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.
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 1-3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220252964 A1 to Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Kim discloses a lens assembly comprising: a first lens barrel (Fig. 3 first lens barrel 100); a second lens barrel (Fig. 3 second lens barrel 200) disposed in front of the first lens barrel while surrounding at least a portion of the first lens barrel (as shown in Fig. 3); and a first lens (Fig. 3 front lens L1) disposed in front of the second lens barrel in contact with a portion of the second lens barrel (para 65), wherein a thermal conductance of the second lens barrel is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens barrel (para 66).
Regarding Claim 2. Kim further discloses the first lens assembly is made of a synthetic resin, and the second lens barrel is made of metal (para 53).
Regarding Claim 3. Kim further discloses the second lens barrel comprises a gap maintaining portion (Fig. 3 gap maintaining member 660) and a body portion (See Fig. 3 barrel 200) , the first lens is disposed in front of the gap maintaining portion (See Fig. 3), and a portion of the first lens barrel is disposed inside the body portion (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10. Kim further discloses a seating groove is formed in a circumferential direction of the second lens barrel in a front surface of the second lens barrel, the seating groove overlaps the first lens in an optical axis direction (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 internal space 202), and the lens assembly further comprises a sealing member disposed in the seating groove (Fig. 3 member 610).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 in view of US 5894369 A to Akiba et al.
Regarding Claim 8. As stated above, Kim discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Kim does not specifically disclose that a thermal conductance of the second lens barrel is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens.
However, Akiba discloses a thermal conductance of the second lens barrel is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens (Col 6 lines 6-13 “the lens barrel 11 and spacer ring 17 are cooled down more quickly than center portions of the first lens element L1”) so moister condense on the lens barrel as opposed to the center of the lens.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a thermal conductance of the second lens barrel is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens.
Regarding Claim 9. Kim further discloses the lens assembly further comprises a cap supporting the first lens (Fig. 3 cover member 500).
Kim does not specifically disclose that the cap is made of a same material as the second lens barrel.
However, Akiba discloses should moisture exist in the air gap between the first and second lens elements, it tends to condense firstly on those surfaces which are at lower temperatures (Col 6 lines 6-13) so moister condense on the cap and lens barrel as opposed to the center of the lens.
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 cap is made of a same material as the second lens barrel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220252964 A1 to Kim et al. in view of US 5894369 A to Akiba et al.
Regarding Claim 11. Kim discloses a lens assembly comprising: a first lens barrel (Fig. 3 first lens barrel 100); a second lens barrel disposed in front of the first lens barrel while surrounding at least a portion of the first lens barrel (Fig. 3 second lens barrel 200); and a first lens (Fig. 3 front lens L1) disposed in front of the second lens barrel (See Fig. 3), wherein the second lens barrel comprises a gap maintaining portion contacting the first lens and separating the first lens from the first lens barrel (Fig. 3 gap maintaining member 660).
Kim does not specifically disclose that a thermal conductance of the gap maintaining portion is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens.
However, Akiba discloses a thermal conductance of the gap maintaining portion is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens (Col 6 lines 6-13 “the lens barrel 11 and spacer ring 17 are cooled down more quickly than center portions of the first lens element L1”) so moister condense on the lens barrel as opposed to the center of the lens.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that a thermal conductance of the gap maintaining portion is higher than a thermal conductance of the first lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 12-15 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