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 § 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 1-5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okai (JP 2013-37244 A of record) in view of Morita (JP 2011-99900 A of record).
Regarding claims 1-5, Okai discloses a lens device comprising a lens unit 4 and a light-shielding holder 2 that accommodates the lens unit 4, wherein a gap is provided between the side surface of the lens unit 4 and the inner surface of the light-shielding holder 2, the lens unit 4 has a first lens 5, the first lens 5 has a light incident part 51 and a spacer part 53 formed on the periphery of the light incident part 51, and a flat surface on the object side of the spacer part 53 is joined to an inner wall surface of the light-shielding holder 2 by an adhesive.
Okai does not disclose an adhesive application surface and a contact surface on the outer peripheral side of the adhesive application surface when bonding two lenses with an adhesive. Morita is in lens barrel field and teaches the feature of providing an adhesive application surface and a contact surface on the outer peripheral side of the adhesive application surface when bonding two lenses with an adhesive (paragraph [0058] indicates that said feature may be also applied to a lens and a lens barrel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the feature disclosed by Morita to invention device of Okai for purpose of providing an adhesive application surface and a contact surface in joining the flat surface on the object side of the spacer part 53 and the inner wall surface of the light-shielding holder 2 of the invention disclosed in Okai.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Okai and Morita discloses device of claim 1. Okai further disclose wherein the lid includes a plate portion extending from an inner wall of the tubular portion in a direction of the hole and including a plane on the lens side of the plate portion, and a protruding portion (2a) extending from the plate portion in the direction of the hole and in a direction of the lens; wherein the flange portion includes a protrusion on an outer circumference and the adhesion region at the protrusion, the protrusion protruding toward the lid, and the protruding portion of the lid and the flange portion of the lens are fitted to each other (figure 4).
Regarding claim10, Okai and Morita discloses device of claim 1. Okai further disclose wherein a lens module has a structure in which the lens unit (1) is mounted on a substrate (33) (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Okai and Morita discloses device of claim 10. Okai further disclose wherein the lens module can be used in a camera.
Regarding method claim 13, it should be noted that the method of forming the device, such as mounting, is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. A "product by method" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by method" claim, and not the patentability of the method, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by method" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. See also MPEP 706.03(e). Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okai (JP 2013-37244 A of record) in view of Morita (JP 2011-99900 A of record), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of MURAOKA (WO2009047868 of record).
Regarding claim 7, Okai and Morita discloses the lens unit according to claim 6, wherein the flange portion includes a protrusion on an outer circumference, the protrusion protruding toward the lid. However, neither Okai nor Morita discloses wherein the flange portion includes a protrusion on an outer circumference, the protrusion protruding toward the lid, and an inner circumferential side surface of the protrusion abuts against the protruding portion.
Muraoka teaches wherein the flange portion includes a protrusion on an outer circumference, the protrusion protruding toward the lid, and an inner circumferential side surface of the protrusion abuts against the protruding portion (figure 7B, positioning by bringing a lens into contact with an inclined surface part provided in the vicinity of an opening part of a lens barrel is a well-known feature). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the feature disclosed by Muraoka to invention device of Okai for purpose of bringing a lens into contact with an inclined surface part
Regarding claim 9, Okai and Morita disclose the lens unit according to claim 1. Neither Okai nor Morita discloses wherein the lens unit is for reflow mounting. However, it is a well-known feature to mount a lens device such as that disclosed in Okai on a substrate by a reflow process. Muraoka teaches wherein the lens unit is for reflow mounting (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the feature disclosed by Muraoka to invention device of Okai for reflow mounting purpose.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okai (JP 2013-37244 A of record) in view of Morita (JP 2011-99900 A of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chang (US 20100259840 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Okai and Morita discloses the lens unit according to claim 10. However, neither Okai nor Morita discloses an infrared filter installed at a position covering the hole. Wang teaches an infrared filter (40)(figure 3) installed at a position covering the hole (par.[0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the feature disclosed by Wang to invention device of Okai for filtering infrared light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/TUYEN TRA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights