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 .
This Office Action is in response to the application filed September 14, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 10, the circuit board 102 point to the electrode and the electrode 104 points to the circuit board. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: OPTICAL DETECTION DEVICE INCLUDING CASE HAVING RUGGED STRUCTURE.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US 2007/0085103 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Nishioka et al. teach an optical device, comprising: a circuit board 3 having a plurality of electrodes (at 8); a lens component 4 disposed on the circuit board 3; and a case 10/12 comprising an accommodating chamber (inside of 10/12)) and an opening structure (at 11), the accommodating chamber (inside of 10/12) being adapted to accommodate the circuit board 3 and the lens component 4, the opening structure (at 11) being communicated with the accommodating chamber (inside of 10/12), the case 10/12 further comprising a rugged structure (top portion of 12) disposed around the opening structure (at 11) and adapted to engage with the lens component 4 (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 2, Nishioka et al. teach a plurality of distances between each section of an outer edge of the opening structure (at 11) and each corresponding section of the rugged structure (top of 12) has the same value, or a difference between any two of the plurality of distances is smaller than a predefined threshold (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 3, Nishioka et al. teach a plurality of intervals (See interior top of 12) between a central axis of the opening structure (at 11) and each section of an outer edge of the opening structure (at 11) has the same value, or a difference between any two of the plurality of intervals is smaller than a predefined threshold (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 4, Nishioka et al. teach the case 10/12 further comprising a block (element between 10/12 and 4) disposed on position adjacent to a side of the lens component 4 opposite to the opening structure (at 11), the rugged structure (top of 12) and the block (element between 10/12 and 4) adapted to fix the lens component 4 (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 5, Nishioka et al. teach the case 10/12 further comprising an abutting surface connected with a lateral wall of the opening structure (at 11) and adapted to abut against the lens component 4 (via 11), the rugged structure (top portion of 12) protruding from the abutting surface and located between the lens component 4 and the opening structure (at 11) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 6, Nishioka et al. teach the lens component 4 comprising a lens body (4 center), a first supporting portion (at 2) and a second supporting portion (at 4e), the first supporting portion (at 2) and the second supporting portion (at 4e) respectively stretched from two opposite sides of the lens body (4 center at 2) to connect the circuit board 3 and the case 10/12 (via 11), and the rugged structure (top portion of 12) contacting an inner lateral surface of the second supporting portion (at 4e) adjacent to the lens body (4 center) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 7, Nishioka et al. teach a structural width of the second supporting portion (at 4e) is the same as or smaller than a structural width of the first supporting portion (at 2) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 8, Nishioka et al. teach the case 10/12 further comprising an abutting surface connected with a lateral wall of the opening structure (at 11) and adapted to abut against the lens component 4 (via 11), the rugged structure (top portion of 12) concavely formed on position of the abutting surface facing the lens component 4 (via 11) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 9, Nishioka et al. teach the lens component 4 comprising a lens body (4 center), a first supporting portion (at 2) and a second supporting portion (at 4e), the first supporting portion (at 2) and the second supporting portion (at 4e) respectively stretched from two opposite sides of the lens body (4 center) to connect the circuit board 3 and the case 10/12 (via 11), and the second supporting portion (at 4e) comprising a protruding portion (under 4e) inserted into the rugged structure (top portion of 12 via 11) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 10, Nishioka et al. teach the protruding portion disposed on an outer lateral surface of the second supporting portion (at 4e) opposite to the lens body (4 center), or an inner lateral surface of the second supporting portion (at 4e) adjacent to the lens body (4 center), or a middle part between the inner lateral surface and the outer lateral surface (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 11, Nishioka et al. teach the case 10/12 further comprising an abutting surface connected with a lateral wall of the opening structure (at 11) and adapted to abut against the lens component 4, the rugged structure (top portion of 12) protruded from position of the abutting surface aligning with the lens component 4 (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
12. The optical detection device of claim 1, wherein the lens component 4 comprising a lens body (4 center), a first supporting portion (at 2) and a second supporting portion (at 4e), the first supporting portion (at 2) and the second supporting portion (at 4e) respectively stretched from two opposite sides of the lens body (4 center) to connect the circuit board 3 and the case 10/12 (via 11), and the second supporting portion (at 4e) comprising a sunken portion adapted to assemble with the rugged structure (top portion of 12) (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 13, Nishioka et al. teach the rugged structure (top portion of 12) disposed on a lateral wall of the block (element between 10/12 and 4) facing the lens component 4 (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 14, Nishioka et al. teach the rugged structure (top portion of 12) being a sunken structure, and the lens component 4 comprising a protruding portion (under 4e) adapted to insert into the sunken structure (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
In regard to claim 15, Nishioka et al. teach the rugged structure (top portion of 12) being a protruding structure adapted to insert into a sunken structure formed on the lens component 4 (Figure 14(a), pages 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0085]).
However, Nishioka et al. fail to teach the preamble and the intended use of for extending an electrostatic discharge path from the opening structure to a nearest electrode of the plurality of electrodes.
In regard to claim 1 concerning the preamble an optical detection device with enhanced electrostatic discharge immunity, If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). And in regard to “for extending an electrostatic discharge path from the opening structure to a nearest electrode of the plurality of electrodes”, It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical device structure as taught by Nishioka et al. to be capable of function and intended use of the claimed invention to improve device characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to optical devices:
Avron et al. (US 7,821,564 B2) Chang (US 2011/0075021 A1)
Kamisaka et al. (JP 2007233262 A) Lin et al. (US 2018/0095204 A1)
Tanoue et al. (US 2020/0177774 A1) Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0005790 A1)
Yonemura et al. (US 2017/0179365 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDA M SOWARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
IMS
January 21, 2026
/IDA M SOWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898