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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Groups I & II in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 11-12 are withdrawn, and claims 1-10 and 13-16 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/076002 to Shimohata.
Regarding claim 1, Shimohata discloses an image pickup unit comprising: a three-dimensional wiring board (1, Fig. 1, [0030]) including a recess (Fig. 2); an image sensor (40, Fig. 2, [0030]) and one or more optical lenses disposed in the recess (2, Fig. 2, [0030]); and resin disposed in a gap between an inner surface of the recess and an outer surface of the image sensor and the one or more optical lenses (50, Fig. 2, [0040]).
Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein in the resin: a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 0.5%; and a reflectance of the light having the wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 5%, and when a value of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function in a direction in which an azimuth angle from an incident surface is φr and a polar angle is θr, with a polar angle in an incident direction as θi is BRDF (θi, φr, θr), in a case where θi is 45 to 75 degrees, φr is -60 to 60 degrees, and θr is -85 to 85 degrees, the value of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function is equal to or lower than 0.1 of incident light, wherein, φr ≠ 0 and θi ≠ θr.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make/set the transmittance of light to be a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 0.5%; and to make/set a reflectance of the light to be a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 5%; and to make/set the bidirectional reflectance distribution function to be equal to or lower than 0.1 of incident light, wherein, φr ≠ 0 and θi ≠ θr, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, transmittance and reflectance of light, and the bidirectional reflectance distribution function would not operate differently with the claimed wavelengths. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating in [0031] and [0032] that it is a disclosed value.
Regarding claim 2, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 1, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the one or more optical lenses comprises: a stacked lens disposed in the recess (10, 20, 30); and an aperture disposed in the recess (aperture created by spacer 14, 24, 34, 44); and a distance from an outermost surface of the stacked lens to the aperture in a direction along an optical axis of the camera module is 0.3 to 0.7 of an entire length of the camera module (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 2, and Shimohata further discloses wherein an opening diameter of the aperture is 0.06 to 0.09 of a maximum dimension of the stacked lens in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the one or more optical lenses (aperture created by spacer 14, 24, 34, 44).
Regarding claim 4, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 1, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the resin comprises black carbon ([0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimohata discloses an endoscope comprising: an image pickup unit at a distal end of an insertion portion (1, Fig. 1, [0030]), the image pickup unit including: a three-dimensional wiring board including a recess (Fig. 2); an image sensor (40, Fig. 2, [0030]) and one or more optical lenses disposed in the recess (2, Fig. 2, [0030]); and resin disposed in a gap between an inner surface of the recess and an outer surface of the image sensor and the one or more optical lenses (50, Fig. 2, [0040]).
Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein in the resin: a transmittance of light having a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 0.5%; and a reflectance of the light having the wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 5%, and when a value of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function in a direction in which an azimuth angle from an incident surface is φr and a polar angle is θr, with a polar angle in an incident direction as θi is BRDF (θi, φr, θr), in a case where θi is 45 to 75 degrees, φr is -60 to 60 degrees, and θr is -85 to 85 degrees, the value of the bidirectional reflectance distribution function is equal to or lower than 0.1 of incident light, wherein, φr ≠ 0 and θi ≠ θr.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make/set the transmittance of light to be a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 0.5%; and to make/set a reflectance of the light to be a wavelength of 380 to 780 nm is equal to or lower than 5%; and to make/set the bidirectional reflectance distribution function to be equal to or lower than 0.1 of incident light, wherein, φr ≠ 0 and θi ≠ θr, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, transmittance and reflectance of light, and the bidirectional reflectance distribution function would not operate differently with the claimed wavelengths. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating in [0031] and [0032] that it is a disclosed value.
Regarding claim 7, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 6, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the one or more optical lenses comprises: a stacked lens disposed in the recess (10, 20, 30); and an aperture disposed in the recess (aperture created by spacer 14, 24, 34, 44); and a distance from an outermost surface of the stacked lens to the aperture in a direction along an optical axis of the camera module is 0.3 to 0.7 of an entire length of the camera module (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 7, and Shimohata further discloses wherein an opening diameter of the aperture is 0.06 to 0.09 of a maximum dimension of the stacked lens in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the one or more optical lenses (aperture created by spacer 14, 24, 34, 44).
Regarding claim 9, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 8, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the resin comprises black carbon ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shimohata, to utilize a first and second resin, as taught by Maeda. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of sealing the optical path ([0037] of Maeda).
Regarding claim 15, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 4, and Shimohata further discloses wherein concentration in the resin of the black carbon is at least 0.1 mass percent and less than 0.4 mass percent ([0057]).
Regarding claim 16, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 9, and Shimohata further discloses wherein concentration in the resin of the black carbon is at least 0.1 mass percent and less than 0.4 mass percent ([0057]).
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/076002 to Shimohata and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0396975 to Maeda.
Regarding claim 5, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 2, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the recess is formed in a top surface of the three-dimensional wiring board (Fig. 2), the recess comprises a bottom surface (40SB, Fig. 2, [0043]), the gap comprising a first portion adjacent to the bottom surface and a second portion adjacent to the top surface (Fig. 2).
Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein the resin comprises: a first resin disposed in the first portion of the gap; and a second resin disposed in the second portion of the gap, the first resin fills the first portion of the gap from the bottom surface of the recess to a position where the aperture is provided, the first resin having a dielectric breakdown resistance value greater than a dielectric breakdown resistance value of the second resin, and the second resin fills the second portion of the gap from the aperture to a position of the outermost surface of the stacked lens.
However, Maeda teaches of a image pickup unit (1) wherein the resin comprises: a first resin disposed in the first portion of the gap (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]); and a second resin disposed in the second portion of the gap (70A, 70B, 70C, Fig. 2, 0037]-[0049]); the first resin fills the first portion of the gap from the bottom surface of the recess to a position where the aperture is provided (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]), the first resin having a dielectric breakdown resistance value greater than a dielectric breakdown resistance value of the second resin (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]), and the second resin fills the second portion of the gap from the aperture to a position of the outermost surface of the stacked lens (70A, 70B, 70C, Fig. 2, 0037]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shimohata, to utilize a first and second resin, as taught by Maeda. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of sealing the optical path ([0037] of Maeda).
Regarding claim 10, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 7, and Shimohata further discloses wherein the recess is formed in a top surface of the three-dimensional wiring board (Fig. 2), the recess comprises a bottom surface (40SB, Fig. 2, [0043]), the gap comprising a first portion adjacent to the bottom surface and a second portion adjacent to the top surface (Fig. 2).
Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein the resin comprises: a first resin disposed in the first portion of the gap; and a second resin disposed in the second portion of the gap, the first resin fills the first portion of the gap from the bottom surface of the recess to a position where the aperture is provided, the first resin having a dielectric breakdown resistance value greater than a dielectric breakdown resistance value of the second resin, and the second resin fills the second portion of the gap from the aperture to a position of the outermost surface of the stacked lens.
However, Maeda teaches of an endoscope including an image pickup unit (1) wherein the resin comprises: a first resin disposed in the first portion of the gap (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]); and a second resin disposed in the second portion of the gap (70A, 70B, 70C, Fig. 2, 0037]-[0049]); the first resin fills the first portion of the gap from the bottom surface of the recess to a position where the aperture is provided (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]), the first resin having a dielectric breakdown resistance value greater than a dielectric breakdown resistance value of the second resin (60A, 60B, 60C, Fig. 4, [0037]-[0049]), and the second resin fills the second portion of the gap from the aperture to a position of the outermost surface of the stacked lens (70A, 70B, 70C, Fig. 2, 0037]-[0049]).
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/076002 to Shimohata ad further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0072589 to Taguchi et al. (hereinafter “Taguchi”).
Regarding claim 13, Shimohata discloses the image pickup unit according to claim 4, but Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein the resin comprises black carbon slurry.
However, Taguchi teaches an analogous device wherein the resin comprises black carbon slurry ([0208]-[0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shimohata to utilize a black carbon slurry, as taught by Taguchi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing light-shielding properties ([0208]-[0210] of Taguchi).
Regarding claim 14, Shimohata discloses the endoscope according to claim 9, but Shimohata fails to expressly teach wherein the resin comprises black carbon slurry.
However, Taguchi teaches an analogous device wherein the resin comprises black carbon slurry ([0208]-[0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Shimohata to utilize a black carbon slurry, as taught by Taguchi. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing light-shielding properties ([0208]-[0210] of Taguchi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights