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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 5/8/2024 and 3/20/2025 are acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 5/8/2024 is acknowledged. In said amendment Applicant amended the specification, amended claims 3-5, 8-9 and added new claims 10, 11.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/708,588 filed on 5/8/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“FIG 3” in paragraph [0026] should be changed to “FIG 5”.
“FIG 3” in paragraph [0027] should be changed to “FIG 5”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki et al. (US 2020/0073077, hereinafter, “Kanzaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Kanzaki discloses a lens unit 1 comprising a plurality of lenses 21-26 and a lens barrel 3 for holding the plurality of lenses (Fig. 1C, [0026]),
the plurality of lenses including: a first lens 25 disposed on a first direction side L1 and a second lens 26 disposed on a second direction side L2 that is a direction opposite to the first direction side, the second lens constituting a cemented lens 20 by being bonded to the first lens with an adhesive 29 ([0028], Fig. 1C, 5),
the first lens 25 including: a first lens surface 253 having a concave surface shape facing the second lens side (Fig. 3B, [0038]); and
a first flange surface 254 surrounding the first lens surface on an outside in a radial direction (Fig. 3B, [0038]),
the second lens 26 including: a second lens surface 263 that has a convex surface shape corresponding to the first lens surface and overlaps with the first lens surface (Fig. 4B, [0043]);
and a second flange surface 264 surrounding the second lens surface on an outside in a radial direction (Fig.4B, [0043]),
the second flange surface 264 being formed with a convex portion 266 protruding toward the first direction side L1 (Fig. 4B, 5, [0044]),
the first flange surface 254 being formed with a facing portion (Fig. 5, see inclined line between “256” and “258”) inclined along an inclined portion (Fig. 5, see inclined line between “256” and “258”) on an inside in a radial direction of the convex portion 266 (Fig. 5, see inclined line between “266” and “268”),
the adhesive 29 being provided from between the first lens surface and the second lens surface to an outside position in a radial direction beyond the facing portion and the convex portion (Fig. 5, for example, see section characterized by Gb, [0040]).
Kanzaki does not disclose the lens unit satisfying the following conditional expression:
1.100<Rb/Ra when Ra is an effective radius of the cemented lens, Ga is a first interval between the first lens surface and the second lens surface at the effective radius Ra, Gb is a second interval that is three times the first interval Ga, and Rb is an outer peripheral side radius where the second interval Gb exists between the facing portion and the convex portion is Rb.
In Kanzaki, at the effective radius Ra of the cemented lens, the interval between the first lens surface 253 and the second lens surface 263 (i.e., the claimed Ga) is Gd (Fig. 5). An interval that is three times the interval Ga (i.e., the claimed Gb) is Gc or between any point along the facing portion and 268 (Fig. 5). Here, the Rb/Ra> 1.0 (Fig. 5).
The parameters Ga, Gb, Ra, Rb (i.e., dimensions related to the cemented lens, having to do with the size of the adhesive storing reservoir) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the performance of the cemented lens, for example, preventing diffuse reflection, tarnishing, and preventing damage due to peeling of the adhesive 29 ([0061] in Kanzaki).
Kanzaki discloses the claimed invention except for Rb/Ra>1.100. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kanzaki so that Rb/Ra lies within the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, Rb/Ra is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the cemented lens, as taught by Kanzaki.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize Rb/Ra because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 2, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1.
Kanzaki does not disclose wherein when Ra is an effective radius of the cemented lens,
Ga is a first interval between the first lens surface and the second lens surface at the effective radius Ra, Gb is a second interval that is three times the first interval Ga, and Rb is an outer peripheral side radius where the second interval Gb exists between the facing portion and the convex portion, the following conditional expression is satisfied.
1.100<Rb/Ra<1.500.
In Kanzaki, at the effective radius Ra of the cemented lens, the interval between the first lens surface 253 and the second lens surface 263 (i.e., the claimed Ga) is Gd (Fig. 5). An interval that is three times the interval Ga (i.e., the claimed Gb) is Gc or between any point along the facing portion and 268 (Fig. 5). Here, the Rb/Ra> 1.0 (Fig. 5).
The parameters Ga, Gb, Ra, Rb (i.e., dimensions related to the cemented lens, having to do with the size of the adhesive storing reservoir) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the performance of the cemented lens, for example, preventing diffuse reflection, tarnishing, and preventing damage due to peeling of the adhesive 29 ([0061] in Kanzaki).
Kanzaki discloses the claimed invention except for 1.100<Rb/Ra<1.500. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kanzaki so that Rb/Ra lies within the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, Rb/Ra is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the cemented lens, as taught by Kanzaki.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize Rb/Ra because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 3, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
an interval between the facing portion and the convex portion becomes wider toward the outside in a radial direction from a first boundary portion (right edge of 266) between the first lens surface and the facing portion and a second boundary portion (left edge of 266) between the second lens surface and the inclined portion (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
the first lens surface and the facing portion are continuous while being curved (under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) principle, see 259), and the second lens surface and the inclined portion of the convex portion are continuous while being curved (under BRI, se 269).
Regarding claim 5, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
the first flange surface is provided with an adhesive reservoir 29 recessed toward the first direction side, and the adhesive reservoir 29 includes the facing portion on an inside in a radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
the adhesive reservoir includes a bottom portion that is continuous with the facing portion and faces the second direction side, and the bottom portion is curved toward the first direction side (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
a center of the bottom portion in a radial direction is located on the outside in a radial direction from the convex portion (Fig. 5, for example, 256a under BRI).
Regarding claim 8, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1, wherein
the second flange surface 263 includes a step portion 266a protruding toward the first direction side, and the adhesive reservoir 29 includes an abutment surface portion 256a (see section facing (under BRI, abutting 266a)) that linearly extends from the outside in the radial direction of the bottom portion toward the second direction side and abuts on the step portion from the outside in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 4, wherein
the first flange surface 253 is provided with an adhesive reservoir 29 recessed toward the first direction side, and the adhesive reservoir includes the facing portion on an inside in a radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 7, wherein
the second flange surface 263 includes a step portion 266a protruding toward the first direction side, and the adhesive reservoir 29 includes an abutment surface portion (see section facing (under BRI, abutting 266a)) that linearly extends from the outside in the radial direction of the bottom portion toward the second direction side and abuts on the step portion from the outside in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanzaki in view of Ishii et al. (JP 2011/120409A, hereinafter, “Ishii”).
Regarding claim 9, Kanzaki discloses the lens unit according to claim 1.
Kanzaki does not disclose wherein the first flange surface and the second flange surface are provided with a polished surface subjected to polishing in a portion where the adhesive is provided.
Ishii discloses (reference paragraphs refer to the English translation and reference figures refer to the original) a motor mount ([0001]). In one embodiment, two mounting plates 2 and 3 are joined together via respective bonding surfaces 2a, 3a, which are polished to a polished surface, and adhesive is applied thereon (Fig. 1, 2a, [0030]).
Both Kanzaki and Ishii disclose applying adhesive for joining two separate components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kanzaki so that the adhesive 29 is placed between the first and the second flange surface which are polished, as taught by Ishii, for easier flow of the adhesive to the adhesive reservoir.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Komiyama (US 2019/0235193, hereinafter, “Komiyama”) discloses a lens unit comprising a cemented lens 105, 106 (Fig. 1, [0048]). In Komiyama, the second flange surface has a convex portion but no adhesive reservoir between the first and the second lens surfaces (Fig. 11A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872