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 .
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 13 and 17 is 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.
Claim 13 recites that the first and second light blocking structures are arranged on each of “the separate vacant wall surfaces”. This lacks antecedent basis and is unclear.
Claim 17 recites a laser ranging device but refers back to the optical module claim 14. Therefore, claim 17 should be corrected to depend on laser ranging claim 15.
Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 20200409108).
Lin et al teaches an optical module, comprising:
a first structure member having a light-transmitting cavity (FIG. 1); and
an optical element arranged within the light-transmitting cavity (lenses 210+),
wherein the first structure member further has a first end surface, a second end surface, and an inner wall surface (FIG. 1);
a first through hole and a second through hole in communication with the light-transmitting cavity are arranged on the first end surface and the second end surface, respectively (FIG. 1 top and bottom with light cavity);
the inner wall surface is configured to form the light-transmitting cavity (FIG. 1);
a first extinction structure is arranged on the first end surface or the second end surface for blocking a stray light incident to the first end surface or the second end surface (top surface of 100 or bottom surface); and
wherein the optical module further comprises a second extinction structure (sheets 260+);
the inner wall surface comprises a bearing wall surface for bearing against the optical element and a vacant wall surface not bearing against the optical element (there are many optical elements so the other optical elements are interpreted as on vacant wall surfaces),
the second extinction structure is arranged on at least a portion of the vacant wall surface (sheets 260+), the second extinction structure comprises a first light-blocking structure, the first light-blocking structure comprises a plurality of first light-blocking sheet (260+), and the plurality of first light-blocking sheets are arranged and spaced apart in the first preset direction and extend in a circumferential direction along at least a portion of the vacant wall surface (are on at least opposing sides per FIG. 1 along a circumferential direction and vertically displaced/spaced).
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the cavity exists between structures, the first and second light blocking structures of the second extinction structure being the plurality of sheets.
Re claim 13, the first and second light blocking structures of the second extinction structure are interpreted as being arranged or spaced on the walls as they are the plurality of sheets.
Re claim 14, the sheets are taught as being black plastic material, wherein the black is interpreted as a coating.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (JP2005156989).
Shirai et al. teaches an optical module, comprising:
a first structure member having a light-transmitting cavity (FIG. 4); and
an optical element arranged within the light-transmitting cavity (module 12),
wherein the first structure member further has a first end surface, a second end surface, and an inner wall surface (FIG. 4+);
a first through hole and a second through hole in communication with the light-transmitting cavity are arranged on the first end surface and the second end surface, respectively (FIG. 4 shows two ends interpreted as through holes);
the inner wall surface is configured to form the light-transmitting cavity; a first extinction structure is arranged on the first end surface or the second end surface for blocking a stray light incident to the first end surface or the second end surface (FIG. 5 wherein the tabs 13 read on the first extinction structure and/or ); and
wherein the optical module further comprises a second extinction structure (structures 11);
the inner wall surface comprises a bearing wall surface for bearing against the optical element and a vacant wall surface not bearing against the optical element, the second extinction structure is arranged on at least a portion of the vacant wall surface, the second extinction structure comprises a first light-blocking structure, the first light-blocking structure comprises a plurality of first light-blocking elements, and the plurality of first light-blocking elements are arranged and spaced apart in the first preset direction and extend in a circumferential direction along at least a portion of the vacant wall surface (FIG. 6+ wherein the structures 11 are a plurality of elements arranged and spaced apart in a circumferential direction along the vacant wall surface, wherein the bearing wall surface is above tabs/support portion 13). Though silent to recite “sheets” the Examiner has interpreted that the film of Shirai et al. is described as an aluminum film. Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art to have the sheet be a plurality of sheets since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168, USPQ 177, 179).
Alternatively, though silent, it would have been within the ordinary skill in the art for the plurality of elements on the sheet itself, to each be interpreted as sheets, wherein sheets are merely interpreted as elements, absent a more specific claim recitation clarifying what sheets refers to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 18 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 of record fails to teach the laser ranging device as recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876