DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “a second dimension of the second gap in a vibration direction of the vibrator” (line 14-16) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. As disclosed in instant specification, the vibrator (20) has specified structures (see fig. 3, 20(21-26)), and has more than one vibration modes (see figs. 9A-B and 16). Hence vibrating of vibrator 20 comprising more than one vibrating directions. It is unclear that claimed “in a vibration direction of the vibrator” refers to which one of the vibrating directions.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, cited term of “wherein an inner space of the vibrator is in a vacuum or at negative pressure” (line 1-3) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, but none of the claims cites any components to generate or keep “a vacuum or at negative pressure”. Hence, it is unclear how to generate or keep a vacuum or a negative pressure in claimed scopes of claim 1 and claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, cited term of “wherein an inner space of the vibrator includes a gas having density lower than density of air” (line 1-3) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, but none of the claims cites any components to generate or keep “a gas having density lower than density of air”. Hence, it is unclear how to generate or keep a gas having density lower than density of air in claimed scopes of claim 1 and claim 13.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 of this title, 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 1-9, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al (WO 2020003573, US equivalent US 20200379320, all the line numbers listed below are in US 20200379320).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujimoto teaches an optical module (abstract; figs. 1-2) comprising:
a translucent body (fig. 2, 4; ¶[0021], line 1-11, the vibration unit 1 includes a vibration element 2 including a cylindrical vibrating body 3, a light transmitting member 4 disposed to cover an opening portion of the vibration element 2);
a vibrator that is tubular and supports the translucent body (fig. 2, 2, 3);
a piezoelectric element located at the vibrator to vibrate the vibrator (fig. 2, 7; ¶[0029], line 1-2, the vibration element 2 includes the vibrating body 3 and a piezoelectric vibrator 7); and
an inner-layer optical component located at an inner side portion of the vibrator (fig. 2, 10A, 10a-b; ¶[0024], line 1-12, imaging element 10A; imaging-element main body 10a; lens module 10b);
wherein
a first gap is located between the translucent body and the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, a gap between 10b and 4);
a second gap is located between the piezoelectric element and the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, a gap between 7 and 16).
But Fujimoto does not specifically disclose that wherein at least one of a first dimension of the first gap in a vibration direction of the translucent body and a second dimension of the second gap in a vibration direction of the vibrator is in a range of about [(n ×λ/2) + 0.1 mm] or more and about [{(n + 1) ×λ/2} - 0.1 mm] or less; and n indicates an integer of 0 or more, and λ indicates a wavelength of an acoustic wave generated by vibration.
However, Fujimoto teaches in ¶[0038], line 1-6, that “the controller 12 is electrically connected to the piezoelectric vibrator 7. The controller 12 controls the piezoelectric vibrator 7 to vibrate the combined unit of the light transmitting member 4 and the vibrating body 3”. It is obvious that the claimed values of the gap and second gap can be obtained by proper electric control power from controller 12; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Further, Fujimoto teaches in the ¶[0038], line 1-6 above, indicating that the gap and second gap can be controlled by controller 12 and piezoelectric vibrator 7; that is, the gap and second gap are related to vibration functions of the optical module. --This portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claim 1, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical module of Fujimoto to have the gap and second gap as claimed, for a purpose of providing of an optical module that are capable of removing water droplets and other substances using mechanical vibration (¶[0002], line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the first dimension or the second dimension is in a range of about 0.1 mm or more and about (λ/2 - 0.1 mm) or less (see above, --this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein a third gap is located between the vibrator and a side wall of the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, gap between 3/7 and 10A); and
a third dimension of the third gap is about 0.1 mm or more (--it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein the first dimension of the first gap is a distance between a central portion of the translucent body and the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, a gap between 10b and 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein the vibrator and the piezoelectric element are configured such that an entirety of the translucent body vibrates uniformly or substantially uniformly (fig. 2, 7, 3, 2; ----further, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein the vibrator and the piezoelectric element are configured such that a central portion of the translucent body vibrates more largely than an end portion (fig. 2, 7, 4, 3, 2; ----further, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein the inner-layer optical component is made of a material with an acoustic impedance smaller than an acoustic impedance of the translucent body (fig. 2, 4, 10b- lens module; --lens glass (BK7) has acoustic impedance 13-14 MRayl; ¶[0036], line 1-8, The light transmitting member 4 is made of a light transmitting material. Examples of the light transmitting material include light transmitting plastic, glass, and light transmitting ceramic material; -- ceramic material has acoustic impedance 20-40 MRayl).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 7, wherein the inner-layer optical component is made of a resin (fig. 2, 10A, 10a-b; ¶[0023], line 1-5, the imaging element 10A include a CMOS, a CCD,…; imaging device 10 include a camera, ----packaging of CCD and camera comprising plastic).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein
the inner-layer optical component includes: an inner-layer lens (fig. 2, 10b);
a lens holder that holds the inner-layer lens (fig. 2, 10b, 10a/10A); and
an inner-layer flange that extends from an outer wall of the lens holder toward an outer side portion (fig. 2, 16);
the first gap is located between the translucent body and the inner-layer lens (fig. 2, a gap between 10b and 4); and
the second gap is located between the piezoelectric element and the inner-layer flange (fig. 2, a gap between 7 and 16).
Regarding Claim 11, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein
the inner-layer optical component includes a first surface that defines the first gap and a second surface that defines the second gap (fig. 2, 10b, 16); and
at least one of the first surface and the second surface is subjected to resin coating (fig. 2, 16; ¶[0025], line 1-4, at least one principal surface of the substrate 16 or one principal surface of the base member 14 includes thereon a circuit and the controller 12 that drive the imaging element l0A; -- circuit board on a surface of 16, and it is well known that circuit boards have resin coatings or plastic films).
Regarding Claim 14, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 1, wherein in a case where a position of the translucent body in a state in which the translucent body does not vibrate is a reference position, a direction in which the translucent body is spaced away from the inner-layer optical component with respect to the reference position in a thickness direction of the translucent body is a positive direction, and a direction in which the translucent body approaches the inner-layer optical component with respect to the reference position is a negative direction, in the translucent body, displacement in the positive direction is larger than displacement in the negative direction (see above, vibration under control of 12; ---this portion of claim referring to operation processes, and is of a product-by-process claim. For product-by-process claim even 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 15, Fujimoto teaches the optical module according to Claim 14, further comprising a controller configured or programmed to control the piezoelectric element and repeat application of a positive-direction voltage and stopping of voltage application with respect to the piezoelectric element (fig. 2, 7, 12; ¶[0038], line 1-6, the controller 12 is electrically connected to the piezoelectric vibrator 7. The controller 12 controls the piezoelectric vibrator 7 to vibrate the combined unit of the light transmitting member 4 and the vibrating body 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Fujimoto teaches an optical device comprising:
the optical module according to Claim 1; and
an optical element at the optical module (fig. 2, 10a-b, 10A).
Regarding Claim 17, Fujimoto teaches the optical device according to Claim 16, wherein at least one of the first dimension or the second dimension is in a range of about 0.1 mm or more and about (λ/2 - 0.1 mm) or less (see above, --This portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 18, Fujimoto teaches the optical device according to Claim 16, wherein
a third gap is located between the vibrator and a side wall of the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, gap between 3/7 and 10A); and
a third dimension of the third gap is about 0.1 mm or more (--it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding Claim 19, Fujimoto teaches the optical device according to Claim 16, wherein the first dimension of the first gap is a distance between a central portion of the translucent body and the inner-layer optical component (fig. 2, 4, 10b).
Regarding Claim 20, Fujimoto teaches the optical device according to Claim 16, wherein the vibrator and the piezoelectric element are configured such that an entirety of the translucent body vibrates uniformly or substantially uniformly (fig. 2, 7, 3, 2; ----further, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Fujimoto is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected vibration functions provided by Fujimoto has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in case the 112 rejections of the independent claim is overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest wherein an acoustic wave suppressor to reduce or prevent reflection of an acoustic wave is located at at least one of the first surface and the second surface.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights