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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 7, 2025 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi et al. (US 2017/0064162) in view of Sekido of Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (WO 2022/254659), translation provided herewith, hereinafter “Olympus”.
Regarding claim 1, Haraguchi discloses an imaging unit (Figs. 3-4) comprising:
a lens (LNZ, 35) obtained by a plurality of lenses (L1-L3) in an optical axis direction (Figs. 3-4); and
a metal film (39; para. [0081]) formed on a side circumferential surface of the lens (Figs. 3-4),
wherein the lenses (L1-L3) constituting the lens include at least one resin lens (para. [0078]), and
the metal film (39) is formed to cover at least a bonding portion side surface of the resin lens and another lens adjacent to the resin lens (i.e., L2 and L3, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding the product-by-process limitation of “laminating a plurality of lenses,” it has been recognized that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
Haraguchi fails to explicitly disclose a laminated lens.
However, Olympus discloses an imaging unit (1, Figs. 1-4) comprising a laminated lens (30; para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a laminated lens, as in Olympus, into the imaging unit of Haraguchi to securely stack the lenses together for stability.
Regarding claim 2, Haraguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resin lens is bonded to the other adjacent lens with an adhesive.
However, Olympus discloses wherein the resin lens (31B, 32B, or 32C) is bonded to the other adjacent lens (31A or 32A) with an adhesive (Figs. 2-3; para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the resin lens is bonded to the other adjacent lens with an adhesive, as in Olympus, into the imaging unit of Haraguchi to securely stack the lenses together for stability.
Regarding claim 3, Haraguchi discloses wherein, among the lenses constituting the laminated lens, the lens located on a side closest to an object is a glass lens (L1; para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, Haraguchi discloses wherein an insulating resin (17; paras. [0081-0082]) is formed on a side circumferential surface of the glass lens (L1).
Regarding claim 5, Haraguchi discloses a resin frame (61 and/or 65) covering an outer circumference of the laminated lens (LNZ, 35) around which the metal film (39) is formed (paras. [0110, 0122, 0124]).
Regarding claim 6, Haraguchi discloses further comprising:
an image sensor (33) provided on an imaging surface side of the laminated lens (LNZ, 35) (Figs. 3-4); and
a conductive member (39, 59 and/or 65) provided to connect the metal film (39) and a GND terminal of the image sensor (Fig. 3; paras. [0101, 0119]).
Regarding claim 7, Haraguchi discloses a conductive member (39 and/or 65) provided to connect the metal film (39) and a metal frame (69) provided around the laminated lens (LNZ, 35) (Figs. 3-4; para. [0127]).
Regarding claim 8, Haraguchi discloses wherein the metal film (39) is formed by sputtering.
Regarding the product-by-process limitation of “formed by sputtering,” it has been recognized that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 9, Haraguchi discloses an endoscope (11) configured by mounting the imaging unit according to any one of claims 1 to 8 on a tip of a scope (15) (Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights