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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Hashiguchi have been fully considered but are not persuasive in light of the amendments.
The applicant argues with respect to the claims amendments that the light “emits light in a direction of thickness of the substrate” and the first hook protrudes “in a direction of thickness of the lens member” and the lens holder presses against the frame “in the direction of thickness of the lens member.” The phrase “in a direction of thickness” is not clear since the elements have a thickness in all three dimensional directions. All these amendments present new issues under 35 USC 112. With respect to prior art, the applicant only argues that the lower case does not press the lens member against the frame “in the direction of thickness of the lens member.” The examiner is not persuaded since in figure 4, the reference discloses the lower case pressing the lens member against the frame in a direction of thickness of the lens member, with a “a thickness direction of the lens member” being interpreted to mean the thin direction of the lens traditionally defining a lens “thickness”. A magnified and simplified version of Figure 4 is reproduced below for clarification with the examiner’s markings to help understand the interpretation.
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained as below with updated limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of U.S. Publication 2013/000418 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashiguchi et al. U.S. Publication 2013/0004189.
With respect to claim 11, Hashiguchi discloses an optical sensor unit comprising:
A photosensitive drum (Figure 2, photosensitive element 2 or drums 2Y, 2C, 2M, 2K)
A belt configured to contact the photosensitive drum (Figure 2, belt 7)
A main body housing of the image forming apparatus (image forming apparatus = sensor unit 300, main body housing = sensor part 30)
A frame that is part of the main body housing (Figure 4A, frame = upper cover 35, P.0045)
An optical sensor to be attached to the frame and located opposite to the belt, the optical sensor configured to detect a test toner image formed on a surface of the belt (Figure 2, Figure 4, light receiving element 32, Col.6, l 31-44, P.0045)
A substrate (Figure 4, substrate = circuit board 34, P.0045)
A light emitting element that emits light in a direction of thickness of the substrate, the light emitting element being fixed to the substrate (Figure 4 and 5A, light emitting element = 31, P.0045, wherein the substrate has a thickness in all directions)
A light receptive element that receives reflected light emitted from the light emitting element and reflected off the sensing object, the light receptive element being fixed to the substrate (Figure 4 and 5A, light receptive element = 33, P.0045)
A lens member located between the frame and the substrate, the lens member having an optical surface through which light emitted from the light emitting element travels (Figure 4, lens 37a-37c, P.0045)
A holder comprising a holder body and a first hook protruding from the holder body in a direction of thickness of the lens member at the optical surface, the first hook engageable with the frame (Figure 4 and 5A, holder body = lower case 36, first hook shown in Figure 5A, engageable with frame 35, Figure 5B, hooks 361a, 362a, P.0046, thickness of lens member is in all directions)
However, Tanaka fails to label and clearly disclose that the lens member is held fixed between the frame and the holder and that the holder configured to press the lens member against the frame when the first hook is engaged with the frame.
From Figure 4, 5A, and 5B, with the lens member 37a-37c, the frame is 35 and the holder is 36, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lenses are located pressed between the upper case 35 and lower case 36. The absence of an explicit label for the lenses in Figure 5B does not negate the presence of the lenses at the location between the two cases. A person of ordinary skill in the art viewing the overall structure and operation disclosed would readily understand that the lens must necessarily reside between the upper and lower case to enable the lenses to be aligned with the light emitters and light receivers (31 and 33). This positional requirement follows inevitably from the teachings of the figure when considered in light of basic engineering principles and well-known physical constraints. See MPEP 2144 and MPEP 2112. The skilled artisan is not limited to only what is explicitly disclosed; rather they interpret drawings with ordinary skill and logic. The reference inherently teaches the claimed positional relationship or at minimum renders it obvious.
With respect to claim 12, Hashiguchi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 11 above. In addition, Hashiguchi discloses:
A substrate retainer by which the substrate is held and fixed between the holder and the substrate retainer, the substrate retainer comprising a retaining body and a second hook protruding from the holder, the second hook being engageable with the substrate retainer (Figure 5A, Figure 5B, substrate retainer = stopper in concave part of frame 35, P.0046, second hook = 362a)
When the second hook is engaged with the frame, the retainer body presses the substrate against the holder (Figure 5B, P.0046)
However, Hashiguchi fails to disclose the second hook protrudes from the substrate retainer rather than the holder. This would be an obvious switch, either a protruding hook from the frame to engage with the holder or a protruding hook from the holder to engage with the frame are functional equivalents and would be a design choice based on mechanical needs and space.
With respect to claims 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19, Hashiguchi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. In addition, Hashiguchi discloses:
13- The holder further comprises a locating protrusion configured such that when the lens member is attached to the holder, the locating protrusion protruding toward the lens member contacts the lens member (Figure 5B, holder = 36, locating protrusion = shoulder of 36 where it meets 361, following the same logic as applied to claim 11 above, the lens would sit in the white space between 36 and 35 at the top of Figure 5B)
14- The lens member comprises a protrusion configured such that when the optical sensor is attached to the frame, the protrusion protruding toward the frame contacts the frame, and the optical surface is kept out of contact with the frame (Figure 4, lens = 37a-37c, lens protrusion = white unlabeled component surrounding it, frame = 35)
17- wherein the light receptive element comprises a first light receptive element that receives a specular reflection component of light reflected off the test toner image and a second light receptive element that receives a diffuse reflection component of light reflected off the test toner image (P.0048, first light receptive element = 32, second light receptive element = 33)
17- wherein the substrate comprises a first hole corresponding to the first light receptive element and a second hole corresponding to a second light receptive element (Figure 4, first hole = passage 403, second hole = passage 401, first light receptive element = 32, second light receptive element = 33, P.0045)
18- the holder further comprises a first light shielding wall located between the light emitting element and the first light receptive element and a second light shielding wall located between the light emitting element and the second light receptive element (Figure 4, first light shielding wall = 405, second light shielding wall = 404, P.0045)
18- Wherein the first light shielding wall has a groove formed in a surface thereof facing to the light emitting element (Figure 4, groove = outward bend in wall 405 unlabeled right above light 31)
19- the groove extends parallel to an optical axis of the light emitting element (Figure 4, the outward protrusion inside wall 405 has a non zero thickness in the direction parallel to the optical axis)
With respect to claim 15 Hashiguchi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 11 and 14 above. However, Hashiguchi fails to disclose the lens member further comprises a third hook engageable with the holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include additional hooks between various components, since it has been held that multiplying working parts of an invention is within ordinary skill in the art. In this case, a hook is a well-known component releasably engaging one component in structural relationship to another component. Although Hashiguchi is silent about it, the lens component is clearly held in a structural relationship to the holder in some manner. Using a hook for that connection would be within ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 20, Hashiguchi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 11 above. In addition, Hashiguchi discloses:
The lens member is a lens having a positive power (P.0047, condensing lens inherently have positive power)
The radius of curvature of a first surface being larger than a radius of curvature of a second surface (inherent to condensing lenses, functionally required to collect light and focus onto sensor surface)
However, Hashiguchi fails to disclose the lens has a first surface facing to the frame and a second surface facing to the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the curved first surface facing the frame and the curved second surface facing the substrate. The substrate and frame of Hashiguchi hold the sides of the lens, not the curved top and bottom. However, this is a matter of design choice. Based upon the geometric set up of elements, the frame and substrate could hold any of the sides of the lens in order to keep it in a required position with respect to the sensor, source, and target.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 is 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 and any deficiencies under 35 USC 112 corrected therein.
The prior art alone or in combination fail to disclose or suggest a lens member with a third hook engageable with the holder, wherein the third hook has a through hole piercing the hook in a lengthwise direction and a holder lug protruding and engageable with the hook hole when the lens member is attached to the holder in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
REBECCA CAROLE. BRYANT
Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights