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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US 2017/0146699).
Regarding claim 1, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses a lens unit comprising:
a first lens and a second lens disposed in this order from an image side toward an object side (300 and 3113); and
a lens barrel which accommodates the first lens and the second lens on an inner peripheral side (figure 8), wherein
the second lens includes a fitting portion fitted to the first lens on a surface on the image side of the second lens (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300);
a direction along an optical axis of the first lens is defined as an optical axis direction, and the first lens is supported from the image side at a predetermined first position in the optical axis direction (the axis as shown in figure 8);
the first lens includes a fitted portion to which the fitting portion is fitted from the object side on a surface on the object side of the first lens (324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300);
a first inner peripheral-surface portion located on an outer side in a radial direction of the first lens on the inner peripheral surface of the lens barrel includes first fitting protrusions which are pressure-joined to the first lens at a plurality of spots separated in a circumferential direction (protruded portions of 300 closer to the lens barrel);
a second inner peripheral-surface portion located on the outer side in the radial direction of the second lens on the inner peripheral surface of the lens barrel includes guide protrusions which guide the second lens in the optical axis direction at a plurality of spots separated in the circumferential direction (protruded portions of 3113 closer to the lens barrel);
a plurality of the first fitting protrusions position the first lens in the radial direction (protrusion portion of the lens barrel);
the first lens is positioned in the radial direction with respect to the second lens by fitting the fitting portion and the fitted portion to each other (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300); and
the fitting portion and the fitted portion are in contact with each other (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses wherein the fitting portion includes a fitting-portion tapered surface which surrounds the optical axis and is inclined to an inner peripheral side toward the image side; the fitted portion includes a fitted-portion tapered surface which surrounds the optical axis and is inclined to an outer peripheral side toward the object side (77 and 78; figure 3B); and the fitting-portion tapered surface and the fitted-portion tapered surface come into surface contact with each other (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 3, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses wherein a clearance is provided between the second lens and a plurality of the guide protrusions in a state in which the fitting portion and the fitted portion are fitted to each other (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300).
Regarding claim 7, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses wherein a clearance is provided between the second lens and a plurality of the guide protrusions in a state in which the fitting portion and the fitted portion are fitted to each other ((the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300).
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 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.
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0146699) in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2016/0349475).
Regarding claim 4, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses the first inner peripheral-surface portion is a tapered surface inclined to an outer peripheral side toward the object side; and the first fitting protrusion includes a pressure-joining surface parallel to the optical axis at an end on an inner peripheral side (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300). However, Chou is silent regarding the lens barrel is made of a resin. Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) teaches the lens barrel is made of a resin (7; see at least paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens barrel as taught by Horiuchi in order to achieve a lens unit and an imaging device in which, the lens barrel is fixed through a thread groove formed on an outer peripheral face of the lens barrel to which a lens is press-fitted and fixed.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 5, Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) discloses wherein the second inner peripheral-surface portion is a tapered surface inclined to the outer peripheral side toward the object side; and the guide protrusion includes a guide surface parallel to the optical axis at an end on an inner peripheral side (77; figure 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Chou (figures 3A-3B and 8) discloses the first inner peripheral-surface portion is a tapered surface inclined to an outer peripheral side toward the object side; and the first fitting protrusion includes a pressure-joining surface parallel to the optical axis at an end on an inner peripheral side (the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300; and 324 and the area of the lens element 3113 on the object-side abutting surface 321 of lens 300). However, Chou is silent regarding the lens barrel is made of a resin. Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) teaches the lens barrel is made of a resin (7; see at least paragraph 0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens barrel as taught by Horiuchi in order to achieve a lens unit and an imaging device in which, the lens barrel is fixed through a thread groove formed on an outer peripheral face of the lens barrel to which a lens is press-fitted and fixed.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 9, Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) discloses wherein the second inner peripheral-surface portion is a tapered surface inclined to the outer peripheral side toward the object side; and the guide protrusion includes a guide surface parallel to the optical axis at an end on an inner peripheral side (77; figure 3B).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0146699) in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2016/0349475); further in view of Hirata (WO 2018-207909).
Regarding claim 6, Chou disclose the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chou is silent regarding an O-ring.
Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) discloses a third lens (12) disposed on the object side of the second lens; the lens barrel includes an annular caulking portion (739) which is bent to an inner peripheral side and is brought into contact with an outer peripheral-end portion of the third lens from the object side on an end part on the object side and a first stepped portion on an inner peripheral surface (figure 3B); the first stepped portion includes an annular seating surface facing the object side at a position overlapping the caulking portion when viewed from the optical axis direction and an annular wall surface extending from an end on an inner peripheral side of the annular seating surface to the image side (figure 3B); an outer peripheral-edge portion of the third lens is located between the caulking portion and the seating surface (739); the first lens is supported from the image side at a predetermined first position in the optical axis direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens barrel as taught by Horiuchi in order to achieve a lens unit and an imaging device in which, the lens barrel is fixed through a thread groove formed on an outer peripheral face of the lens barrel to which a lens is press-fitted and fixed.
Hirata (figure 1) teaches a third lens (12) disposed on the object side of the second lens (20); and an O-ring (37) disposed between the second lens and the third lens, wherein the third lens and the O-ring are accommodated in the lens barrel (11); and the O-ring is compressed in the optical axis direction at a position adjacent to the annular wall surface in the radial direction and exerts an urging force to urge the third lens toward the object side and to urge the second lens toward the first lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the O-ring as taught by Hirata in order to ensure airtightness in the lens barrel from the object side.
The limitation, “the first lens is supported from the image side at a predetermined first position in the optical axis direction and exerts an urging force to urge the third lens toward the object side and to urge the second lens toward the first lens” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hirata discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 10, Chou disclose the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 9 above. However, Chou is silent regarding an O-ring.
Horiuchi et al. (figures 1-3B) discloses a third lens (12) disposed on the object side of the second lens; the lens barrel includes an annular caulking portion (739) which is bent to an inner peripheral side and is brought into contact with an outer peripheral-end portion of the third lens from the object side on an end part on the object side and a first stepped portion on an inner peripheral surface (figure 3B); the first stepped portion includes an annular seating surface facing the object side at a position overlapping the caulking portion when viewed from the optical axis direction and an annular wall surface extending from an end on an inner peripheral side of the annular seating surface to the image side (figure 3B); an outer peripheral-edge portion of the third lens is located between the caulking portion and the seating surface (739); the first lens is supported from the image side at a predetermined first position in the optical axis direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens barrel as taught by Horiuchi in order to achieve a lens unit and an imaging device in which, the lens barrel is fixed through a thread groove formed on an outer peripheral face of the lens barrel to which a lens is press-fitted and fixed.
Hirata (figure 1) teaches a third lens (12) disposed on the object side of the second lens (20); and an O-ring (37) disposed between the second lens and the third lens, wherein the third lens and the O-ring are accommodated in the lens barrel (11); and the O-ring is compressed in the optical axis direction at a position adjacent to the annular wall surface in the radial direction and exerts an urging force to urge the third lens toward the object side and to urge the second lens toward the first lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Smith with
The limitation, “the first lens is supported from the image side at a predetermined first position in the optical axis direction and exerts an urging force to urge the third lens toward the object side and to urge the second lens toward the first lens” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hirata discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights