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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 02/20/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
(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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takase et al., (hereafter Taskase) (US 2014/0204476 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Taskase discloses an image pickup lens (10, Figure 1) comprising: a first lens (12, Figure 1), the first lens (12, Figure 1) having a lens body (11a-15a, Figure 2) and a frame (22, Figure 1) located around a perimeter of the lens body (11a-15a, Figure 2); and a second lens (11, Figure 1) located at a position closer to an object than the first lens (12, Figure 1), the second lens (11, Figure 1) having a lens surface and an abutting portion (11b, Figure 2), the lens surface facing the lens body (11a-15a, Figure 2), the abutting portion (11b, Figure 2) being located on a rim of the lens surface (see Figure 2) and abutting on the frame (22, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 5, Taskase further discloses comprising a third lens (13, Figure 1) located at a position closer to an image-forming plane (see 13, Figure 1) than the first lens (12, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 6, Taskase further discloses a camera module (lens unit 10 is used in a camera module, ¶[0030]) comprising: the image pickup lens (10, Figure 1) according to claim 1; and an image pickup element (image sensor, ¶[0030]) that receives light (a subject image is formed on an image sensor of the camera module when the lens unit 10 is mounted on the camera module, ¶[0030]) having passed through the image pickup lens (10, Figure 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.
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taskase (US 2014/0204476 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Taskase teaches the image pickup lens according to claim 1, wherein the abutting portion (11b, Figure 2) is constituted by two or more protrusions (see both sides of 11b, Figure 2), and the two or more protrusions (see both sides of 11b, Figure 2) each protrude toward the frame (22, Figure 1).
Taskase discloses the claimed invention except for the abutting portion constituted by three or more protrusions, and the three or more protrusions each protrude toward the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have the abutting portion constituted by three or more protrusions, and the three or more protrusions each protrude toward the frame, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the abutting portion constituted by three or more protrusions, and the three or more protrusions each protrude toward the frame for the purpose of additional protection of the lens surface. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 3, Taskase further teaches wherein tips of the protrusions are each located at a position closer to the first lens (12, Figure 1) than a whole of the lens surface.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taskase (US 2014/0204476 A1) in further view of Hashimoto (US 2013/0188264 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Taskase teaches the image pickup lens according to claim 1 and the lens body (11a-15a, Figure 2).
Taskase fails to teach a polymer lens.
Taskase teaches a lens unit with a holding frame and Hashimoto teaches and image pickup lens.
Hashimoto teaches a polymer lens (the first lens L1, the third lens L3 and the fourth lens L4 are formed of cycloolefin polymer, and the second lens L2 is formed of polycarbonate, ¶[0062]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Taskase having the image pickup lens with the teachings of Hashimoto having a polymer lens for the purpose of stable mass production and facilitate cost reduction, ¶[0064].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872