DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 1/30/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yun et al (US20190384045) in view of Liu (CN107748436), Li et al. (US20180088333) and Togino (US5517366).
Regarding claim 1, Yun teaches an optical system (Fig.1, abstract, optical system 200), comprising: a display unit (fig.1, 11; paragraph [0021], the optical system 200 is configured to display an image 11), a first lens (fig.1,lens 20) and a second lens (fig.1, lens 30) in sequence along a light transmission direction (fig.1, optical axis 220), wherein the first lens (fig.1, lens 20) comprises a first surface (fig.1, surface 21) protruding towards the display unit (fig.1, image 11) and a second surface (fig.1, surface 22) protruding towards the second lens (fig.1, lens 30), wherein the second lens (fig.1, lens 30) comprises a third surface (fig.1, surface 31) recessed towards the first lens (fig.1, lens 20) and a fourth surface (fig.1, surface 32) away from the first lens (fig.1, lens 20), wherein the optical system further comprises a first phase retarder (fig.1, retarder layer 70) and a reflective polarizer (fig.1, reflective polarizer 60), the first phase retarder (fig.1, retarder layer 70) is disposed on a side of the second lens (fig.1, lens 30) away from the display unit (fig.1, image 11), or on a side of the second lens close to the display unit, and the reflective polarizer (fig.1, reflective polarizer 60) is disposed on a side of the first phase retarder (fig.1, retarder layer 70) away from the display unit (fig.1, image 11), wherein an optical splitter (fig.1, partial reflector 50) is disposed on a side of the first lens (fig.1, lens 20) close to the display unit (fig.1,image 11), wherein an edge portion (see Yun, fig.1, the edge portion of surface 22) of the first lens (Yu, fig.1, lens 20) and an edge portion (see Yun, fig.1, the edge portion of surface 31) of the second lens (Yu, fig.1, lens 30) are adhered and combined to each other (Yu, fig.1, paragraph [0023], the first major surface 31 of the lens 30 is bonded to the second major surface 22 of the lens 20, e.g., via an optical adhesive).
Yun does not explicitly teach wherein an edge portion of the second surface is tightly combined with an edge portion of the third surface; wherein each of the first surface, the second surface and the third surface is an aspherical surface; wherein the edge portions of the first lens and the second lens are adhered together to form a lens combination such that optical axes of the first lens and the second lens are coaxial, and wherein the lens combination is mounted on the structural member.
However, Liu teaches the analogous optical system (Liu,figs.1-3, abstract, the invention provides an eyepiece and a head-mounted display device. The eyepiece
comprises a first lens and a second lens that are coaxial, wherein the first lens and the
second lens are connected at edges), and further teaches
wherein an edge portion of the second surface (Liu, fig.1, surface Se2) is tightly combined with an edge portion (Liu, paragraph [0009], the first lens and the second lens are connected at the edge) of the third surface (Liu, fig.1, surface Si1);
wherein each of the first surface, the second surface and the third surface is an aspherical surface (Liu, paragraph [0014], the light-incident surface of the first lens and/or the light-exit surface of the first lens and/or the light-incident surface of the second lens and/or the light-exit surface of the second lens are aspherical).
wherein the edge portions of the first lens and the second lens are adhered together to form a lens combination (paragraph [0013], the first lens and the second lens are glued together at their edges; paragraph [0023], Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the structure of a first lens and a second lens connected by a slot) such that optical axes of the first lens and the second lens are coaxial (paragraph [0028], As shown in Figure 1, the eyepiece includes a coaxial first lens 11 and a second lens 12), and wherein the lens combination is mounted on the structural member (see Liu, fig.2, paragraph [0023], Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the structure of a first lens and a second lens connected by a slot and a buckle according).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface of lens of Yun to have each of the first surface, the second surface and the third surface is an aspherical surface as taught by Liu in order to reduce assembly error of the eyepiece and the imaging quality of the head-mounted display device is improved and increasing the field of view of the eyepiece, correcting edge rays, and correcting aberrations (Liu, abstract and paragraph [0037]).
But Yun is silent on wherein a radius of curvature of the second surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the third surface.
However, Li teaches the similar optical lens system (Li, fig.6, abstract, a short-range optical amplification module, which includes, sequentially from the image side to the object side, a reflective polarizing plate, a first phase delay plate, a third lens and a second phase delay plate, wherein the short-range optical amplification module further includes a first lens and/or a second lens that are/is located on either side of any one of the reflective polarizing plater), and further teaches
wherein a radius of curvature of the second surface (see annotated image, Li, fig.6, a radius of curvature of the second surface as has been referred as the radius of curvature of the surface E5, see paragraph [0080], the third lens 30, the curvature radiuses of the fifth optical surface E5 is 160.6342) is greater than a radius of curvature of the third surface (see annotated image, Li, fig.6, a radius of curvature of the third surface has been referred as radius of curvature of the surface E4, paragraph [0080], fourth optical surface E4 is 54.38812).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature of the lenses of Yun-Liu combination as taught by Li to have a radius of curvature of the second surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the third surface for a purpose of keeping a small overall thickness while obtaining a large optical amplification effect and that can be applied in a small-size VR device, so that the VR device can realize a wide field angle, a large eye box and high-quality imaging effect, and hence a better user experience (Li, abstract).
But Yun does not explicitly teach wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 0.1 mm <L2<0.5 mm, wherein L2 is a distance between the second surface and the third surface in the optical axis direction.
However, Togino teaches the similar optical lens system (Togino, figs.1-10, abstract, the concentric optical system includes at least two semitransparent reflecting surfaces 2 and 3 each having a center of curvature disposed in the vicinity of a pupil 1 and a concave surface directed toward the pupil. The semitransparent reflecting surfaces are disposed so that each semitransparent reflecting surface passes each particular bundle of light rays at least once and reflects them at least once, thereby providing a flat image surface 4), and further teaches
wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 0.1 mm <L2<0.5 mm (0.355; see Togino, fig.9, col.11, line 28, L2= 0.355 mm), wherein L2 is a distance between the second surface (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the second surface) and the third surface (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the third surface) in the optical axis direction (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the optical axis).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify L2 which is distance between the second surface and the third surface of Yun-Liu-Li combination as taught by Togino to have 0.1 mm <L2<0.5 mm for a purpose to reduce the number of constituent lenses of concentric optical systems and also to correct coma and astigmatism to have a wide angle of view and high resolution (Togino, col.1, lines 9-17, 47-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
708
1234
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yun further teaches wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 150 mm<abs(R3)<400 mm (is capable of 150 mm < abs(R3)<400 mm; see Yun, fig.1, paragraph [0024], The surface 31…have a radius of curvature greater than about 16 mm to about 1500 mm ---Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); and abs(Conic3)<5 (0; Yun, paragraph [0023], The first major surface 31 of the second lens 30 may be substantially spherical,--so conic coefficient is 0 ---Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)), wherein R3 is the radius of curvature of the third surface (Yu, fig.1, surface 31), abs(R3) is an absolute value of R3 (see Yun, fig.1, paragraph [0024], The surface 31…have a radius of curvature greater than about 16 mm to about 1500 mm); and wherein Conic3 is a conic coefficient of the third surface, and abs(Conic3) is an absolute value of Conic3 (described above).
Regarding claim 4, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yun further teaches wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 300 mm<abs(R2)<550 mm (is capable of 300 mm < abs(R2)<550 mm; see Yun, fig.1, paragraph [0022], The surface 22…have a radius of curvature greater than about 16 mm to about 1500 mm ---Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); and abs(Conic2)<5 (paragraph [0022], second 22 major surfaces of the first lens 20 may be substantially spherical--- so conic coefficient is 0 ---Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)), wherein R2 is the radius of curvature of the second surface (Yu, fig.1, the radius of curvature of the surface 22), abs(R2) is an absolute value of R2 (described above), and wherein Conic2 is a conic coefficient of the second surface (Yu, fig.1, the surface 22),), and abs(Conic2) is an absolute value of Conic2 (described above).
Regarding claim 5, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yun further teaches wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 40<abs(R1)<70 (is capable of 40 mm < abs(R1)< 70 mm; see Yun, fig.1, paragraph [0022], The surface 21…have a radius of curvature greater than about 10 mm to about 500 mm ---Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)); and abs(Conic1)<5 (0; Yun, paragraph [0081], the first major surfaces 21 of the first lens 20 substantially spherical.. so conic coefficient is 0, the first major surface 21 having a radius of curvature in a range from about 10 mm to about 500 mm,---further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)), wherein R1 is a radius of curvature of the first surface, abs(R1) is an absolute value of R1(described above), and
wherein Conic1 is a conic coefficient of the first surface, and abs(Conic1) is an absolute value of Conic1 (described above).
Regarding claim 7, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Togino of fig.9 teaches wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 0.02<ED<0.1 (is capable of 0.02<ED<0.1; see Togino, fig.9, on the scale of fig.9 ,ED is capable of 0.03), wherein ED is a distance between an edge portion of the first lens (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the third surface) away from the optical axis (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the optical axis) and an edge portion of the second lens (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the third surface) away from the optical axis (see annotated image, Togino, fig.9, the optical axis);
but Yun does not explicitly teach wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 5<L1<10; wherein L1 is a distance from the display unit to the first surface in an optical axis direction.
However, Togino of fig.2 teaches wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 5<L1<10 (5.14; see fig.2, col.8, line 46, L1 = 5.14);
wherein L1 is a distance from the display unit (see Togino, fig.2, the display unit has been referred as the liquid crystal display device LCD of fig.22 for displaying an image 4 of fig.2) to the first surface (Togino, fig.2, the first surface has been referred as the surface 3) in an optical axis direction (see Togino, fig.2, the optical axis),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify L1 which is distance from the display unit to the first surface in an optical axis direction of Yun as taught by Togino to have 5<L1<10 for a purpose to reduce the number of constituent lenses of concentric optical systems and also to correct coma and astigmatism to have a wide angle of view and high resolution (Togino, col.1, lines 9-17, 47-50).
Regarding claim 10, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yun further teaches wherein the virtual reality device (Yu, fig.1, paragraph [0002], virtual reality device of fig.1) comprises the optical system of claim 1 (see claim 1).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yun et al (US20190384045) in view of Liu (CN107748436), Li et al. (US20180088333) and Togino (US5517366), and further in view of Tashiro(US20200064592).
Regarding claim 6, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yun does not explicitly teach wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 4 mm <T1≤5 mm; and 3 mm <T2<4 mm, wherein the T1 is a central thickness of the first lens, the T2 is a central thickness of the second lens.
However, Tashiro teaches the similar optical lens system (Tashiro, figs.1-12, abstract, an observation optical system for use in observing an image displayed on an image displaying surface, includes, in order from an observation surface side to the image displaying surface side: a first lens having a first transmission reflective surface and a first transmissive surface; and a second lens having a second transmission reflective surface and a second transmissive surface, in which the first lens and the second lens are arranged via an interval interposed therebetween; light from the image displaying surface transmits through the second lens, is reflected by the first transmission reflective surface, is reflected by the second transmission reflective surface), and further teaches
wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships:
4 mm <T1≤ 5 mm (5; Tashiro, fig.3, paragraph [0099], data of table 2, T1=4 ); and 3 mm <T2<4 mm (4 mm; Tashiro, fig.3, paragraph [0099], data of table 2, T2=4; the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, See MPEP 2144.05(I);Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),
wherein the T1 is a central thickness of the first lens (Tashiro, fig.3, a central thickness of the first lens has been referred as the central thickness of the lens G2), the T2 is a central thickness of the second lens (Tashiro, fig.3, a central thickness of the second lens has been referred as the central thickness of the lens G1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify T1 is a central thickness of the first lens, the T2 is a central thickness of the second lens of Yun taught by Tashiro to have 4 mm <T1≤5 mm; and 3 mm <T2<4 mm for a purpose of reducing a thickness of the optical system (Tashiro, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yun does not explicitly teach wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 15*f<abs(f2)<20f; and 4*f<f1<6*f, wherein f is a focal length of the optical system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and abs(f2) is an absolute value of f2.
However, Tashiro teaches the similar optical lens system (Tashiro, figs.1-12, abstract, an observation optical system for use in observing an image displayed on an image displaying surface, includes, in order from an observation surface side to the image displaying surface side: a first lens having a first transmission reflective surface and a first transmissive surface; and a second lens having a second transmission reflective surface and a second transmissive surface, in which the first lens and the second lens are arranged via an interval interposed therebetween; light from the image displaying surface transmits through the second lens, is reflected by the first transmission reflective surface, is reflected by the second transmission reflective surface), and further teaches
wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships:
15*f<abs(f2)<20f (15.4f; Tashiro, fig.7, paragraph [0101], data of table 4, abs(f2) =15.4f); and
4*f<f1<6*f (4.01f; Tashiro, fig.7, paragraph [0101], data of table 4, f1= 4.01f),
wherein f is a focal length of the optical system (Tashiro, fig.7, paragraph [0101], a focal length of the optical system has been referred as the focal length of the optical system of fig.7, f= 15.12), f1 is a focal length of the first lens (Tashiro, fig.7, paragraph [0101], a focal length of the first lens has been referred as the focal length of the lens G3, f1=fG3=60.76), f2 is a focal length of the second lens (Tashiro, fig.7, a focal length of the second lens has been referred as the focal length of the lens G2), and abs(f2) is an absolute value of f2 (Tashiro, fig.7, paragraph [0101], f2 =fG2= -233.4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify f is a focal length of the optical system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and abs(f2) is an absolute value of f2 of Yun taught by Tashiro to have 15*f<abs(f2)<20f; and 4*f<f1<6*f, for a purpose of reducing a thickness of the optical system (Tashiro, paragraph [0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yun et al (US20190384045) in view of Liu (CN107748436, English translation attached), Li et al. (US20180088333) and Togino (US5517366), and further in view of Takagi (US20190079234).
Regarding claim 9, Yun-Liu-Li-Togino combination discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yun does not explicitly teach wherein the second surface is provided with an anti-reflection film layer, and a wavelength of the light emitted by the display unit is included in a range of an anti-reflection band of the anti-reflection film layer.
However, Takagi teaches the similar optical lens system (Takagi, figs.1-14, abstract, a half mirror 21 provided in an optical path bends the optical path, and a semi-transmissive polarizing plate 23 increases the transmittance of image light GL in a direction along alignment of the eyes of an observer while the virtual image display device has a wide angle of view and is downsized, thus reducing luminance unevenness between the central region and the peripheral region in the image in the direction and allowing the observer to view a high quality image), and further teaches
wherein the second surface (Takagi, fig.1, the second surface has been referred as the surface of lens L3) is provided with an anti-reflection film layer (Takagi, fig.1, [0092], Each lens…have an anti-reflection coating on the surface as appropriate to substantially prevent ghost light from occurring), and a wavelength of the light emitted by the display unit is included in a range of an anti-reflection band of the anti-reflection film layer (paragraphs [0092]-[0093], Each lens may have an anti-reflection coating on the surface as appropriate to substantially prevent ghost light from occurring. [0093]The technique of the disclosure may be applied to a closed type of virtual image display device, which allows the observer to view only image light, a see-through type that allows the observer to view or observe the outside image, or a so-called video see-through product, which includes a display and an image capturing device).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of Yun as taught by Tashiro to provide with an anti-reflection film layer, and a wavelength of the light emitted by the display unit is included in a range of an anti-reflection band of the anti-reflection film layer for a purpose to prevent ghost light from occurring (Takagi, paragraph [0092]).
Response to Amendment / argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see Remarks Page. 9-16 with respect to the 35 U.S.C.&103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
No Motivation to Combine - References Render Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose And the Proposed Modification Would Impermissibly Change the Principle of Operation of the Cited Reference. Under MPEP 2143(A), the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the Federal Circuit held that the prior art would actually discourage and teach away from the use of foam straps. Therefore, modifying Yun by combining features of Togino that are in conflict with each other would impermissibly render Yun unsatisfactory for its intended purpose - namely, a cemented doublet used as a chromatic-aberration correction unit. Moreover, the proposed modification would impermissibly change the principle of operation of Yun. It is respectfully submitted that the reasoning for the motivation to combine, as emphasized above, is in error because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Yun and Togino as suggested in the Office Action because the proposed combination, in view of MPEP § 2143.01(V) and MPEP 2143.01(VI), cannot render the reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and the proposed modification cannot change the principle of operation of a reference.In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
The test for obviousness is not whether the features may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); also the claims don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II.
In this case, the claim1, Yun in view of Liu, Li and Togino discloses related embodiment having similar the optical system, all cited prior art references teach primary structures comprising a display unit, a first lens and a second lens in sequence along a light transmission direction, and a structural member, wherein the first lens comprises a first surface protruding towards the display unit and a second surface protruding towards the second lens,
wherein the second lens comprises a third surface recessed towards the first lens and a fourth surface away from the first lens. (note: since the claim used the term ‘comprising’, it may include additional functions or species.)
Further, Yun teaches the limitation of “wherein the optical system further comprises a first phase retarder and a reflective polarizer, the first phase retarder is disposed on a side of the second lens away from the display unit, or on a side of the second lens close to the display unit, and the reflective polarizer is disposed on a side of the first phase retarder away from the display unit; wherein an optical splitter is disposed on a side of the first lens close to the display unit” described in claim 1; Liu teaches the limitation of “wherein an edge portion of the second surface is tightly combined with an edge portion of the third surface; wherein each of the first surface, the second surface and the third surface is an aspherical surface; wherein the edge portions of the first lens and the second lens are adhered together to form a lens combination such that optical axes of the first lens and the second lens are coaxial, and wherein the lens combination is mounted on the structural member” described in claim 1. Li teaches the limitation of “wherein a radius of curvature of the second surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the third surface” described in claim 1; Togino teaches the limitation of “wherein the optical system satisfies the following relationships: 0.1 mm <L2<0.5 mm, wherein L2 is a distance between the second surface and the third surface in the optical axis direction” described in claim 1.
Further, Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis). A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)) . See MPEP § 2143 regarding the need to provide a reasoned explanation even in situations involving common sense or ordinary ingenuity. See also MPEP § 2144.05, subsection II, B.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872