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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application [2/9/2026].
Title and Claims 1, 10 and 11 have been amended [2/9/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument based on newly applied reference Matsuzawa et al. (JP-2012-165151A).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi (US-2022/0345582) in view of Matsuzawa et al. (JP-2012-165151A).
As to Claim 1, Shiraishi teaches ‘An optical device comprising: a light guiding unit that emits light to be guided to a predetermined position from a light emitting aperture [Figs 1, 3 (14, 15), par 0031-0032 – reading device includes light guides that are a pair of optical elements that irradiate the reading surface with illumination light emitted by the light sources]; a detection unit that receives light reflected at the predetermined position [Fig 3 (13), par 0030 – sensor mounted on substrate is a line sensor in which imaging elements that convert light into electrical signals and is one or plural line sensors, where the light emitted from an emission surface reaches the sensor and the sensor receives the reflected light from the surface to be read]; and a light blocking unit that includes a light blocking member located closer than an imaginary line to the detection unit in a cross section including the predetermined position and the light guiding unit, the imaginary line connecting the predetermined position and an end of the light emitting aperture that is far from the predetermined position in an optical axis direction [Fig 3 (16), par 0033-0034 – light shielding member is provided between the pair of light guides in the sub-scanning direction and covers the lens array from an upper side in the height direction and prevents light other than the reflected light from the surface to be read of the object to be read from being incident on the lens array with a slit functioning as a diaphragm where reflected light from the surface to be read passes through]’.
Shiraishi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding unit’.
Shiraishi teaches the lens array and the light shielding member are provided between the pair of light guides, with the light shielding member covering the lens array [par 0033].
While, Matsuzawa teaches the reading optical system formed of a rod lens array is disposed between each light guide unit, which is higher than the light guide units [Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding unit’ [Shiraishi: par 0033; Matsuzawa: Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi and Matsuzawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a high reading optical system compared to light guide units, as taught by Matsuzawa to be covered by Shiraishi’s light shielding member. The motivation for doing so would have been to easily adjust the illuminance distribution in a short time and at a low cost, based on light shielding member extending above a highest portion of light guiding unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsuzawa with Shiraishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to Claim 2, Shiraishi teaches ‘wherein the light blocking unit includes an edge portion that allows light reflected at the predetermined position and travelling toward the detection unit to pass through the edge portion and that does not allow light reflected at another position different from the predetermined position and travelling toward the detection unit to enter the edge portion [par 0033-0034, 0045 – light shielding member is provided between the pair of light guides in the sub-scanning direction and covers the lens array from an upper side in the height direction and prevents light other than the reflected light from the surface to be read of the object to be read from being incident on the lens array with a slit functioning as a diaphragm where reflected light from the surface to be read passes through, the light emitted from the emission surface reaches the sensor through the slit and lens array, the sensor receives the reflected light from the surface to be read, and acquires the image information on the surface to be read]’.
As to Claim 3, Shiraishi teaches ‘wherein the edge portion is formed integrally with the light blocking member [par 0034 – the slit penetrating the light shielding wall in the height direction is formed in the light shielding wall of the light shielding member]’.
As to Claim 4, Shiraishi teaches ‘wherein a lens on which light reflected at the predetermined position is incident is mounted on a member including the edge portion and the light blocking member integrally formed with each other [Fig 6 (20, 16, 17), par 0033-0034 – lens array disposed between light shielding wall of light shielding member with penetrating slit]’.
As to Claim 5, Shiraishi teaches ‘wherein a member including the edge portion and the light blocking member integrally formed with each other has a recess for mounting a lens on which light reflected at the predetermined position is incident onto the member [Fig 6 (20, 16, 17), par 0033-0034 – lens array disposed between light shielding wall of light shielding member with penetrating slit]’.
As to Claim 7, Shiraishi teaches ‘wherein the edge portion has an inner surface facing toward the detection unit [Fig 6 (20, 16, 17), par 0034 – the slit penetrating the light shielding wall in the height direction is formed in the light shielding wall of the light shielding member and faces sensor]’.
As to Claim 10, Shiraishi teaches ‘An image reading device comprising: a light guiding unit that emits light to be guided to an image reading position from a light emitting aperture [Figs 1, 3 (14, 15), par 0031-0032 – reading device includes light guides that are a pair of optical elements that irradiate the reading surface with illumination light emitted by the light sources]; a detection unit that receives light reflected at the image reading position [Fig 3 (13), par 0030 – sensor mounted on substrate is a line sensor in which imaging elements that convert light into electrical signals and is one or plural line sensors, where the light emitted from an emission surface reaches the sensor and the sensor receives the reflected light from the surface to be read]; and a light blocking unit that includes a light blocking member located closer than an imaginary line to the detection unit in a cross section including the image reading position and the light guiding unit, the imaginary line connecting the image reading position and an end of the light emitting aperture that is far from the image reading position in an optical axis direction [Fig 3 (16), par 0033-0034 – light shielding member is provided between the pair of light guides in the sub-scanning direction and covers the lens array from an upper side in the height direction and prevents light other than the reflected light from the surface to be read of the object to be read from being incident on the lens array with a slit functioning as a diaphragm where reflected light from the surface to be read passes through]’.
