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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 05/22/2026, applicant has made an election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
As a result of applicant’s election, and after a complete search of the optical unit as recited in the independent claim 1 and the light-shielding film as recited in the independent claim 14, the following conclusions are made:
a) The optical unit with all features recited in the independent claim 1 is allowable with respect to the prior art, thus the restriction applied to claims 1-13 is now withdrawn. As a result, all claims 1-13 are examined in the present office action; and
b) The light-shielding film with all features as recited in the independent claim 14 is not allowable over the prior art, thus, claim 14 is examined in the present office action, and claims 15-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 15-17 will be rejoined if the linking claim 14 is later found as an allowable claim. Claim 18 will be rejoined if the claim has all features recited in the linking claim 1 or the linking claim 14 if each claims is later found as an allowable claim..
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirteen sheets of figures 1-7, 8A-8B and 9-12 were received on 09/10/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reasons.
Figures 1-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See specification in paragraphs [0010]-[0014]. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the reference “31”, see fig. 9, which reference is not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a1) the feature thereof “the joint surface side” (line 10) lacks a proper antecedent basis; and
a2) the feature thereof “the first optical element and/or the second optical element has a chamfered part on the joint surface side” (lines 9-10) makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear how only one first (or second ) optical element having a joint surface side. Applicant should note that because the term “and/or” used in the mentioned feature can be understood as --or-- then how can only one optical element define a “joint” surface side? and
a3) he feature thereof “at least one of the first optical element and/or the second optical element having the chamfered part has a round part on the joint surface side” (lines 11-12) makes the claim indefinite due to the unclear claimed language. What does applicant mean by “at least one of the first optical element and/or the second optical element”? Because the term “and/or” which can be understood as –or-- then what does “at least one of the first optical element or the second optical element” mean?
For the purpose of examination, the term “and/or” used in the claim is understood as –and--.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-2 and 12-14, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art described in paragraph [0028] and shown in figs. 3-4 of the present application in view of Ogawa et al (US Publication No. 2016/0282612).
The prior art as described in paragraph [0028] and shown in figs. 3-4 of the present application discloses a lens unit.
a) Regarding present claims 1-2 and 14, the lens unit of the prior art comprises the following features:
a1) a first optical element (12X), a second optical element (13X) and a third optical element (14X) disposed between the first and second optical elements;
a2) the first and second optical elements (12X, 13X) in combination define a joint surface side having a chamfered part (15X) having a groove part with a round configuration/shape, see fig. 4; and
a3) a light-shielding film (1X) is accumulated in the groove part of the chamfered part (15X) and in contact with the edges of the first, second and third optical elements (12X, 13X, 14X).
The only feature missing from the prior art described in paragraph [0028] and shown in figs. 3-4 of the present application is that it does not disclose the content of the light-shielding film (1X).
However, a light-shielding film covering a wall/side of a lens or a joint surface side of a compound lens wherein the light-shielding film comprises a resin and inorganic particles which resin ratio is in a range of (85 vol%; 90 Vol%) is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the light-shielding coating material of an optical element provided by Ogawa et al, see paragraphs [0021]-[0027] and [0055] and fig. 1, for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lens unit of the prior art by using a light-shield film as suggested by Ogawa et al for the purpose of prevent the lens unit from breakage due to thermal shock and having a high cleaning resistance.
Claims 5-7, 9 and 12-13, as best s understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art described in paragraph [0028] and shown in figs. 3-4 of the present application in view of Ogawa et al (US Publication No. 2016/0282612) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogane et al (US Publication No. 2020/004986).
a) Regarding present claims 5 and 9, while the prior art does not disclose the dimension of the length of the chamfered part and the curvature radius of the round part of the chamfered part; however, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control/select the curvature radius of the round part and thus the length of the chamfered part at any suitable dimension to meet a particular application. Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that a discovery an optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
b) Regarding present claim 6, the dimension/diameter of a lens barrel/tube/cylinder supporting a lens system is smaller than 300 mm is known to one skill in the art.
c) Regarding present claim 7, in the lens unit provided by Ogane et al, Ogane et al suggests different glass materials of the lenses constituted the lens unit, see Ogane et al, see Example 1 in paragraph [0044], for example. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined product provided by the prior art and Ogawa et al by selecting any suitable material whose linear expansion coefficients are not different much from each other to reduce the harmful effect of the lens unit under the shock.
d) Regarding present claims 12-13, it is noted that the lens unit of the combined product provided by the prior art and Ogawa et al is used in an optical device such as a camera which as understood comprises a case/lens barrel for supporting the lens unit and an image pickup element for receiving light pass through the lens unit. Further, a typical example of an optical device having a case/lens barrel for supporting the lens unit and an image pickup element for receiving light pass through the lens unit is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the optical device provided by Ogane et al, see Ogane et al in paragraph [0018] and fig. 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The US Patent No. 8,958,155 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a light-shielding film covering the wall of an optical lens wherein the film comprises a resin and particles whose resin ratio is in the range as claimed in the present claim 1. It is noted that the Patent does not discloses that the light-shield film is used for a set of lenses having structure and arranged as recited in the features thereof “a first optical element … the joint surface side” as recited in the present claim 1 on lines 2-12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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 B. ALLEN can be reached at (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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights