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 § 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Sugita (US20150226933).
Re claim 14, Sugita teaches for example in fig. 2, a lens holding mechanism configured comprising: a lens barrel (4) configured to house a lens (G1), a holding member (5) configured to be fitted with the lens barrel and press the lens in a direction along an optical axis (para. 018); and an elastic member (7) disposed between the lens and the holding member (fig. 2), wherein an engaging portion (5c) is formed on the holding member (fig. 2), and the lens is formed with an engaged portion (G1a) configured to engage the engaging portion in a radial direction (fig. 2; para. 0018, 0023, 0026) or a circumferential direction.
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 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 of this title, 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita (US20150226933).
Re claim 20, Sugita teaches for example, the lens barrel is applicable to the field of the optical apparatus (para. 0044).
But, Sugita fails to explicitly teach a scanning unit configured to scan an object using illumination light from a light source; and the lens holding mechanism, wherein reflected light from the object illuminated by the scanning unit is guided to a light receiving element via the lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. teaches for example in fig. 4a, a scanning unit configured to scan an object using illumination light from a light source (abstract); and the lens holding mechanism (220, abstract), wherein reflected light from the object illuminated by the scanning unit is guided to a light receiving element via the lens (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Sugita with Lee et al. in order to detect an object located outside, as taught by Lee et al. (para. 0005).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-8-26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al. (US5177641).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8-29-26
Prosecution Insights