Shiraishi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding unit’.
Shiraishi teaches the lens array and the light shielding member are provided between the pair of light guides, with the light shielding member covering the lens array [par 0033].
While, Matsuzawa teaches the reading optical system formed of a rod lens array is disposed between each light guide unit, which is higher than the light guide units [Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding unit’ [Shiraishi: par 0033; Matsuzawa: Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi and Matsuzawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a high reading optical system compared to light guide units, as taught by Matsuzawa to be covered by Shiraishi’s light shielding member. The motivation for doing so would have been to easily adjust the illuminance distribution in a short time and at a low cost, based on light shielding member extending above a highest portion of light guiding unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsuzawa with Shiraishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
As to Claim 11, Shiraishi teaches ‘An optical device comprising: a light guiding means for emitting light to be guided to a predetermined position from a light emitting aperture [Figs 1, 3 (14, 15), par 0031-0032 – reading device includes light guides that are a pair of optical elements that irradiate the reading surface with illumination light emitted by the light sources]; a detection means for receiving light reflected at the predetermined position [Fig 3 (13), par 0030 – sensor mounted on substrate is a line sensor in which imaging elements that convert light into electrical signals and is one or plural line sensors, where the light emitted from an emission surface reaches the sensor and the sensor receives the reflected light from the surface to be read]; and a light blocking unit including a light blocking member located closer than an imaginary line to the detection unit in a cross section including the predetermined position and the light guiding unit, the imaginary line connecting the predetermined position and an end of the light emitting aperture that is far from the predetermined position in an optical axis direction [Fig 3 (16), par 0033-0034 – light shielding member is provided between the pair of light guides in the sub-scanning direction and covers the lens array from an upper side in the height direction and prevents light other than the reflected light from the surface to be read of the object to be read from being incident on the lens array with a slit functioning as a diaphragm where reflected light from the surface to be read passes through]’.
Shiraishi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding means’.
Shiraishi teaches the lens array and the light shielding member are provided between the pair of light guides, with the light shielding member covering the lens array [par 0033].
While, Matsuzawa teaches the reading optical system formed of a rod lens array is disposed between each light guide unit, which is higher than the light guide units [Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the light blocking member extends above a highest portion of the light guiding means’ [Shiraishi: par 0033; Matsuzawa: Figs 1 (5), 2 (2a, 5), 6 (5), par 0012, 0014, 0019, 0040].
Shiraishi and Matsuzawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a high reading optical system compared to light guide units, as taught by Matsuzawa to be covered by Shiraishi’s light shielding member. The motivation for doing so would have been to easily adjust the illuminance distribution in a short time and at a low cost, based on light shielding member extending above a highest portion of light guiding unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsuzawa with Shiraishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa et al. and further in view of Asano et al. (US-2021/029265).
As to Claim 6, Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa teaches all of the claimed elements as recited in dependent claims 2-3 and independent claim 1. Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the edge portion and the light blocking member are formed on a surface of a transparent member’.
Asano teaches ‘wherein the edge portion and the light blocking member are formed on a surface of a transparent member [Fig 3 (210, 220, 230), par 0043-0045, 0060 – a first reinforcement film (e.g., Shiraishi’s slit) and second reinforcement film are transparent resin films and are bonded to light-shielding wall]’.
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa are analogous art with Asano because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a light-shielding wall bonded on top of a transparent resin film, as taught by Asano. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppressing deformation of the light-shielding wall in the optical axis direction, thus making it easy to dispose the light-shielding wall on the first lens array while also suppressing variation in the optical-axis-direction-length of the light-shielding wall in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Asano with Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 8, Asano in the proposed combination of Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the light blocking member is formed on two adjacent surfaces of a transparent member [Fig 3 (210, 220, 230), par 0043-0045, 0060 – a first reinforcement film (e.g., Shiraishi’s slit) and second reinforcement film are transparent resin films and are bonded to light-shielding wall]’.
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa are analogous art with Asano because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a light-shielding wall bonded on top of a transparent resin film, as taught by Asano. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppressing deformation of the light-shielding wall in the optical axis direction, thus making it easy to dispose the light-shielding wall on the first lens array while also suppressing variation in the optical-axis-direction-length of the light-shielding wall in the longitudinal direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Asano with Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa et al., Asano et al. (US-2021/029265) and further in view of Nagamochi (US-2009/0109501).
As to Claim 9, Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa and Asano teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 8 and independent claim 1. Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa and Asano does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the two adjacent surfaces form an obtuse angle’.
Nagamochi in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the two adjacent surfaces form an obtuse angle [Fig 5, par 0037-0038 – aperture angle regulation member includes inclined surfaces on both sides forming an obtuse angle as shown]’.
Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa and Asano are analogous art with Nagamochi because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely reading devices. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include aperture angle regulation member having inclined surfaces, as taught by Nagamochi. The motivation for doing so would have been to preventing light from entering internally from other than the slit portion and cover portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nagamochi with Shiraishi in view of Matsuzawa and Asano to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. JP Publication No. 2012-165151A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681