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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 and 21-16 are currently pending. In response to the Restriction/Election requirement mailed 4/01/2026, Applicant canceled claims 15-20 and newly added claim 21-26.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “the sensor lens” which is believed to be a typographical error. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to be equivalent to “the sensor-side lens.” 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 (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 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 1-4, 6, 9-10, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190179098 A1 to Yang et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Yang discloses a camera module comprising: a lens barrel having a through hole therein (Fig. 10 lens barrel 200); and an optical system disposed in the through hole of the lens barrel and having a plurality of lenses which an optical axis is aligned from an object side toward a sensor side (See Fig. 10 lens L1-L6), wherein a sensor-side lens (Fig. 10 lens L6) closest to an image sensor (Fig. 10 image sensor 41) among the plurality of lenses includes an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface (See Fig. 10), wherein the sensor-side lens has a length in a first direction orthogonal to the optical axis longer than a length in a second direction (as shown in Fig. 10 also shown in Fig. 6-8), wherein the sensor-side lens includes an outer protrusion protruding on one side in the second direction (See at least Fig. 6-Fig. 8, incline 120, para 132), and wherein the sensor-side surface of the sensor-side lens has an asymmetrical shape in a shape of a lens surface from the optical axis to an end of an effective region in the first direction and a lens surface from the optical axis to an end of an effective region in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 10 also shown in Fig. 6-8 para 94).
Regarding Claim 2. Yang further discloses the sensor-side lens includes a first straight portion disposed on one side in the second direction with respect to the optical axis and a second straight portion disposed on the other side, wherein the first and second straight portions are disposed between outer arc portions of the sensor-side lens (as seen in at least Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3. Yang further discloses the outer protrusion protrudes outward from the second straight portion, wherein the outer protrusion is disposed within a virtual circle of the outer arc portion of the sensor-side lens (as seen in Fig. 6-Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4. Yang further discloses the sensor-side surface of the sensor-side lens has a freeform surface (See at least Fig. 8 and Fig. 9), wherein a distance from the optical axis to the end of the effective region in the first direction is greater than a distance to the end of the effective region in the second direction (See Fig. 6-9, para 94).
Regarding Claim 6. Yang further discloses an angle to a point having a maximum effective distance of the sensor-side surface with respect to the first direction based on a center of the sensor-side lens is greater than an angle to a point of a maximum effective distance of the object-side surface (as seen in at least Fig. 6-9).
Regarding Claim 9. Yang further discloses the object-side surface of the sensor-side lens has a first outer portion between the end of the effective region in the first direction and a flange portion (See at least Fig. 8 flange 130), and a second outer portion between the end of the effective region in the second direction and the flange portion (See at least Fig. 8), wherein the first outer portion and the second outer portion have different shapes (See Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10. Yang further discloses the second outer portion has a depth lower than that of the first outer portion and has a plurality of inclined surfaces (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 21. Yang further discloses the plurality of lenses further includes: a first lens closest to an object side (See Fig. 10 lens L1); and a second lens including one or more second lenses and disposed between the first lens and the sensor-side lens (See Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 22. Yang further discloses a diameter of the first lens is smaller than a diameter of the second lens (para 158).
Regarding Claim 23. Yang further discloses the diameter of the second lens is smaller than a diameter of the sensor-side lens (para 158).
Regarding Claim 26. Yang further discloses a mobile terminal having the camera module of claim 1 (See Fig. 16A and Fig. 16B).
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.
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.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190056566 A1 to Yoo et al.
Regarding Claim 5. As stated above Yang discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yang does not specifically disclose that the sensor-side surface of the sensor lens has a maximum effective distance at a point having an angle of 50±3 degrees from an axis extending in the first direction with respect to the optical axis.
However, Yoo the maximum effective distance is a would be dependent on the desired aperture radius (See at least para 4-5 and also para 99), and one of ordinary skill in the art would need to balance the aperture radius with the overall desired size of the device. The maximum effective distance at a point having an angle from an axis extending in the first direction with respect to the optical axis are result-effective variables. In that, the radius needs to be sufficiently large to ideal magnification, and yet not too large such that it will unduly increase the overall size of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the sensor-side surface of the sensor lens has a maximum effective distance at a point having an angle of 50±3 degrees from an axis extending in the first direction with respect to the optical axis is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 22 in view of US 20200150406 A1 to Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 24. As stated above Yang discloses all the limitations of base claim 22.
Yang does not specifically disclose that the first lens has positive refractive power.
However, Chen discloses the first lens has positive refractive power (para 101), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the first lens has positive refractive power.
Regarding Claim 25. Yang further discloses the sensor-side lens has negative refractive power (para 105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, and 11-14 are objected to 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, 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 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights