disposed between the lens module and the image sensor (figure 1A exhibits infrared cut filter between the lens module and the image sensor as disclosed at paragraph 34).
In view of the motivations such as improving image quality by blocking infrared light one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Palve.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637