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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
The claims and disclosure provide for independent, distinct inventions. In particular, the method of manufacturing lenses and partitions is independent and distinct from the lens array made by the manufacturing method. While the claims recite steps of manufacturing, these limitations do not further distinguish the apparatus by way of method and thus there is no serious burden to examination at this point. Should amendments require examination of the manufacturing method separate from the apparatus made by the method, it is likely that restriction would be required between these inventions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because lead lines and reference numerals are illegible (see Figs. 3-11 and 13-21). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-4 are 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 3 recites “characters of said lenses are equal … characters of said partitions are equal”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “characters” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “a characteristic” while the accepted meaning is “distinctive mark impressed, engraved, or otherwise made on a surface.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 recites an apparatus (lens array of Claim 1) and method steps of using the lens array in a method of making a further product. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said lenses from a first side thereof" and “said lenses from a second side thereof”. The base claim recites a plurality of lenses “said lenses being disposed one aside the other” and in light of the specifications, the phrase “one aside the other” limits a single side of the lens array. Cutting gaps between lenses from a second side cannot then have a clear antecedence as the scope of the base claim does not extend to lenses on two sides of the lens array. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, the metes and bounds of a claimed invention having both apparatus and method in the same claim are indeterminable. Further, the limitations of the steps of producing in Claim 4 do not server to clearly further limit the structure of the base claim. For example, the language “said non-transparent liquid glue comprises said partitions” does not clearly limit the partitions as composed of the non-transparent glue but rather possibly provides an additional element by way of manufacturing. It is unclear if the structure implied by the steps of producing are further limitations of the structure of the base claim or wholly distinct structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 6,018,422 to Feldman (hereinafter Feldman).
Regarding claim 1, Feldman discloses a lens array (Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)), comprising: a plurality of lenses (microtelescopes, Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)) each comprising an optical refractive substance (Fig. 5), said lenses being disposed one aside the other (Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)); and partitions (“opaque boundary layer”, Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)) disposed between said optical refractive substances of said lenses.
Regarding claim 2, Feldman discloses shaping and said disposition of said partitions is for reducing propagation of rays from said optical refractive substance of one of said lenses to said optical refractive substance of another one of said lenses (Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)).
Regarding claim 3, Feldman discloses characters of said lenses are equal; optical axes thereof are parallel; and characters of said partitions are equal (Figs. 4, 5, 6(a); col. 7, ln. 49-col. 9, ln. 39).
Regarding claim 4, Feldman discloses being produced by at least one of:- producing said plurality of lenses disposed one aside the other, then cutting a first group of gaps between said lenses from a first side thereof, and then inserting non-transparent liquid glue into said first group of gaps, and after the glue dries, cutting a second group of gaps between said lenses from a second side, and then inserting non-transparent liquid glue into said second group of gaps, thereby said non-transparent liquid glue comprises said partitions; producing said plurality of lenses disposed one aside the other, then focusing a scanning laser beam inside said optical refractive substances, thereby creating micro cracks comprising said partitions; - inserting transparent liquid into a parallel wall mold containing a grid comprising said partitions, then applying a polymer layer on said transparent parallel wall panel, then replicating or photo-lithographing a plurality of lenses one aside the other on said polymer layer; - producing said partitions on a polymer layer and attaching optical micro-lenses onto said polymer layer using mechanical grinding or stamping process (Figs. 4-6(a)). In the Markush group, the last optional limitation is wholly directed to functional language that does not structurally distinguish the apparatus over prior art apparatuses made by alternative methods.
Regarding claim 5, Feldman discloses a second lens array (rear surface, Figs. 4-5 and 6(a)) according to claim 1, said lens arrays disposed parallel and comprising a gap therebetween (Figs. 4-5 & 6(a)), wherein an optical axis of each of said lenses of said first lens array overlaps an optical axis of one said lenses of said second lens array.
Regarding claim 6, Feldman discloses wherein said first lens array comprise a plurality of identical positive lenses (front lenses, Figs. 4-5 & 6(a)) wherein optical axes thereof are parallel (Figs. 4-5 & 6(a)), and said second lens array comprise a plurality of identical negative positive lenses (rear lenses, Figs. 4-5 & 6(a)) wherein optical axes thereof are parallel, wherein said optical axes of said first lens array overlap said optical axes of said second lens array, and wherein a length of said gap provides that focal points of said lenses of said first lens array overlap focal points of said lenses of said second lens array (Figs 4-5 & 6(a)), thereby said optical refractive panel comprises an array of Galilean telescopes (col. 7, ln. 49-col. 9, ln. 39).
Regarding claim 7, Feldman discloses said partitions of said first lens array and said partitions of said second lens array extend one to the other, thereby said extensions of said partitions connect said first lens array to said second lens array (Figs. 4, 5, 6(a)).
Regarding claim 8, Feldman discloses spectacles comprising said optical refractive panel (Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of US 8,611,004 to Newell (hereinafter Newell).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Feldman discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: at least one of: a prism attached to said optical refractive panel for tilting rays for shifting an image focused on a retina; a lens attached to said optical refractive panel for providing optical power; a correction plate attached to said optical refractive panel for correcting production errors of said refractive panel induced by tolerances
Newell discloses: at least one of: a prism attached to said optical refractive panel for tilting rays for shifting an image focused on a retina; a lens attached to said optical refractive panel for providing optical power (Figs. 5, 11(a)-11(b)); a correction plate attached to said optical refractive panel for correcting production errors of said refractive panel induced by tolerances.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens as taught by Newell with the system as disclosed by Feldman. The motivation would have been to aid in magnification and comfort in binocular systems (col. 16, ln. 5, col. 17, ln. 21).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. No. 7,477,451 to Katz discloses a lens array of individual telescopes. US PG Pub. 2009/0128899 to Newell discloses a lens array of individual telescopes and partitions. US PG Pub. 2011/0040377 to Battis et al. discloses a lens array for vision correction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872