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 .
Claim Amendments – Proper Form
The claim amendments filed February 12, 2024 fail to comply with the proper manner of making amendments according to MPEP § 714, Section II, Subsection C (citing Rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c)(2)). Specifically, the claim amendments repeatedly use strike-through to show the deletion of the single letter “s” in the word “claims”. As explained in MPEP § 714(II)(C), when strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., due to deletion of a single character or punctuation mark), double brackets must be used instead (i.e., claim[[s]] instead of claimclaim).
Future claim amendments which do not comply with proper form may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Applicant’s cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
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 11 and 12 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.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the phrase: “which surface”, which would appear to convey a determination step or conditional feature. However, it is believed that these clauses were intended to affirmatively convey structural requirements relating to the claimed “edge part” of surfaces. Thus, for examination, the phrases “which surface” will be treated as “which”. Similarly, in Claim 12, the phrase “which circumference edge part” will be treated as “which”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang, US 2015/0226931 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses: A lens unit which is used for an infrared region that includes at least any one of wavelengths in a range of 7 µm to 14 µm (this preamble appears to relate to a desired purpose or intended use of the device rather than to a structural limitation, e.g., any lens unit is believed to be capable of having different wavelengths of light shown through it [e.g., ultraviolet, visible, or infrared], and doing so will not change the device in terms of structure or composition; see MPEP § 2111.02), said lens unit comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
at least one lens that has a surface on which a coating film is formed (lens 420 has a peripheral surface on which an optical refractive index matching layer 423 is formed; paragraphs [0035], [0052] and FIG. 4A of Huang);
a lens barrel that has a hole in which the at least one lens is fitted (lens barrel 400 comprises a lens insertion opening into which lens 420 is located; paragraph [0052] and FIG. 4A of Huang); and
a ring part that is a member which is in contact with a circumferential edge part of the at least one lens and which is for:
causing the at least one lens fitted in the hole to be located at a given position on an optical axis of the lens barrel
or fixing, at a given position on the optical axis of the lens barrel, the at least one lens fitted in the hole (spacer ring 402 is in contact with a circumferential edge of lens 420 and fixes lens 420 within a specific position along the optical axis; paragraph [0052] and FIG. 4A of Huang);
wherein the circumferential edge part of the at least one lens has, on a portion which is in contact with at least any one of the lens barrel and the ring part, a region in which the coating film is not attached (in the region of lens 420 which is in contact with spacer ring 402, the optical refractive index matching layer 423 is not attached; see FIG. 4A of Huang and note, in particular, the zoomed-in circular portion showing layer 423 is above lens 420 but is not to the right of lens 420).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a thickness of the coating film is not less than 1 µm (exemplary thickness for optical refractive index matching layer may range from 0.005 mm to 0.02 mm, i.e., from 5 µm to 20 µm; paragraphs [0035], [0052] and FIG. 4a of Huang).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the circumferential edge part has, on a lens surface which is in contact with the lens barrel, the region in which the coating film is not attached (in an alternate characterization of FIG. 4A of Huang, lens 430 may be identified as the claimed lens, and ring-shaped fixation member 403 may be identified as the claimed “ring part”, wherein an optical refractive index matching layer on lens 430 is shown [vertical thick line on right-side surface] adjacent to ring 403, but is not shown [horizontal thin line on upper surface] adjacent to lens barrel 400; FIG. 4A of Huang).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the circumferential edge part of the at least one lens has, all around the circumferential edge part, the region in which the coating film is not attached (in the peripheral region of lens 420 which surrounds the upper edge, i.e., surfaces which are non-parallel to the optical axis, the optical refractive index matching layer 423 is not attached; see FIG. 4A of Huang and note, in particular, the zoomed-in circular portion).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the coating film is not attached to a region that radially extends not less than 1 mm from an end surface of the at least one lens (in an alternate characterization of FIG. 4A of Huang, lens 430 may be identified as the claimed lens, and ring-shaped fixation member 403 may be identified as the claimed “ring part”, wherein an optical refractive index matching layer on lens 430 is shown [vertical thick line on right-side surface] adjacent to ring 403, but is not shown [horizontal thin line on upper surface] adjacent to lens barrel 400 [and thus all regions which extend radially from an end surface of lens 430 remain uncoated by optical refractive index matching layer]; FIG. 4A of Huang).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Huang discloses: A lens unit which is used for an infrared region that includes at least any one of wavelengths in a range of 7 µm to 14 µm (this preamble appears to relate to a desired purpose or intended use of the device rather than to a structural limitation, e.g., any lens unit is believed to be capable of having different wavelengths of light shown through it [e.g., ultraviolet, visible, or infrared], and doing so will not change the device in terms of structure or composition; see MPEP § 2111.02), said lens unit comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
at least one lens that has a surface on which a coating film is formed (lenses 820, 830 have optical refractive index matching layers 823, 833 formed thereon; paragraphs [0035], [0059] and FIG. 8 of Huang);
a lens barrel that has a hole in which the at least one lens is fitted (lens barrel 800 has a cavity into which lenses 810, 820, 830 are inserted; paragraph [0059] and FIG. 8 of Huang); and
a ring part that is a member which is in contact with a circumferential edge part of the at least one lens and which is for:
causing the at least one lens fitted in the hole to be located at a given position on an optical axis of the lens barrel
or fixing, at a given position on the optical axis of the lens barrel, the at least one lens fitted in the hole (light shielding elements 801, 802, 803 are in contact with a circumferential edge of lenses 820, 830 and fix them within a specific position along the optical axis; paragraph [0059] and FIG. 8 of Huang);
wherein the circumferential edge part of the at least one lens has, on a portion which is in contact with at least any one of the lens barrel and the ring part, a region in which the coating film is not attached (lenses 820, 830 are shown having optical refractive index matching layers 823, 833 at portions of lenses 820, 830 which contact the lens barrel 800, but not having optical refractive index matching layers 823, 833 at portions of lenses 820, 830 which contact the light shielding elements 801, 802, 803; FIG. 8 of Huang);
wherein: the at least one lens includes a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens; the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are accommodated and fixed in order in the lens barrel; an effective diameter of the first lens is larger than an effective diameter of the third lens; and an optical axis thickness of the third lens is greater than an optical axis thickness of each of the first lens and the second lens (lenses 830, 820, 810 may be identified as the first, second, and third lenses, respectively, wherein the diameter of lens 830 is larger than the diameter of lens 810, and an optical axis thickness of lens 810 is larger than an optical axis thickness of each of lens 830 and lens 820; FIG. 8 of Huang).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses: wherein: the lens barrel has a first hole, a second hole, and a third hole as the hole; the lens unit has a first ring part, a second ring part, and a third ring part as the ring part; the third lens is fitted in the third hole; the second hole is connected to the third hole, the second hole has a diameter larger than a diameter of the third hole, the second lens is fitted in the second hole in a state where the third ring part intervenes between the second lens and the third lens, and the first lens is fitted in the second hole in a state where the second ring part intervenes between the first lens and the second lens; the first hole is connected to the second hole, the first hole has a diameter larger than the diameter of the second hole (lenses 830, 820, 810 are located with progressively smaller openings [holes] in lens barrel 800, with light shielding elements 803, 802, 801 therebetween; FIG. 8 of Huang), and the first ring part which presses a circumferential edge part of a surface of the first lens which surface is not in contact with the second ring part is fitted in the first hole (light shielding element 803 is in the same opening [hole] as lens 830 and presses the circumferential part of lens 830 that is not in contact with lens 820; FIG. 8 of Huang); and at least a circumferential edge part of a surface of the third lens which surface is not in contact with the third ring part, a circumferential edge part of a surface of the second lens which surface is in contact with the third ring part, and a circumferential edge part of a surface of the first lens which surface is in contact with the second ring part each have the region in which the coating film is not attached (optical refractive index matching layers 823, 833 are located on regions of lenses 820, 830 which contact lens barrel 800, and not on regions of lenses 820, 830 which contact light shielding elements 803, 802, 801; FIG. 8 of Huang).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Takahashi et al., US 2017/0192132 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: wherein the coating film is made of at least one selected from Ge, Si, fluorides, ZnSe, ZnS, and diamond-like carbons.
However, Huang discloses that there is a great deal of flexibility in the selection of reflection reducing material for the coating, further noting that materials having refractive indices ranging from as broad as 1.1 to 2.5 are known to be effective (see, e.g., paragraph [0048] of Huang).
Takahashi is related to Huang with respect to imaging lens systems.
Takahashi teaches: wherein the coating film is made of at least one selected from Ge, Si, fluorides, ZnSe, ZnS, and diamond-like carbons (an antireflection film in which a diamond-like carbon [DLC] film is provided; paragraph [0007] of Takahashi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the diamond-like carbon of Takahashi for the coating of Huang because such DLC serves to protect the antireflection film, as taught in paragraph [0007] of Takahashi.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Ho et al., US 2019/0025576 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of lens diameter, such that: wherein an outer diameter of the at least one lens is not less than 10 mm and not more than 100 mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Huang discloses the use of the lens assembly for image capturing [image formation], i.e., photography (see, e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0033], [0057], [0058] of Huang), a field in which providing lenses that are very small will increase difficulty of manufacture, whereas providing lenses which are very large will increase bulk material costs and may prove unwieldly or cumbersome for the user, depending on the particular device (e.g., mobile phone, microscope, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a lens diameter size within a middle range, such as the claimed 10 mm to 100 mm.
Furthermore, Ho is related to Huang with respect to lens assembly, and Ho teaches: wherein an outer diameter of the at least one lens is not less than 10 mm and not more than 100 mm (large-diameter lenses are considered those with diameter equal to or greater than 100 mm; Abstract and paragraph [0004] of Ho).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select lens diameter within the claimed range, because it is known that, as lenses increase in size, lenses having diameter of greater than 100 mm suffer from issues of lens surface deformation and stress caused by the self-gravity of the lens, as taught in paragraph [0004] of Ho.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Komori, US 2018/0180780 A1.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Huang discloses the limitations of Claim 8, but does not appear to disclose: wherein the third lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 pm, wherein the chalcogenide glass contains 20% to 80% of Te by mol%.
Komori is related to Huang with respect to optical imaging system.
Komori teaches: wherein the third lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 pm, wherein the chalcogenide glass contains 20% to 80% of Te by mol% (chalcogenide glass between 58 mol % and 80 mol % of any one of S, Se and Te [tellurium], refractive index 2.50 to 3.00 at 10 μm; paragraphs [0003], [0077], [0114], [0136], [0140], [0141] of Komori).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the chalcogenide glass and tellurium content of Komori for the lens of Huang because such composition enables suitable thermal properties (e.g., minimal thermal expansion) and optical properties (e.g., suppression of diffraction flare), as taught in paragraphs [0061], [0068], [0069], [0081], [0119] of Komori.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claims 9, 10 and 12, although the prior art discloses various lens units, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
228
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image4.png
110
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image5.png
168
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
342
540
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights