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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanemoto (JP 2013-198083).
Regarding claim 1, Tanemoto discloses an imaging device (FIGS. 1-13) comprising: a lens barrel ((4), [0030]) in which a lens ((3), [0027]) is arranged; a board ((1), [0027]) on which an imaging element ((2), [0027]) is mounted, the imaging element converting light received through the lens into an image signal ([0027]); a housing ((5), [0028]) that houses the board (FIGS. 1-3, 5, 6), the housing including a hole ((5b), [0028, 0029]) at a position that faces the imaging element ([0029]), one end side of the lens barrel being fitted into the hole (FIGS. 1-3, 5, 6, [0028, 0030]); and an adhesive member ((6), [0032]) that is provided between an outer peripheral surface of the lens barrel and an inner peripheral surface of the hole, in a state where the one end side of the lens barrel is fitted into the hole, the adhesive member fixing the lens barrel to the housing ([0032, 0035, 0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Tanemoto further discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the lens barrel is fitted into the hole in a state where an end on the one end side of the lens barrel is separated from the housing (indicated below), and the adhesive member is provided in a portion where the outer peripheral surface of the lens barrel faces the inner peripheral surface of the hole (FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 6, [0032, 0035, 0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
438
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Tanemoto further discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive member is provided in a circumferential direction of the lens barrel (FIGS. 11-13, [0048-0052]).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is similarly rejected as in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, Tanemoto further discloses the imaging device according to claim 2, wherein a first clearance is provided between a board-side end of the adhesive member and the housing serving as a bottom of the hole ((L1) indicated below), a second clearance is provided between the end on the one end side of the lens barrel and the housing serving as the bottom of the hole ((L2) indicated below), and the first clearance has a size equal to or greater than that of the second clearance (wherein (L1) ≥ (L2)).
PNG
media_image5.png
438
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reckker et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2021/0103119).
Regarding claim 1, Reckker discloses an imaging device (FIGS. 3, 4) comprising: a lens barrel ((124), [0028]) in which a lens (“a lens or lens assembly”, [0028]) is arranged; a board ((126), [0028]) on which an imaging element ((128), [0028]) is mounted, the imaging element converting light received through the lens into an image signal ([0028, 0029]); a housing ((130), [0028]) that houses the board (FIG. 3), the housing including a hole (indicated below) at a position that faces the imaging element (FIG. 3), one end side of the lens barrel being fitted into the hole (FIG. 3); and an adhesive member ((132), [0028, 0029]) that is provided between an outer peripheral surface of the lens barrel and an inner peripheral surface of the hole (FIGS. 3, 4), in a state where the one end side of the lens barrel is fitted into the hole, the adhesive member fixing the lens barrel to the housing ([0028, 0029]).
PNG
media_image6.png
352
662
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Reckker further discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the lens barrel is fitted into the hole in a state where an end on the one end side of the lens barrel is separated from the housing (indicated below), and the adhesive member is provided in a portion where the outer peripheral surface of the lens barrel faces the inner peripheral surface of the hole (FIGS. 3, 4, [0028, 0029]).
PNG
media_image7.png
352
662
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reckker et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2021/0103119) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Hinderling et al. (U.S. Publication No.: 2012/0198712).
Regarding claim 5:
Reckker discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive is cured via UV curing ([0029]).
Reckker does not specifically disclose that a water absorption rate of the adhesive member is 0.5% or less.
Hinderling teaches an adhesive, wherein a water absorption rate of the adhesive member is 0.5% or less ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Hinderling’s with the imaging device taught by Reckker for the purpose of protecting the device from external moisture.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the water absorption rate of the adhesive member to be 0.5% or less, 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.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 is similarly rejected as in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANG-CHI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5299. The examiner can normally be reached MRF 9am-5pm.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 5712723555. 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.
/FANG-CHI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights