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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 6/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 60 (of FIG. 11). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 16-20 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.
Regarding claims 16-17 and 19-20, line 2 of claim 16, lines 1-2 of claim 17, line 2 of claim 19, and line 2 of claim 20 all recite "the kinematic mount alignment recesses" which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as the “mating kinematic alignment recesses”, as first established in line 14 of the independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 depends on and inherits the indefiniteness of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franklin et al (US 20200096775 A1, hereinafter “Franklin”).
Regarding claim 1, Franklin discloses (see FIGs. 1-3(A,B), 13(A-F); ¶s 39-47, 74-85) a head-mounted device (head-mounted display unit 110) configured to operate with removable vision correction lenses (removable lens assemblies 120/1320), comprising:
a head-mounted housing (housing 112); and
optical assemblies (display modules 116/1310) in the head-mounted housing (housing 112), wherein each optical assembly (display module 116/1310) has a fixed lens (primary lens 316b) and a support (lens mount 316c/1311) for the fixed lens (primary lens 316b) and is configured to couple to a respective one of the removable vision correction lenses (removable lens assemblies 120/1320), wherein each optical assembly (display module 116/1310) has a respective display (316a) that is configured to display an image to a respective eye box (“eye of the user”) through the fixed lens (primary lens 316b) of that optical assembly (display module 116/1310) and through the removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) that is coupled to that optical assembly (display module 116/1310), and wherein each optical assembly (display module 116/1310) and each removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) coupled to that optical assembly (display module 116/1310) are configured to form a kinematic coupling that aligns that optical assembly (display module 116/1310) and that removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320).
Regarding claim 2, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1.
Franklin further discloses (see FIGs. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the kinematic coupling has at least one kinematic mount alignment recess (display mechanical coupling feature 1312).
Regarding claim 15, Franklin discloses (see FIGs. 1-3(A,B), 13(A-F); ¶s 39-47, 74-85) a head-mounted device (head-mounted display unit 110) configured to operate with removable vision correction lenses (removable lens assemblies 120/1320), comprising:
a head-mounted housing (housing 112); and
optical assemblies (display modules 116/1310) in the head-mounted housing (housing 112), wherein each optical assembly (display module 116/1310) is configured to receive a corresponding one of the removable vision correction lenses (removable lens assemblies 120/1320) and wherein each optical assembly (display module 116/1310) comprises:
a fixed lens (primary lens 316b);
a support (lens mount 316c/1311) for the fixed lens (primary lens 316b); and
a display (316a), wherein the display (316a) is configured to provide images to an eye box (“eye of the user”) through the fixed lens (primary lens 316b) and the removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) received by that optical assembly (display modules 116/1310) and wherein each optical assembly (display modules 116/1310) and corresponding removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) is configured to form a kinematic coupling that aligns that optical assembly (display module 116/1310) and that removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320), the kinematic coupling including a plurality of kinematic mount alignment protrusions (lens mechanical coupling features 1322) and a plurality of mating kinematic mount alignment recesses (display mechanical coupling features 1312) (Note ¶ 85 provides for multiple sets of both lens/display mechanical coupling features 1322/1312).
Regarding claim 16, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 15.
Franklin further discloses (see FIGs. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the supports (lens mount 1311) of the optical assemblies (display modules 1310) are configured to form the kinematic mount alignment recesses (display mechanical coupling features 1312).
Regarding claim 17, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 16.
Franklin further discloses (see FIG. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the kinematic mount alignment recesses (display mechanical coupling features 1312) comprise grooves.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 202550445 U).
Regarding claim 3, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 2.
Franklin does not disclose wherein the kinematic mount alignment recess has a debris cover.
Franklin and Xu are related as being directed towards dust/debris mitigation for mounting hole structures.
Xu discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) wherein the kinematic mount alignment recess has a debris cover (elastic wire grommet, or guard ring, 3 – placed over cable/wire outlet hole 13).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with the Xu’s debris cover, in order provide dust/debris-proofing in a manner which reduces the types/number of covers, saves space, and reduces costs (Xu ¶s 4-7, 17).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3.
Franklin further discloses (see FIGs. 13(C-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the kinematic mount alignment recess (display mechanical coupling feature 1312) is configured to mate with a corresponding kinematic mount alignment protrusion (lens mechanical coupling feature 1322) on the removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320)
Xu further discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) and wherein the debris cover (elastic wire grommet, or guard ring, 3) comprises a wiper (elastic sealing plate 31) that is configured to: 1) when the kinematic mount alignment protrusion (i.e. “cable”) is out of the kinematic mount alignment recess (i.e. is not inserted into cable/wire outlet hole 13), rest in a first position in which the wiper (elastic sealing plate 31) covers an opening (cable/wire outlet hole 13) to the kinematic mount alignment recess, and 2) when the kinematic mount alignment protrusion (i.e. “cable”) is in the kinematic mount alignment recess (i.e. is inserted into cable/wire outlet hole 13), move to a second position in which the wiper (elastic sealing plate 31) does not cover the opening (cable/wire outlet hole 13) of the kinematic mount alignment recess.(¶ 29: “When the elastic sealing plate 31 is not in use, the cable outlet hole 13 remains closed. When wiring is required, the elastic sealing plate 31 is opened and the cable is passed through”)
Regarding claim 5, modified Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3.
Xu further discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) wherein the debris cover (elastic wire grommet, or guard ring, 3) comprises flexible polymer (¶ 28: “elastic wire guard ring 3 is preferably made of rubber”; rubber is an elastomer polymer) configured to bend when a kinematic mount alignment protrusion (i.e. “cable”) is received within the kinematic mount alignment recess (i.e. is inserted into cable/wire outlet hole 13). (Per ¶ 29, elastic sealing plate 31 of elastic wire grommet 3 has breaking grooves 32 which divide sealing plate 31 into sections that bend open when the cable is passed through.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin in view of Xu, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ebert (US 11163166 B1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 3.
Franklin further discloses (see FIG. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the kinematic mount alignment recess (display mechanical coupling feature 1312) comprises a groove.
Xu further discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) wherein the debris cover (elastic wire grommet, or guard ring, 3) comprises a wiper (elastic sealing plate 31) that is configured to bend when a kinematic mount alignment protrusion (i.e. “cable”) is placed in the groove (i.e. is inserted into cable/wire outlet hole 13). (Per ¶ 29, elastic sealing plate 31 of elastic wire grommet 3 has breaking grooves 32 which divide sealing plate 31 into sections that bend open when the cable is passed through.)
Modified Franklin does not disclose the groove is a V-shaped groove.
Franklin and Ebert are related as being directed towards head-mounted displays with vision correction lenses.
Ebert discloses (see FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 14-30) the groove is a V-shaped groove (640).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Franklin with Ebert’s V-shaped groove structures, which benefit from symmetry and are well-suited for manufacturing techniques (Ebert col. 8 lines 29-38).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 20200285018 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 7, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 2.
Franklin does not disclose the further comprising a debris collection groove in communication with the kinematic mount alignment recess.
Franklin and Zhang are related as being directed towards dust mitigation in lens mounted structures.
Zhang discloses (see FIGs. 4-5, ¶ 16) the further comprising a debris collection groove (comprising first/second gas pressure relieving grooves 442/444 and dust collecting hole 443) in communication with the kinematic mount alignment recess (second groove 43).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with Zhang’s pressure relief and debris collection structures, in order to capture dust/impurities entering the device as well as to expel heat and reduce condensation – both of which may adversely affect imaging/display operations (Zhang ¶s 2, 16-19).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al (US 20200096775 A1, hereinafter “Franklin”).
Regarding claim 8, Franklin discloses (see FIGs. 1-3(A,B), 13(A-F); ¶s 39-47, 74-85) a removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) configured to removably couple to an optical assembly (display module 116/1310) in a head-mounted device (head-mounted display unit 110) that has a display (316a) and a fixed lens (primary lens 316b), the removable vision correction lens (removable lens assembly 120/1320) comprising:
a frame (lens frame 340); and
a lens element (330) in the frame (lens frame 340), wherein the frame (lens frame 340) has a kinematic mount alignment protrusion (lens mechanical coupling feature 1322) that is configured to mate with a kinematic mount alignment recess (display mechanical coupling feature 1312) in the optical assembly (display module 116/1310).
Franklin, in the (first) embodiment cited above, does not disclose:
wherein the frame has a kinematic mount alignment recess
a kinematic mount alignment protrusion in the optical assembly
(Examiner notes, however, that Franklin’s embodiment cited above differs only from the claimed invention in that the relative arrangement of recess/protrusion parts has been reversed.)
Franklin, in another (second) embodiment, discloses (see now FIGs. 10(A,B), ¶s 65-69):
wherein the frame (lens frame 1040) has a kinematic mount alignment recess (annular recess 1046)
a kinematic mount alignment protrusion (annular protrusion 1016e) in the optical assembly (display module 1016)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above-cited embodiment of Franklin by reversing the arrangement of recess/protrusion parts, in order to redistribute coupling forces or to otherwise alter coupling features and facilitate the removal/exchange of parts.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 20200285018 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”) and Ebert (US 11163166 B1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 8.
Franklin, in the (first) embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the kinematic mount alignment recess (display mechanical coupling feature 1312) comprises a groove.
Franklin, in the other (second) embodiment cited above, further discloses (see FIGs. 10(A,B), ¶s 65-69) a groove (annular recess 1046) in the frame (lens frame 1040).
(Note: as established in regards to claim 8 above, combination of embodiments in Franklin’s disclosure provide for the recesses/grooves to be located in either the frame or optical assembly.)
Modified Franklin does not disclose:
and wherein the frame is configured to form a debris collection groove in communication with the groove
the groove is a V-shaped groove
Franklin and Zhang are related as being directed towards dust mitigation in lens mounted structures.
Zhang discloses (see FIGs. 4-5, ¶ 16) and wherein the frame (support base 40) is configured to form a debris collection groove (comprising first/second gas pressure relieving grooves 442/444 and dust collecting hole 443) in communication with the groove (second groove 43).
Franklin and Ebert are related as being directed towards head-mounted displays with vision correction lenses.
Ebert discloses (see FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 14-30) the groove is a V-shaped groove (640).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Franklin with Zhang’s pressure relief and debris collection structures, in order to capture dust/impurities entering the device as well as to expel heat and reduce condensation – both of which may adversely affect imaging/display operations (Zhang ¶s 2, 16-19).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to then modify Franklin with Ebert’s V-shaped groove structures, which benefit from symmetry and are well-suited for manufacturing techniques (Ebert col. 8 lines 29-38).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin in view of Zhang and Ebert, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fan and Chen (US 20170363837 Al, hereinafter “Fan”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 9.
Zhang further discloses (see FIGs. 4-5, ¶ 16) wherein the debris collection groove (comprising first/second gas pressure relieving grooves 442/444 and dust collecting hole 443) is deeper than the groove (second groove 43).
Ebert further discloses (see FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 14-30) the groove is a V-shaped groove (640).
Modified Franklin does not disclose wherein the debris collection groove is wider than the groove.
Franklin and Fan are related as being directed towards dust mitigation in lens mounted structures.
Fan discloses (see FIGs. 2, 5-7, ¶s 55-57) wherein the debris collection groove (inner surface S1, coated with adhesive layer C) is wider than the groove (anti-twist recess 34). (First refer to FIGs. 2 and 6, showing the width of inner surface S1 (with adhesive layer C) to be greater than the widths of anti-twist protrusions 24. FIG. 7 then shows the width of adhesive layer C (for inner surface S1), to be greater than the widths of the anti-twist recesses 34 accommodating the anti-twist protrusions 24.See also ¶ 17: “adhesive layer is formed in the recess of the bottom base [i.e. 20, on which inner surface S1 is defined in FIG. 2] to adhere dust in the frame.”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Franklin with design aspects of Fan’s wide debris collection structures, in order to reduce the chances for dust to enter/rebound in the device interior or invade the lens, thereby improving the imaging quality (Fan ¶s 56-59).
Regarding claim 11, modified Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 10.
Fan also discloses (see FIGs. 2, 5-7, ¶s 55-57) the further comprising an adhesive coating (adhesive layer C) in the debris collection groove (inner surface S1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Maruyama (JP 2021136746 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 8.
Modified Franklin does not disclose the further comprising a magnet configured to attract debris away from the kinematic mount alignment recess.
Franklin and Maruyama are related as being directed towards dust mitigation in lens mounted structures.
Maruyama discloses (see FIGs. 1-5, ¶s 10-19) the further comprising a magnet (magnet 112) configured to attract debris (wear/abrasion dust/particles 114) away from the kinematic mount alignment recess (i.e. away from lens holding frame 300).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Franklin with Maruyama’s magnetic debris collecting structures, in order to mitigate the dispersion of wear particles released by internal device friction for extended periods of time (Maruyama ¶s 4-7, 17-19).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20220166590 A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 8.
Modified Franklin does not disclose wherein the frame comprises a liquid drainage hole.
Franklin and Kim are related as being directed towards head-mounted devices with vision correction lenses.
Kim discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 59) wherein the frame (lens frame 110) comprises a liquid drainage hole (drainage holes 113).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Franklin with Kim’s teachings, in order to expand functionality of the head-mounted device (e.g. by providing drainage holes to drain water for easier washing, Kim ¶ 59).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 202550445 U).
Regarding claim 14, Franklin discloses the removable vision correction lens defined in claim 8.
Franklin does not disclose the further comprising a debris cover that is configured to cover the kinematic mount alignment recess when the removable vision correction lens is not coupled to the optical assembly.
Franklin and Xu are related as being directed towards dust/debris mitigation for mounting hole structures.
Xu discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) the further comprising a debris cover (elastic wire grommet, or guard ring, 3) that is configured to cover the kinematic mount alignment recess when the removable vision correction lens is not coupled to the optical assembly. (¶ 29: “When the elastic sealing plate 31 [of elastic wire grommet 3] is not in use, the cable outlet hole 13 remains closed. When wiring is required, the elastic sealing plate 31 is opened and the cable is passed through”. Thus, if Franklin’s kinematic mount alignment recess/protrusion (display/lens mechanical coupling feature 1312/1322 cited in claim 8 above) are uncoupled – i.e. if the removable vision correction lens is not coupled to the optical lens assembly – then Xu’s elastic wire grommet 3 (in combination with Franklin) would not be “in use” and “remains closed” so that it continues to cover the kinematic mount alignment recess.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with the Xu’s debris cover, in order provide dust/debris-proofing in a manner which reduces the types/number of covers, saves space, and reduces costs (Xu ¶s 4-7, 17).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 202550445 U).
Regarding claim 18, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 17.
Franklin does not disclose the further comprising flexible wipers that are configured to cover the grooves when the removable vision correction lenses are not coupled to the optical assemblies.
Franklin and Xu are related as being directed towards dust/debris mitigation for mounting hole structures.
Xu discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 27-29) the further comprising flexible wipers (elastic sealing plate 31) that are configured to cover the grooves when the removable vision correction lenses are not coupled to the optical assemblies.
(¶ 29: “When the elastic sealing plate 31 [of elastic wire grommet 3] is not in use, the cable outlet hole 13 remains closed. When wiring is required, the elastic sealing plate 31 is opened and the cable is passed through”. Thus, if Franklin’s kinematic mount alignment recess/protrusion (display/lens mechanical coupling feature 1312/1322 cited in claims 15-17 above) are uncoupled – i.e. if the removable vision correction lenses are not coupled to the optical lens assemblies – then Xu’s elastic wire grommet 3 (in combination with Franklin) would not be “in use” and “remains closed” so that it continues to cover the kinematic mount alignment recess.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with the Xu’s debris cover, in order provide dust/debris-proofing in a manner which reduces the types/number of covers, saves space, and reduces costs (Xu ¶s 4-7, 17).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Morishita and Sakakibara (JP 2000196111 A, hereinafter “Morishita”).
Regarding claim 19, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 15.
Franklin does not disclose wherein portions of the fixed lenses are configured to form the kinematic mount alignment recesses.
Franklin and Morishita are related as being directed towards lens mounted structures.
Morishita discloses wherein portions of the fixed lenses (lens body 10) are configured to form the kinematic mount alignment recesses (alignment recess 13) (¶ 24: “the alignment recess 13 serving as an alignment portion is directly formed in the lens body 10”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with Tagawa’s teachings, in order to address various design issues/tradeoffs and produce inexpensive lens mounted structures with good positional accuracy and improved optical characteristics (Morishita ¶s 3-6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 102001775 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Franklin discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 15.
Franklin further discloses (see FIGs. 13(A-F), ¶s 74-85) wherein the optical assemblies (display modules 1310) comprise portions in which the kinematic mount alignment recesses (display mechanical coupling features 1312) are formed.
Franklin does not disclose:
the portions are metal portions
and wherein the metal portions are insert molded within the fixed lenses.
Franklin and Cho are related as being directed towards lens mounted structures for display systems.
Cho discloses (see FIG. 14, ¶ 90):
the portions are metal portions (metal lead frame 53)
and wherein the metal portions (metal lead frame 53) are insert molded within the fixed lenses (lens 52).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Franklin with Cho’s metal insert molds, in order to improve mutual bonding strength between the lens and (metal) alignment portions (Cho ¶ 91, 95) or to provide additional bonding surfaces (see, e.g., Cho regarding lead frame 120(-1) in ¶s 61, 66, 75, 80)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872