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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
It is noted that the 112(f) interpretation and the objection to the title are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, and 13-18 are 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.
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) 1-3, 10-12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 2021/0029265) in view of Ouchi (US 2017/0346987) further in view of Ngata (US 201/0134495).
Regarding Claim 1, Asano teaches an optical device (Paragraph 2) comprising:
an upper housing that restricts part of reflected light from a target object (Paragraphs 52-54, wherein there is a light-shielding wall),
wherein the upper housing comprises resin (Paragraph 54, wherein the light shielding wall comprises resin),
wherein the upper housing has a hole, the hole extending through the upper housing in the propagation direction (Paragraph 58, wherein there is a light-shielding wall that has holes that allow some of the light to be inhibited. This is further shown in figures 6 and 7).
Asano does not teach wherein the upper housing has a slit, the slit extending in a first direction crossing a propagation direction of the reflected light and formed at an upstream end in the propagation direction;
at least one lens array configured to transmit the reflected light that has passed through the slit;
a lower housing that holds the at least one lens array, and that is configured to contact with part of an inner circumferential surface of the hole to correct a width of the opening.
Ouchi does teach wherein the upper housing has a slit, the slit extending in a first direction crossing a propagation direction of the reflected light and formed at an upstream end in the propagation direction (Paragraph 22, wherein there is a slit for allowing reflected light to pass);
at least one lens array configured to transmit the reflected light that has passed through the slit (Paragraphs 25 and 27, wherein the reflection mirror array transmits the light).
Asano and Ouchi are combinable because they both deal with processing light for scanning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Asano with the teachings of Ouchi for the purpose of better preserving the scanned image (Ouchi: Paragraph 62).
Asano in view of Ouchi does not teach a lower housing that holds the at least one lens array, and that comes into contact with part of an inner circumferential surface of the hole to correct a width of the opening.
Nagata does teach a lower housing that holds the at least one lens array, and that comes into contact with part of an inner circumferential surface of the hole to correct a width of the opening (Paragraphs 95 and 106, wherein the angle of inclination can be corrected. This is with respect to the lens array as shown in fig. 11).
Asano and Nagata are combinable because they both deal with processing light for scanning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Asano in view of Ouchi with the teachings of Nagata for the purpose of assisting in reducing flare noise (Nagata: Paragraphs 10 and 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Asano further teaches wherein, of the inner circumferential surface of the hole of the upper housing, at least a portion irradiated with the reflected light is black or embossed (Paragraph 54, wherein the wall comprises black).
Regarding Claim 3, Asano further teaches wherein an upward surface facing upstream in the propagation direction is formed at a peripheral portion of the slit of the upper housing (Paragraph 58, wherein there are surfaces are in regards to the optical-axis holes. This would be in relation to the slit of Ouchi) , and
wherein the upward surface is black or embossed (Paragraph 58, wherein the surface is black).
Regarding Claim 10, Asano further teaches an image reading unit (Paragraph 39, wherein the document can be read), comprising:
the optical device according to claim 1; and
a glass plate configured to receive a document having an image that is to be read by the optical device (Paragraph 38 and 39, wherein there is a glass platen).
Regarding Claim 11, Asano further teaches an image reading unit (Paragraph 39, wherein the document can be read), comprising:
the optical device according to claim 2; and
a glass plate configured to receive a document having an image that is to be read by the optical device (Paragraph 38 and 39, wherein there is a glass platen).
Regarding Claim 12, Asano further teaches an image reading unit (Paragraph 39, wherein the document can be read), comprising:
the optical device according to claim 3; and
a glass plate configured to receive a document having an image that is to be read by the optical device (Paragraph 38 and 39, wherein there is a glass platen).
Regarding Claim 19, Asano teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 2), comprising:
the image reading unit according to claim 10; and
a transfer device configured to transfer an image read by the optical device of the image reading unit to a recording medium (Paragraph 27, wherein the read image data is printed accordingly).
Regarding Claim 20, Asano teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 2), comprising:
the image reading unit according to claim 11; and
a transfer device configured to transfer an image read by the optical device of the image reading unit to a recording medium (Paragraph 27, wherein the read image data is printed accordingly).
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699