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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18953348 filed on 11/20/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application CN 202411322949.3, filed 09/23/2024 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 2-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation "the second cylinder" in line 8 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim or define the limitation earlier in the claims.
Claims 3-4 depend on claim 2 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
Claims 13-14 depend on claim 12 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
Claims 5, 7, 15 and 17 recite numerical values for the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), i.e. “the CTE of the first lens barrel is greater than or equal to 60 and less than or equal to 90”, in claims 5 and 15, and similarly “the CTE of the second lens barrel is greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 40” in claims 7 and 17. However, these limitations are confusing because it is unclear what the numerical ranges mean, what units are used for the values in the ranges? Specifically, CTE is defined as ratio or relative dimension change over the corresponding change in temperature, hence CTE would have the units of 1/(temperature degrees), e.g. 1/K, or 1/⁰C, or 1/⁰F, and for most materials the CTE is expressed as ppm/⁰C, or ppm/⁰F, or commonly also with exponent *10-6/⁰F, or *10-6/⁰C. However, the claims not the specification offer any explanations for the numerical ranges recited above. The Claim limitations will be treated broadly, such that materials and their relative relationship of their CTEs may read on the above ranges.
Claims 6 and 16 depend on claims 5 and 15, respectively, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 8,9 and 18,19 depend on claims 7 and 17, respectively, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
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, 10-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson US 20250208367 A1 in view of Polak US 20210274077 A1.
In regard to independent claims 1 and 11, Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a vehicle, comprising: a body; and a camera assembly mounted on the body (as image capturing device 200 as cameras in vehicle, therefore mounted on body part of the vehicle, and lens holder 100 for an optics unit of an image capturing device 200, paragraphs [01-22, 51-63,71-80, 96-98, 110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6), the camera assembly comprising:
a first lens barrel having a first accommodating cavity (i.e. as lens barrel 250 accommodating one or more lenses in accommodating cavity of 250, paragraphs [123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6);
a second lens barrel having a second accommodating cavity communicating with the first accommodating cavity (i.e. lens holder, mount 100,120 with accommodating cavity in communication with 250 cavity and supporting 250, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6) and an end of the second lens barrel being connected to an end of the first lens barrel (i.e. as end of 120 is connected to and supports end of 250, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6);
at least one lens held by the first lens barrel and positioned within the first accommodating cavity (i.e. as 250 accommodated one or more lenses in accommodating cavity of 250, paragraphs [123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6), and the at least one lens being configured to receive image light (i.e. as lenses in 250 are part of the image capturing device 200 and receive image light form the image sensor unit 202,220, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6); and
a circuit board bonded to an end of second lens barrel away from the first lens barrel (as sensor unit/board 202,230 coupled to end, e.g. posts 132 of holder 100, e.g. by adhesive, paragraphs [60, 110-111, 116-120], Figs. 3-6);
wherein an absolute value of a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the second barrel and a CTE of the circuit board (as first coefficient of thermal expansion (first CLTE) of sensor unit 202,230 which is less than second coefficient of thermal expansion (second CLTE) of lens holder 100, and hence their absolute difference, see paragraphs [17-20,76-80,123,128]), but Persson is silent that this difference is less than an absolute value of a difference between a CTE of the first barrel and the CTE of the circuit board, or in other words that the CTE of the first barrel is larger than the CTE of the second barrel (namely first coefficient of thermal expansion (first CLTE) of sensor unit 202,230 is less than second coefficient of thermal expansion (second CLTE) of lens holder 100, paragraphs [17-20,76-80,123,128]), but thermal expansion coefficient of lens barrel is not disclosed, hence Persson is silent that the CTE of the first barrel, i.e. lens barrel 250, is larger than the CTE of the second barrel, or lens holder 100,120).
However, Polak teaches in the same field of invention of optical device and method of manufacturing (see Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, paragraphs [08-25, 35-41,44-45], as camera module for automotive vehicles), and further teaches that that the CTE of the first barrel is larger than the CTE of the second barrel (i.e. thermal expansion coefficient of lens barrel 2 is larger than thermal expansion coefficient of support 3, where 2 and 3 are formed of different polymer materials, and support 3 is fixed to PCB 6 with imager 5, and lens barrel 2 is connected to support 3, and providing that forward movement of the connection plane caused by thermal expansion of the support part is compensated by rearward thermal expansion of the rear portion of the lens barrel part for maintaining the image plane substantially coincident with the sensitivity plane of the imager, paragraphs [08-09,15-18,21-25, 35-37,45]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify and assign the CTE of the first lens barrel such that the CTE of the first barrel (lens barrel) is larger than the CTE of the second barrel (lens holder, support) according to teachings of Polak in order to provide that forward movement of the connection plane caused by thermal expansion of the lens holder/support part is compensated by rearward thermal expansion of the rear portion of the lens barrel, and thus maintaining the image plane substantially coincident with the sensitivity plane of the imager ( see Polak, paragraphs [08-09,15-18,21-25, 35-37,45]). As a result of the combination the Persson-Polak combination also teaches and renders obvious that the absolute value of a difference between a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the second barrel and a CTE of the circuit board is less than an absolute value of a difference between a CTE of the first barrel and the CTE of the circuit board (i.e. specifically, as first coefficient of thermal expansion (first CLTE) of sensor unit 202,230 is less than second coefficient of thermal expansion (second CLTE) of lens holder 100, see Persson, paragraphs [17-20,76-80,123,128], and as the CTE of the first barrel (lens barrel) is larger than the CTE of the second barrel (holder, support), per combination with Polak, paragraphs [08-09,15-18,21-25, 35-37,45]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the Persson-Polar combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the first lens barrel comprises a first barrel body and a first connecting portion connected to an end of the first barrel body (i.e. as 250 had barrel body and first connecting portion connected to the end of the body 250, as depicted in Fig. 6, paragraphs [123-136]), the first accommodating cavity is formed in the first barrel body (i.e. lens barrel 250 body had accommodating cavity of 250, paragraphs [123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6);
the second lens barrel (100,120) comprises a second barrel body and a second connecting portion connected to an end of the second cylinder (i.e. lens holder, mount 100,120 has second body and connecting portion at second end of cylinder, end portion of 120, e.g. see paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6), the second accommodating cavity is formed in the second barrel body (i.e. lens holder, mount 100,120 with accommodating cavity formed in body of 100,120, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6), and the second connecting portion is connected to the first connecting portion (i.e. lens holder, mount 100,120 connecting portion is connected with 250 connecting portion and 100 supports 250, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6); the at least one lens is held by the first barrel body (as 250 body holds one or more lenses in its accommodating cavity of 250 body, paragraphs [123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6); and the circuit board adhered to an end of the second barrel body away from the second connecting portion (as sensor unit/board 202,230 coupled, adheres to end of 100,120 away from connecting portion of 100,120 upper/top part of 120, paragraphs [60, 110-111, 116-120], Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the Persson-Polar combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) further comprising a filter is in the second accommodating cavity to receive the image light emitted from the at least one lens (i.e. as filter component 210 in second accommodating cavity of 100,120, to receive image light from one or more lenses in 250, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6), wherein the circuit board comprises a photosensitive chip configured to receive the image light passing through the filter and to form an image (i.e. as 202,230 has image sensor 220, that receives image light from 210, and forms image, paragraphs [61, 116-136], Figs. 3-6).
Claims 3-4, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson US 20250208367 A1 in view of Polak US 20210274077 A1 and further in view of Chiang US 20080266675 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the Persson-Polar combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the first and second connecting portions (as connecting portions of 250 and 100,120, Figs. 3-6, paragraphs [123-136]) but is silent that the first connecting portion is threadedly connected to the second connecting portion (as 250 and 100,120 are connected by their respective connecting portions, Figs. 3-6).
However, Chiang teaches in the same field of invention of a lens module and camera module having same (see Figs. 1-4, title, abstract, paragraphs [02,08-09, 19-22]) and further teaches that the first connecting portion is threadedly connected to the second connecting portion (i.e. as lens barrel 14 has connecting portion as threads 148 on inner annular wall that threadedly connect to connection portion with threads 168 on outer circumferential surface of holder 16, enabling the lens barrel to be threadedly engaged with the holder, paragraphs 8-9,20-21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify first connecting portion of lens barrel to threadedly connected to the second connecting portion of the holder of Persson, according to teachings of Chiang such that lens barrel has connecting threads portion on inner annular wall that threadedly connect to connection threads portion on outer circumferential surface of holder, in order to enable the lens barrel to be threadedly engaged with the holder (see Chiang, paragraphs [8-9,20-21]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the Persson-Polar-Chiang combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the first connecting portion has an annular inner side wall, the second connecting portion has an annular outer side wall, the inner side wall is provided with internal threads, the outer side wall is provided with external threads, and the external threads engage with the internal threads (as 250 with threated inner side wall portion, and 100,120 with outer threaded wall side wall, where threaded portions on 250 and 100,120 engage, paragraphs [110-120, 123-136], e.g. Figs. 3-6, per modification with Chiang paragraphs [8-9,20-21], Figs. 1-4); or a number of the first connecting portion is multiple (see multiple connecting portions on lower edge of 250, see Fig. 6, paragraphs [123-136]), the first connecting portions are connected at intervals along a circumferential direction of the first barrel body (i.e. as depicted portions at intervals along the circumferential direction of 250, Fig. 6, paragraphs [123-136]), each first connecting portion an inner side wall shaped as a ring segment (i.e. as depicted in Fig. 6, paragraphs [123-136]), the second connecting portion has an annular outer side wall (i.e. as 100,120 as annular outer side wall, as depicted in Fig. 3-6, paragraphs [123+-136]), the inner side wall is provided with internal threads, the outer side wall is provided with external threads (as per combination with Chiang, see above, paragraphs [8-9,20-21], Figs. 1-4), the external threads engage with the internal threads, and parts of the external threads are exposed (i.e. as inner and outer threads on 250, 100,120 are engages and external threads are exposed, as per combination Persson Fig. 6 and Fig. 3 of Chiang).
Claims 5-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson US 20250208367 A1 in view of Polak US 20210274077 A1 and further in view of Fang et al. (hereafter Fang) US 20210149145 A1.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15-16, the Persson-Polar combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the CTE of the first lens barrel and a material of the first lens barrel (i.e. as 250 has CTE and is made of polymer material, see e.g. Persson paragraphs [51-55], and Polar, paragraphs [14,21-25, 35]) but is silent that the CTE of the first lens barrel is greater than or equal to 60 and less than or equal to 90, and that the material is polycarbonate, polyphenylene sulfide, or polyamide 9T.
However, Fang teaches in the same field of invention of an optical lens, camera module (see e.g. Figs. 1, 6,12, title, abstract, paragraphs [02,09-20, 109-101,153,159]) and further teaches that the material of the first lens barrel is polycarbonate (as first lens barrel 202 is made of polycarbonate, which has coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) 65–70 × 10⁻⁶ /°C, paragraphs [153,159], providing traditional material and ability to be manufactured by using traditional techniques, which is helpful to improve the product yield). Note that regarding the CTE of polycarbonate it is held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). See MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the first lens barrel of Persson and Polak polymer material to be made of polycarbonate, having first CTE in the above range, according to teachings of Fang in order to provide traditional material with its ability to be manufactured by using traditional techniques, which is helpful to improve the product yield (see Fang, paragraphs 153,159]).
Claims 7-9, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson US 20250208367 A1 in view of Polak US 20210274077 A1 and further in view of Naganuma et al. (hereafter Naganuma) US 20050007680 A1.
Regarding claims 7-9, 17-19, the Persson-Polar combination teaches the invention above, and Persson teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the CTE of the second lens barrel and a material of the second lens barrel (i.e. as 100,120 has CTE and is made of polymer material, see e.g. Persson paragraphs [51-55], and Polar, paragraphs [14,21-25, 35]) but is silent that the CTE of the second lens barrel is greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 40, and that the material is plastic-glass fiber composite material, metal, or ceramic, and composite material of polycarbonate with 40 wt. % glass fiber or polyphenylene sulfide with 40 wt. % glass fiber.
However, Naganuma teaches in the same field of invention of Lens barrel (see Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, paragraphs [03, 13-20,32-42,94-101], and further teaches that the material is plastic-glass fiber composite material, metal, or ceramic, and composite material of polycarbonate with 40 wt. % glass fiber or polyphenylene sulfide with 40 wt. % glass fiber, and hence that that the CTE of the second lens barrel is greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 40 (i.e. as lens barrel material uses thermoplastic resin as polycarbonate-based resin, or polyphenylene sulfide, which are most preferable, and glass fiber component with preferably 1 to 40 wt %, to provide improvement of the rigidity of the lens barrel component, as such provided lens barrel component has satisfactory thin-wall moldability, high rigidity, and excellent dimension accuracy, and capable of reducing metal mold abrasion during molding, and improves the productivity of the lens barrel composition, paragraphs [13-20,94-101]). Note that regarding the CTE of composite resin glass fiber, it is held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). See MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the second lens barrel of Persson and Polak polymer material to be made of composite glass fiber and resin polycarbonate or polyphenylene sulfide, with 40 wt. % glass fiber, and having second barrel CTE in the above range, according to teachings of Naganuma since polycarbonate, or polyphenylene sulfide are most preferable resins, and given that glass fiber component with preferably 40 wt %, may provide improvement of the rigidity of the lens barrel component, as such provided lens barrel component has satisfactory thin-wall moldability, high rigidity, and excellent dimension accuracy, and is capable of reducing metal mold abrasion during molding, which improves the productivity of the lens barrel composition, (see Naganuma, e.g. paragraphs [13-20,94-101]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hirata et al. US 20060158748 A1 also disclose glass fiber polycarbonate composite as lens barrel material (see Figs. 1-2, and their descriptions), and Byrne et al. US 20200154020 A1 also discloses features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-5, 12-15 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights