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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 12 - 15 be found allowable, claims 1 - 3 and 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 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.
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) 1 - 4 and 12 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al (US 2022/0325052).
With regards to claims 1 – 3 and 12 - 14, Yadav teaches a solvent composition for bonding components (Abstract) that comprises tetrahydrofuran (THF) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (paragraph 35). While Yadav does not explicitly state that the solvent comprises a first solvent comprising at least one solvent having a swelling ratio of 60% or more and a second solvent comprising a solvent having a swelling ratio of less than 60%, since the solvents described are the same solvents claimed, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that THF and MEK would meet the required swelling ratios as claimed.
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Yadav are presented above. Additionally, Yadav states that the bonding solvent solution comprises between 2% and 98% by volume of MEK and THF (paragraph 35). While Yadav does not explicitly state that the solvent composition comprises 70 to 95% of volume of MEK and 5 to 30% by volume of THF, since the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as stated in section 2144.05 of the MPEP and as per n re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claim(s) 5 - 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2021/0318512) and Yadav et al (US 2022/0325052).
With regards to claims 5, 6 – 8 and 15, Tanaka discloses a camera module (Abstract) comprising:
A plurality of lenses (Figure 1 items 120 and 220)
A lens barrel in which an accommodation space for accommodating the plurality of lenses is formed (Figure 1 items 110 and 210)
A press-fit ring bonded to the lens barrel by a solvent composition (Figure 3 item 214, paragraph 66)
Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose the composition of the solvent.
Yadav teaches a solvent composition for bonding components (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Tanaka, that comprises tetrahydrofuran (THF) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (paragraph 35). While Yadav does not explicitly state that the solvent comprises a first solvent comprising at least one solvent having a swelling ratio of 60% or more and a second solvent comprising a solvent having a swelling ratio of less than 60%, since the solvents described are the same solvents claimed, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that THF and MEK would meet the required swelling ratios as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Yadav’s solvent composition in Tanaka’s camera module. The rationale being that, as stated by Yadav, it provides a safer and more effective solvent and solvent mixtures for solvent bonding applications (paragraph 16).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Tanaka and Yadav are presented above. Additionally, Yadav states that the bonding solvent solution comprises between 2% and 98% by volume of MEK and THF (paragraph 35). While Yadav does not explicitly state that the solvent composition comprises 70 to 95% of volume of MEK and 5 to 30% by volume of THF, since the claimed ranges overlap the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as stated in section 2144.05 of the MPEP and as per n re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Tanaka and Yadav are presented above. Additionally, Tanaka teaches that the plurality of lenses comprises a first lens group including a frontmost lens disposed most adjacently to an object (Figure 1 item 100) and a second lens group including a rearmost lens disposed adjacently to an image plane (Figure 1 item 200), and where the lens barrel comprises a first accommodation space for accommodating the first lens group and a second accommodation space for accommodating the second lens group (as seen in Figure 1 item 1000).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Tanaka and Yadav are presented above. Additionally, Tanaka teaches that the camera module further comprises a gap maintenance member disposed between the first lens group and the second lens group (as seen in Figure 1 item 300).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights