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 .
Examiner’s Note/Response to Amendment
Examiner respectfully notes that claims 13-16 and 18 lack the proper status identifiers as required by 37 CFR 1.121(c). However, it appears that there are no amendments to these claims, and, as such, the status of the claims appears to be Original. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined claims 13-16 and 18 as original claims. See MPEP §714.II.C: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Korean Pub. No. 10-2023-0029131; hereinafter – “Park”). All citations to Park are directed toward the English machine translation of the Korean document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a lens assembly, comprising:
a lens barrel (500) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10; Paragraph 0039);
a lens (111-115) disposed on the lens barrel (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10; Paragraph 0039); and
a filter (196) configured to filter light passing through the lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10; Paragraph 0040),
wherein the lens barrel comprises a seating portion (125, 55) in which the filter is disposed (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0060, 0137, and 0149-0167); and
a step portion (51) disposed facing the filter between the seating portion and an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167),
wherein an avoidance groove (53, 57) formed to be concave in an optical axis direction is disposed on an upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Park further teaches that the lens barrel comprises an inclined portion (K4, K8) connecting the seating portion (55) and the step portion (51) (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 2, as above.
Park further teaches that the inclined portion forms an obtuse angle with the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 3, as above.
Park further teaches that the inclined portion forms an obtuse angle with the step portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Park further teaches an adhesive (301) applied between the seating portion and the filter, wherein a portion of the adhesive is disposed in the avoidance groove (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Park further teaches that the avoidance groove comprises: a first inclined surface (K6, K4) disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to a first upper surface of the seating portion; and a second inclined surface (K7, K3, 53) extending from the first inclined surface and disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to a second upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 6, as above.
Park further teaches that the first inclined surface and a lower surface of the filter form an acute angle, and wherein the second inclined surface and the lower surface of the filter form an acute angle (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Park further teaches that the lens barrel comprises a plurality of adhesive inlets (58) each recessed from an outer region of the seating portion, wherein each of the plurality of adhesive inlets is disposed radially outside the filter with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a lower surface of each of the plurality of adhesive inlets is disposed at a position closer to an image sensor side than the upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the lens assembly of claim 8, as above.
Park further teaches that the plurality of adhesive inlets are disposed to be rotationally symmetrical with respect to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0149-0167).
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,428,111; hereinafter – “Shibata”).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata teaches a lens assembly, comprising:
a lens barrel (2, 3) (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 4, L. 6-31);
a lens (23, 24) disposed on the lens barrel (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 4, L. 6-24); and
a filter (4) configured to filter light passing through the lens (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 6-31),
wherein the lens barrel comprises a seating portion (32b) in which the filter is disposed (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63); and
a step portion (32a) disposed facing the filter between the seating portion and an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63),
wherein an avoidance groove (32c, 32f) formed to be concave in an optical axis direction is disposed on an upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 2, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the lens barrel comprises an inclined portion (32g) connecting the seating portion (32b) and the step portion (32a) (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 3, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 2, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the inclined portion forms an obtuse angle with the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 4, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 3, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the inclined portion forms an obtuse angle with the step portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Shibata further teaches an adhesive applied between the seating portion and the filter, wherein a portion of the adhesive is disposed in the avoidance groove (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the avoidance groove comprises: a first inclined surface (32g) disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to a first upper surface of the seating portion; and a second inclined surface (32f) extending from the first inclined surface and disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to a second upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 6, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the first inclined surface and a lower surface of the filter form an acute angle, and wherein the second inclined surface and the lower surface of the filter form an acute angle (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 8, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 1, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the lens barrel comprises a plurality of adhesive inlets (32d) each recessed from an outer region of the seating portion, wherein each of the adhesive inlets is disposed radially outside the filter with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a lower surface of each of the plurality of adhesive inlets is disposed at a position closer to an image side than the upper surface of the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 9, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 8, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the plurality of adhesive inlets are disposed to be rotationally symmetrical with respect to the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 10, Shibata teaches a lens assembly, comprising:
a lens barrel (2, 3) (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 4, L. 6-31);
a lens (23, 24) disposed on the lens barrel (See e.g. Fig. 3; C. 4, L. 6-24); and
a filter (4) configured to filter light passing through the lens (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 6-31),
wherein the lens barrel comprises a plurality of seating portions (32b) in which the filter is disposed (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63); and
a step portion (32a) disposed between each of the plurality of seating portions and an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63),
wherein the plurality of seating portions are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the lens barrel (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49), and
a plurality of separation spaces (32c) each formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of seating portions in the circumferential direction (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49),
wherein each of the plurality of separation spaces being open to an outer surface of the lens barrel (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 11, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 10, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the lens barrel comprises a plurality of air passages (32d), and wherein each of the plurality of air passages is recessed from the outer surface of the lens barrel, and wherein each of the plurality of air passages connects a respective one of the plurality of separation spaces to the outer surface of the lens barrel (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 13, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 10, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the lens barrel comprises an inclined portion (32g) connecting the seating portion (32b) and the step portion (32a) (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 14, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 13, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the inclined portion forms an obtuse angle with the seating portion (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 15, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 10, as above.
Shibata further teaches that a groove (32f) formed to be concave in an optical axis direction is disposed in each of the plurality of seating portions (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 16, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 15, as above.
Shibata further teaches an adhesive applied between the plurality of seating portions and the filter, wherein at least a portion of the adhesive is disposed in the groove (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 17, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 15, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the groove comprises a first inclined surface (32g) disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to a first upper surface of each of the plurality of seating portions; and a second inclined surface (32f) extending from the first inclined surface and disposed at an (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Regarding claim 18, Shibata teaches the lens assembly of claim 17, as above.
Shibata further teaches that the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface form an obtuse angle (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63; C. 5, L. 8-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Park have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Park’s camera module fails to disclose or suggest ‘the lens barrel comprises a seating portion in which the filter is disposed’ as recited in claim 1” because “Park merely discloses filter (196) is disposed in a press-fit member (125), rather than in the lens barrel (500) as shown in Fig. 10 of Park.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Park’s member 125 meets all of the structural requirements of the claimed “seating portion” as it is a member formed in the lens barrel in which the filter is disposed.
It appears that Applicant is arguing that the “seating portion” must have some structure or configuration that is not claimed, or that the “seating portion” cannot be a separate element inserted into the lens barrel. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the seating portion has some specific structure or is not a part of the lens barrel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
No special definition of “seating portion” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a seating portion”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “seating portion,” which states/seems to imply that the seating portion must have some structure that is different from the member of Park, or that the seating member must be integral to the lens barrel. Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Applicant further argues that “Park merely discloses optical filter (196) upper surface in Fig. 10 is disposed on press-fit member 125, fixing part 55 lower surface S38” and thus “one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand Park’s camera module also fails to disclose or suggest ‘wherein an avoidance groove formed to be concave in an optical axis direction is disposed on an upper surface of the seating portion,’ as recited in claim 1.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As best as Examiner understands, Applicant is arguing that the grooves (53, 57) in the seating portion of Park are not formed “on an upper surface of the seating portion.” However, there is no frame of reference defined in the claim to indicate which direction should be “upper” or “lower.” Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the “upper surface of the seating portion” can be interpreted to be the surface facing the image sensor, as it is the upper surface with respect to an imaged object. As no reference frame is defined in the claim, either surface of the seating portion could be construed as the “upper surface.”
No special definition of “upper surface” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an upper surface of the seating portion”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “an upper surface of the seating portion,” which states/seems to imply that the upper surface of the seating portion must be a portion opposite to an image sensor. Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in view of Shibata have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Shibata merely discloses IR cut filter is disposed in a base, rather than in a lens barrel 21 as shown in Fig. 3 of Shibata” and thus “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Shibata’s camera module fails to disclose or suggest ‘the lens barrel comprises a seating portion in which the filter is disposed.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As best as Examiner understands, Applicant is arguing that Shibata’s structure of a camera module 1 including “a lens unit 1 and an image pickup unit 2” cannot read on the claimed “lens barrel” as it is formed in two separate elements. However, the claims do not require a singular lens barrel and there is nothing in the claims to distinguish the claimed lens barrel from the combination of elements 2 and 3 in Shibata. While Applicant refers to element 21 as the lens barrel, Examiner respectfully notes that element 21 was not relied upon as reading on the claimed lens barrel and maintains that elements 2 and 3 read on the claimed “lens barrel” as the only structural requirements of the lens barrel are that there is “a lens disposed on the lens barrel” and “the lens barrel comprises a seating portion in which the filter is disposed.”
More compellingly, the claims require “a lens disposed on the lens barrel.” While Applicant interprets element 21 as the “lens barrel,” Examiner respectfully notes that the lens is not disposed on element 21. Rather, the lens is disposed on the housing 3. Thus, Examiner maintains that elements 2 and 3 of Shibata read on the claimed lens barrel with a seating portion (32b) in which the filter is disposed (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; C. 4, L. 25-63). Thus, Shibata reads on the claimed limitations.
Applicant further argues that “Shibata merely discloses peripheral portion of the IR cut filter 4 is placed on the support portion 32a of the overhanging portion 32, which is provided outside of the opening 34 of the base 31, and bonded to the support portion 32a of the overhanging portion 35 by a resin adhesive” and thus “one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand Shibata’s camera module also fails to disclose or suggest ‘wherein an avoidance groove formed to be concave in an optical axis direction is disposed on an upper surface of the seating portion,’ as recited in claim 1. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant has provided no evidence that Shibata’s disclosed structure is different in any manner from that of the claimed invention. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant has merely restated that elements of Shibata, without providing any explanation as to how those elements do not read on the claimed limitation. Thus, Examiner maintains that Shibata teaches the claimed structure.
Applicant further argues that “Shibata merely discloses a single support portion 32a on which the IR cut filter 4 is placed and bonded as shown in Fig. 4 of Shibata” and thus “Shibata fails to disclose or suggest ‘the lens barrel comprises a plurality of seating portions in which the filter is disposed.” However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Shibata teaches an upper surface 32b reading on the claimed “seating portions” that is separated into different regions by elements 32c and 32d. Further, the combination of elements 32b and 32a also read on the claimed “seating portions,” forming a “plurality of seating portions.” Additionally, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Shibata explicitly teaches a plurality of elements reading on the claimed seating portions in, e.g. Figs. 3-4, C. 4, L. 25-63, and C. 5, L. 8-49: “As shown in FIG. 4, a plurality of recesses 32c, 32d are formed outside of the groove 32f.” Furthermore, the plurality of portions that are divided by the plurality of recesses would also be a plurality of “seating portions.” Thus, Examiner maintains that Shibata teaches a structure reading on the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights