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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278).
With regard to independent claim 1, Yen teaches a lens miniaturization structure (Figure 1), comprising a first side and a second side located opposite to the first side (see annotated Figure 1 below), the lens miniaturization structure comprising: a first lens (Figure 1, element 30); a lens tube (Figure 1, element 20), disposed on the first lens and comprising an aperture (Figure 1, element 206) and an opening disposed on a side opposite to the aperture (see annotated Figure 1 below), the aperture facing the first side (Figure 1), the opening facing the second side (Figure 1); and a second lens (Figure 1, element 26), disposed in the lens tube and arranged between the aperture and the first lens (Figure 1, wherein element 26 is positioned between element 206 and element 30); wherein, an inner diameter of the opening of the lens tube is less than an outer diameter of the first lens (see annotated Figure 1 below wherein the diameter of element 30 is larger than the diameter of the opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
938
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 2, Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a lens miniaturization structure wherein, the inner diameter [of the opening] is a largest inner diameter of the lens tube (see annotated Figure 1 above wherein the inner diameter of the opening is larger than the inner diameter of the lens tube).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a lens miniaturization structure further comprising: an adhesive layer, disposed between the first lens and the lens tube (page 2, paragraph [0002], lines 7-8).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0260943).
With regard to dependent claim 3, although Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a lens miniaturization structure wherein, the first lens comprises: a first protrusion edge, disposed protrusively on a side of the first lens towards the first side (see annotated Figure 1 above), Yen fails to teach the lens tube comprising: a concave structure, the first protrusion edge abutting against thereon. In a related endeavor, Yan et al teaches a lens module (Figure 4, element 10) comprising a concave structure (Figure 4, element 113) wherein a protrusion of a lens edge abuts thereon (Figure 4, element 205), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen, with the concave structure, as taught by Yan et al, for lens alignment accuracy (page 1, paragraph [0019], lines 10-19).
With regard to dependent claim 4, although Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such a lens miniaturization structure wherein, the first lens comprises: a first protrusion edge, disposed protrusively on a side of the first lens towards the first side (see annotated Figure 1 above), Yen fails to teach the first lens comprising a concave structure. In a related endeavor, Yan et al teaches a lens module (Figure 4, element 10) comprising a concave structure (Figure 4, element 113) wherein a protrusion of a lens edge abuts thereon (Figure 4, element 205), wherein both fail to teach wherein the concave structure resides on the first lens and abutting against a protrusion edge of a lens tube. However, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 67), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen, with the concave structure, as taught by Yan et al, in a reverse order, for lens alignment accuracy (page 1, paragraph [0019], lines 10-19).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278) in view of Wada et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0032671).
With regard to dependent claim 5, although Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Yen fails to teach such a lens miniaturization structure comprising an actuator bracket. In a related endeavor, Wada et al teaches a lens miniaturization structure (Figure 2, element 10) further comprising an actuator (Figure 2, element 105), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen, with the actuator, as taught by Wada et al, for focus and tracking control (page 8, paragraph [0120], lines 9-14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278) in view of Weidner et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0131865).
With regard to dependent claim 8, although Yen teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Yen fails to teach such a lens miniaturization structure further comprising: a gasket, sandwiched between the first lens and the second lens. In a related endeavor, Weidner et al teaches a lens module (Figure 5) further comprising a gasket (Figure 5, element 180), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen, with the gasket, as taught by Weidner et al, to secure the lenses within the module (page 4, paragraph [0041], lines 19-27).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278) in view of Wada et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0032671).
With regard to independent claim 11, although Yen teaches a lens miniaturization structure (Figure 1), comprising a first side and a second side located opposite to the first side (see annotated Figure 1 above), the lens miniaturization structure comprising: a first lens (Figure 1, element 30), comprising a main body (see annotated Figure 1 above), comprising a first protrusion edge and a second protrusion edge (see annotated Figure 1 above), the second protrusion edge disposed protrusively on an edge of the main body (see annotated Figure 1 above, wherein the second protrusion is disposed on the periphery of the main lens body), the first protrusion edge disposed adjacent to the second protrusion edge and protruding towards the first side (see annotated Figure 1 above, wherein the first protrusion edge is disposed above and adjacent to the second protrusion edge), wherein an outer diameter of the first protrusion edge is less than an outer diameter of the second protrusion edge (see annotated Figure 1 above, wherein a diameter of the first protrusion is smaller than a diameter of the second protrusion edge), contacting the second protrusion edge of the first lens to position the first lens (see annotated Figure 1 above); a lens tube (Figure 1, element 20), contacting the first protrusion edge of the first lens to position the first lens (see annotated Figure 1 above); and a second lens (Figure 1, element 26), disposed in the lens tube Figure 1), and arranged between the lens tube and the first lens, Yen fails to teach such a lens miniaturization structure comprising an actuator bracket. In a related endeavor, Wada et al teaches a lens miniaturization structure (Figure 2, element 10) further comprising an actuator (Figure 2, element 105), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen, with the actuator, as taught by Wada et al, for focus and tracking control (page 8, paragraph [0120], lines 9-14).
With regard to dependent claim 19, Yen and Wada et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 11, wherein Yen further teaches such a lens miniaturization structure further comprising: an adhesive layer, disposed between the second protrusion edge and the lens tube (page 2, paragraph [0002], lines 7-8).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0316278) in view of Wada et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0032671), as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Weidner et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0131865).
With regard to dependent claim 15, although Yen in view of Wada et al teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 11, both fail to teach such a lens miniaturization structure further comprising: a gasket, sandwiched between the first lens and the second lens. In a related endeavor, Weidner et al teaches a lens module (Figure 5) further comprising a gasket (Figure 5, element 180), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the lens miniaturization structure, as taught by Yen in view of Wada et al, with the gasket, as taught by Weidner et al, to secure the lenses within the module (page 4, paragraph [0041], lines 19-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Although the prior art teaches a lens miniaturization structure as outlined above, the prior art fails to teach such a lens miniaturization structure: wherein, the actuator bracket abuts against an outer edge of the first lens, as claimed in dependent claim 6; wherein, the actuator bracket comprises: a first surface, facing the first side; and a second surface, facing the second side; wherein, the second surface protrudes beyond a surface of the second side of the first lens, as claimed in dependent claim 7; wherein, the gasket is sheathed in the lens tube, as claimed in dependent claims 9 and 16; wherein, the first lens comprises: a third protrusion edge, as claimed in dependent claims 12 and 13; wherein, the actuator bracket comprises: a first surface, facing the first side; and a second surface, facing the second side; wherein, the second surface protrudes beyond a surface of the second side of the first lens, as claimed in dependent claim 14; or wherein, the second protrusion edge and the adhesive layer are sandwiched between the actuator bracket and the lens tube, as claimed in dependent claim 20.
With regard to dependent claims 17 and 18, claims 17 and 18 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 16 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kishima et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0036839), Mori et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0271859) and Shirotori et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0171152) al teach lens modules having a lens with a diameter larger than an interior diameter of a lens holder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571 )272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
24 August 2026
Prosecution Insights