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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 11, and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches a camera module (figure 1) comprising: a lens barrel penetrating from an upper portion to a lower portion (figures 2 - 4 LB from item 11 to 15); a plurality of inner barrels disposed around an inner circumference of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4; plurality of inner barrels disposed around an inner circumference of the lens barrel LB; please see figure 2); and a lens portion having a plurality of lenses disposed inside each of the inner barrels (figures 2 – 4; items L1, L2, L3A, and L3B), wherein at least one of the plurality of inner barrels is disposed between two adjacent lenses and between outer surfaces of the two adjacent lenses and the lens barrel, wherein the plurality of inner barrels overlap each other in a direction of an optical axis (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the plurality of inner barrels include a first inner barrel extending from an outer surface of a first lens closest to an object to an outer surface of a second lens located on a sensor side of the first lens, and a second lens barrel extending from an outer surface of a third lens located on a sensor side of the second lens to an outer surface of a last lens adjacent to the lower portion of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7 in relation to the lenses).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein a lower portion of the first inner barrel includes a first support spacer extending between a flange portion of the second lens and a flange portion of the third lens (figures 2 – 4 item 2 between a flange portion of the second lens and a flange portion of the third lens), wherein the first support spacer is disposed between the flange portion of the second lens and the flange portion of the third lens (figures 2 – 4 item 2; wherein the first support spacer is disposed between the flange portion of the second lens and the flange portion of the third lens).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein a distance between an upper end of an outer side of the first inner barrel and the lens barrel is narrower than a distance between the lens barrel and an outer surface of the first inner barrel disposed outside a region between the first lens and the second lens (figures 2 – 4 narrower near item 3A and 3B narrower then near items L1 and L2).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein an upper portion of the second inner barrel extends outside the first support spacer of the first inner barrel, wherein the upper portion of the second inner barrel is disposed between the first support spacer of the first inner barrel and the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4; items 3, 3A, and 5 in relation to item 2).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the second inner barrel includes a second support spacer extending below a flange portion of the last lens (figures 2 – 4 item 14), wherein the second support spacer of the second inner barrel is disposed between the flange portion of the last lens and a lower locking portion of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4 item 15).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein an inner diameter of the second inner barrel gradually narrows from the upper portion toward the last lens, wherein inner and outer surfaces of the second inner barrel have a plurality of stepped structures (figures 2 – 4 from item L1 to L3B an inner diameter of the second inner barrel gradually narrows from the upper portion toward the last lens, wherein inner and outer surfaces of the second inner barrel have a plurality of stepped structures).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches a first spacer that separates two adjacent lenses within the first inner barrel (figures 2 – 4 item 2); and a second spacer that separates two adjacent lenses within the second inner barrel (figures 2 – 4 item 14).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the plurality of inner barrels include first and second inner barrels disposed in the direction of the optical axis from the upper portion to the lower portion of the lens barrel, wherein the first inner barrel includes a first outer upper protrusion that protrudes upwardly and faces an inner surface of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 17, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the second inner barrel includes a second outer upper protrusion that protrudes upwardly and faces the inner surface of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7; more specifically item 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
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 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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461) in view of CHANG (US PgPub No. 2019/0361196).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein the lens portion includes first to seventh lenses sequentially aligned along an optical axis from an object side toward an image sensor, wherein the seventh lens is the last lens, wherein a distance between an outer surface of the second inner barrel and an inner surface of the lens barrel gradually widens from the outer surface of the third lens to an outer surface of a seventh lens. CHANG, on the other hand teaches wherein the lens portion includes first to seventh lenses sequentially aligned along an optical axis from an object side toward an image sensor, wherein the seventh lens is the last lens, wherein a distance between an outer surface of the second inner barrel and an inner surface of the lens barrel gradually widens from the outer surface of the third lens to an outer surface of a seventh lens.
More specifically, CHANG teaches wherein the lens portion includes first to seventh lenses sequentially aligned along an optical axis from an object side toward an image sensor, wherein the seventh lens is the last lens, wherein a distance between an outer surface of the second inner barrel and an inner surface of the lens barrel gradually widens from the outer surface of the third lens to an outer surface of a seventh lens (figure 1A and paragraph 0005; Note: lens barrel gradually widens from the outer surface of the third lens to an outer surface of a seventh lens when combined with primary reference of Hasegawa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of CHANG with the teachings of Hasegawa because CHANG teaches in at least paragraph 0005 that using the system results in improve imaging quality for image formation, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Claims 9 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461) in view of LIN (US PgPub No. 2020/0142149).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein at least one of the plurality of inner barrels is made of plastic, wherein at least one of the plurality of lenses is made of plastic. LIN, on the other hand teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of inner barrels is made of plastic, wherein at least one of the plurality of lenses is made of plastic.
More specifically, LIN teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of inner barrels is made of plastic, wherein at least one of the plurality of lenses is made of plastic (abstract and paragraphs 0006 – 0009, 0041 – 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LIN with the teachings of Hasegawa because LIN teaches in at least paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0074, 0080, 0086, and 0092 that using the system results in eliminating stray lights and other property of the imaging lens assembly, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the plurality of inner barrels include first and second inner barrels disposed in the direction of the optical axis from the upper portion to the lower portion of the lens barrel, wherein an inner surface of the first inner barrel and outer surfaces of at least two lenses disposed on an inner side of the first inner barrel are bonded to each other (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7 in relation to the lenses).
However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material. LIN, on the other hand teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material.
More specifically, LIN teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material (abstract and paragraphs 0006 – 0009, 0041 – 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LIN with the teachings of Hasegawa because LIN teaches in at least paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0074, 0080, 0086, and 0092 that using the system results in eliminating stray lights and other property of the imaging lens assembly, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the plurality of inner barrels include first and second inner barrels disposed in the direction of the optical axis from the upper portion to the lower portion of the lens barrel, wherein an inner surface of the second inner barrel and outer surfaces of at least two lenses disposed on an inner side of the second inner barrel are bonded to each other (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7 in relation to the lenses).
However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material. LIN, on the other hand teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material.
More specifically, LIN teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of a plastic material (abstract and paragraphs 0006 – 0009, 0041 – 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LIN with the teachings of Hasegawa because LIN teaches in at least paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0074, 0080, 0086, and 0092 that using the system results in eliminating stray lights and other property of the imaging lens assembly, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461) in view of HA (US PgPub No. 20190137850) in view of LIN (US PgPub No. 2020/0142149).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein the lens barrel is made of metal. HA, on the other hand teaches wherein the lens barrel is made of metal.
More specifically, HA teaches wherein the lens barrel is made of metal (paragraphs 0063 and 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of HA with the teachings of Hasegawa because HA teaches in at least paragraphs 0101 – 0102 that using the system results in camera module with improved performance may be provided since an outer shape and a size may not change and heat transfer may be efficiently transferred to a lens although a heater, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
However, Hasegawa in view of HA fail to teach wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of plastic, wherein at least two lenses disposed in the second inner barrel are made of plastic. LIN, on the other hand teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of plastic, wherein at least two lenses disposed in the second inner barrel are made of plastic.
More specifically, LIN teaches wherein the first and second inner barrels are made of plastic, wherein at least two lenses disposed in the second inner barrel are made of plastic (abstract and paragraphs 0006 – 0009, 0041 – 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LIN with the teachings of Hasegawa in view of HA because LIN teaches in at least paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0074, 0080, 0086, and 0092 that using the system results in eliminating stray lights and other property of the imaging lens assembly, thereby improving system of Hasegawa in view of HA.
Claims 12, 16, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461) in view of CHANG (US PgPub No. 2010/0013985).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Hasegawa fails to teach an image sensor disposed on a sensor side of the lens barrel; a cover glass disposed on the image sensor; and an optical filter disposed between the cover glass and a lens closest to the image sensor, wherein the lens barrel has a first opening at an upper portion of the lens barrel and a second opening at the lower portion of the lens barrel, and wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel. CHANG, on the other hand teaches an image sensor disposed on a sensor side of the lens barrel; a cover glass disposed on the image sensor; and an optical filter disposed between the cover glass and a lens closest to the image sensor, wherein the lens barrel has a first opening at an upper portion of the lens barrel and a second opening at the lower portion of the lens barrel, and wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel.
More specifically, CHANG teaches an image sensor disposed on a sensor side of the lens barrel (figure 7 item 14); a cover glass disposed on the image sensor (figure 7 item 16); and an optical filter disposed between the cover glass and a lens closest to the image sensor (figure 7 item 15), wherein the lens barrel has a first opening at an upper portion of the lens barrel and a second opening at the lower portion of the lens barrel, and wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel (figure 7 item 15 located inside item 12 on one of the openings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of CHANG with the teachings of Hasegawa to have a system with improved optics for image capture and/or for protecting the image sensor, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the plurality of inner barrels include first and second inner barrels disposed in the direction of the optical axis from the upper portion to the lower portion of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4; items 3, 3A, and 5 in relation to item 2), wherein a lower portion of the second inner barrel is disposed between a last lens of the lens portion (figures 2 – 4; items 3, 3A, and 5 in relation to item 2), and a flange portion of the last lens (figures 2 – 4 item 2).
However, Hasegawa fails to teach lens closest to an optical filter. CHANG, on the other hand teaches lens closest to an optical filter.
More specifically, CHANG teaches lens closest to an optical filter (figure 7 item 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of CHANG with the teachings of Hasegawa to have a system with improved optics for image capture and/or for protecting the image sensor, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 18, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the second inner barrel has an inner bottom protrusion protruding toward an upper surface periphery at the lower portion of the lens barrel on a lower inner side of the second inner barrel (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7; more specifically item 7).
However, Hasegawa fails to teach optical filter disposed at the lower portion of the lens barrel. CHANG, on the other hand teaches optical filter disposed at the lower portion of the lens barrel.
More specifically, CHANG teaches optical filter disposed at the lower portion of the lens barrel (figure 7 item 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of CHANG with the teachings of Hasegawa to have a system with improved optics for image capture and/or for protecting the image sensor, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 19, Hasegawa in view of CHANG teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the second inner barrel has an inner bottom protrusion protruding toward an upper surface periphery at the lower portion of the lens barrel on a lower inner side of the second inner barrel (figures 2 – 4 items 3, 3A, 5 – 7; more specifically item 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US PgPub No. 2018/0321461) in view of CHANG (US PgPub No. 2010/0013985) in view of LIN (US PgPub No. 2020/0142149).
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa teaches a vehicle (the recitation that vehicle has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)) comprising: a camera module (figure 1) having a plurality of lenses (figures 2 – 4; items L1, L2, L3A, and L3B), a plurality of inner barrels outside the plurality of lenses (figures 2 – 4; a plurality of inner barrels outside the plurality of lenses LB; please see figure 2), a lens barrel outside the plurality of inner barrels (figures 2 – 4; LB from item 11 to 15), and an image sensor disposed on a sensor side of the lens barrel (paragraphs 0026 and 0033 item IE), wherein the camera module is a camera module according to claim 1 (please see claim 1 above), wherein at least two lenses of the plurality of inner barrels are made of a material (figures 2 – 4; items L1, L2, 3A, and 3B), wherein the lens barrel has a first opening at the upper portion of the lens barrel and a second opening at the lower portion of the lens barrel (figures 2 – 4; near item 10 and near item 15).
However, Hasegawa fails to teach an optical filter disposed at a lower portion of the lens barrel, the plurality of lenses are made of plastic, wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel. CHANG, on the other hand teaches an optical filter disposed at a lower portion of the lens barrel, the plurality of lenses are made of plastic, wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel.
More specifically, CHANG teaches an optical filter disposed at a lower portion of the lens barrel (figure 7 item 15), wherein the optical filter is disposed within the second opening of the lens barrel (figure 7 item 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of CHANG with the teachings of Hasegawa to have a system with improved optics for image capture and/or for protecting the image sensor, thereby improving system of Hasegawa.
However, Hasegawa in view of CHANG fail to teach the plurality of lenses are made of plastic. LIN, on the other hand teaches the plurality of lenses are made of plastic.
More specifically, LIN teaches the plurality of lenses are made of plastic (abstract and paragraphs 0006 – 0009, 0041 – 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LIN with the teachings of Hasegawa in view of CHANG because LIN teaches in at least paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0074, 0080, 0086, and 0092 that using the system results in eliminating stray lights and other property of the imaging lens assembly, thereby improving system of Hasegawa in view of CHANG.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PARK (US PgPub No. 20240231048) teaches a camera lens barrel with plurality of lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights