CTNF 18/941,841 CTNF 82913 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1, a2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al US 6072641 A . Re claim 1, Miyamoto et al teach A lens assembly (multiple embodiments read on the claims however figure 7 will be cited for illustrative reasons), comprising: a spacer (see numeral 80); and a first lens coupled to the spacer (see numerals 51 and 61), wherein a length of the first lens in a first direction, perpendicular to an optical axis, is greater than a length of the first lens in a second direction, perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (see numerals 51 and 61 which are described and illustrated as noncircular and meeting this limitation), wherein the first lens comprises a first side surface which extends in the first direction (see numerals 51 and 61 which are described and illustrated as noncircular and meeting this limitation), wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of support portions in contact with the first lens, and a side wall portion that connects the plurality of support portions (see numerals 53 and 81 also sides of numerals 50 and 60 could read), and wherein the first side surface of the first lens is disposed to face the side wall portion (see numerals 50 and 60). Re claim 3, Miyamoto et al teach wherein a first protruding portion, which protrudes in a direction in which a distance from the optical axis increases, is disposed on the first side surface of the first lens (see numerals 53 and 63), and wherein the first protruding portion is disposed to be spaced apart from the side wall portion in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (see numerals 53 and 63). Re claim 4, Miyamoto et al teach wherein a length of the side wall portion is less than a length of the first side surface of the first lens (see figure 7 numeral 50 one side wall shorter than opposite side of the lens). Re claim 6, Miyamoto et al teach wherein a thickness of the side wall portion in an optical axis direction is greater than a thickness of the support portion in the optical axis direction. Re claim 9, Miyamoto et al teach wherein an inner surface of the side wall portion comprises a second protruding portion which protrudes toward the optical axis, and the first protruding portion and the second protruding portion are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (see numerals 53 and 63). Re claim 10, Miyamoto et al teach wherein when viewed from an object side, the first side surface of the first lens and an inner surface of the side wall portion are disposed to be parallel to each other (see figure 7). Re claim 12, Miyamoto et al teach A lens assembly, comprising: a lens barrel (see col 8, lines 61-67); a spacer disposed on the lens barrel (see numeral 80); and a first lens disposed on the lens barrel and coupled to the spacer (see numerals 51 and 61), wherein a length of the first lens in a first direction, perpendicular to an optical axis, is greater than a length of the first lens in a second direction, perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (see numerals 51 and 61 noncircular), wherein the first lens comprises a first side surface which extends in the first direction (see numerals 51 and 61), wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of support portions in contact with the first lens and a side wall portion that connects the plurality of support portions (see numerals 81, 53 and 63), wherein the side wall portion faces the first side surface of the first lens in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis (see sides of 50 and 60), and wherein the side wall portion is disposed to be spaced apart from an inner surface of the lens barrel in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (see numerals 50 and 60). Re claim 14, Miyamoto et al teach wherein a protruding portion which protrudes toward the optical axis is disposed on an inner surface of the side wall portion (see 51 and 61), wherein the inner surface of the side wall portion comprises an upper side surface disposed above the protruding portion (see numeral 80), and wherein the upper side surface is configured to form an acute angle with a line parallel to the optical axis (see figure 7). Re claim 16, Miyamoto et al teach wherein a length of the side wall portion is less than a length of the first side surface of the first lens (see figure 7). Re claim 17, Miyamoto et al teach A lens assembly, comprising: a first lens comprising cut side surfaces, and comprising a first length in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis, and a second length, less than the first length, in a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (see numerals 51 and 61 noncircular lenses); and a first spacer, comprising support portions and sidewall portions (see numerals 80 and 81), wherein the sidewall portions are spaced apart from the cut side surfaces of the first lens, overlap the cut side surfaces of the first lens in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis direction, and extend from an upper surface of the spacer toward an imaging plane (see numeral 80, 51 and 61). Re claim 18, Miyamoto et al teach further comprising a second spacer disposed between a second lens and the first spacer (see numerals 50 and 60 which act as spacers), wherein a height of the second spacer in an optical axis direction is less than a height of the first spacer in the optical axis direction (see figure 7) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al US 6072641 A . Re claim 2, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surface of the first lens is disposed to be spaced apart from the side wall portion in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis. However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the lens still operates in the same manner whether it is in contact with the side wall or not. The benefits of this modification include reducing the possibility of shear from the lateral direction. Re claim 5, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein when the length of the first side surface of the first lens is Ld, and the length of the side wall portion is Lw, Ld/2 < Lw < Ld is satisfied. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to wherein when the length of the first side surface of the first lens is Ld, and the length of the side wall portion is Lw, Ld/2 < Lw < Ld is satisfied, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The benefit of this modification is providing a stable structure to protect sensitive optical components. Re claim 7, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the flange portion is disposed closer to an image side in the optical axis direction than to a lower surface of the side wall portion. The connecting portions on 80 act as flanges however they are not located on the optical component structure a flange interacting portion is located there. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the flange portion is disposed closer to an image side in the optical axis direction than to a lower surface of the side wall portion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this case the ability to interchange the parts would benefit optimizing designs for structural integrity. Re claim 8, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the side wall portion is disposed between the first protruding portion and a lower surface of the flange portion based on a direction parallel to the optical axis. The connecting portions on 80 act as flanges however they are not located on the optical component structure a flange interacting portion is located there. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the side wall portion is disposed between the first protruding portion and a lower surface of the flange portion based on a direction parallel to the optical axis, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this case the ability to interchange the parts would benefit optimizing designs for structural integrity. Re claim 11, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein when viewed from an object side, an inner surface of the side wall portion has a curved shape with a center of a radius of curvature disposed on a side of the optical axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to wherein when viewed from an object side, an inner surface of the side wall portion has a curved shape with a center of a radius of curvature disposed on a side of the optical axis, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape for the purpose of providing an arch for easier insertion. Re claim 13, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surface of the first lens is disposed to be spaced apart from an inner surface of the side wall portion in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the lens still operates in the same manner whether it is in contact with the side wall or not. The benefits of this modification include reducing the possibility of shear from the lateral direction. Re claim 15, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the support portion is disposed in contact with an upper surface of the flange portion. The connecting portions on 80 act as flanges however they are not located on the optical component structure a flange interacting portion is located there. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the first lens comprises an optical portion and a flange portion that extends from the optical portion, and wherein a lower surface of the support portion is disposed in contact with an upper surface of the flange portion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the working parts of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. In this case the ability to interchange the parts would benefit optimizing designs for structural integrity. Re claim 19, Miyamoto et al does not explicitly disclose wherein inner surfaces of the side wall portions have a curved shape with a center of a radius of curvature disposed toward the optical axis, and outer surfaces of the side wall portions have a straight shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to wherein inner surfaces of the side wall portions have a curved shape with a center of a radius of curvature disposed toward the optical axis, and outer surfaces of the side wall portions have a straight shape, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape for the purpose of providing an arch for easier insertion. Cited Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2161368-A: Similar structure device with similar components US-5898527-A: Strongly similar to 102 reference US-20020126399-A1: Similar lenses and lens structure US-20020186478-A1: Similar structure device with similar components US-6954311-B2: Similar structure device with similar components US-20050254148-A1: Similar lenses and lens structure US-7715126-B2: Similar structure device with similar components WO-2006003060-A1: Similar structure device with similar components Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R GREECE whose telephone number is (571)272-3711. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560 . 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. /JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 8 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 9 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 10 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 18/941,841 Page 11 Art Unit: 2875
Prosecution Insights