Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/463,801

LENS MIRROR ARRAY

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 08, 2023
Examiner
JORDAN, DANIEL JEFFERY
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toshiba TEC Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
62%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
30 granted / 48 resolved
-5.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
89
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.9%
+11.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 48 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 12/15/2025) with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. On page 7, the applicant argues that Shiraishi (US 20200106911 A1, of record) “does not disclose a lens mirror array including at least one travel inhibiting surface among at least one downstream-side reflection surface, the at least one traveling inhibiting surface including a plurality of grooves.” However, Shiraishi does disclose a lens mirror array (Fig. 3, 20) including at least one travel inhibiting surface (Figs. 6, outer face surface of 26) among at least one downstream-side reflection surface (Fig. 7, 24), the at least one traveling inhibiting surface including a plurality of grooves (Fig. 6, 27). Applicant further argues that “the grooves 27 of Shiraishi surround the alleged upstream-side reflection surface, not the alleged downstream-side reflection surface.” However, the applicant has not claimed “grooves surrounding a downstream-side reflection surface,” so it is unclear what distinction the applicant is attempting to make. While [0078] of Shiraishi does disclose that “[t]he grooves 27 are formed to surround end portions of the plurality of upstream-side reflecting surfaces 23,” the configurations presented in (at least) Figures 6-7 of Shiraishi show at least one travel inhibiting surface (Fig. 6, outer face surface of 26) among the at least one downstream-side reflection surface 24, as claimed by applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 4. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi (US 20200106911 A1, of record). Regarding claim 1, Shiraishi discloses a lens mirror array (Fig. 3, 20) comprising a plurality of optical elements (Fig. 3, 21) arrayed in a main scanning direction (Fig. 7, along the z-axis direction), the lens mirror array configured such that: each of the optical elements includes an incident surface (Fig. 7, 22) that transmits and converges light made incident thereon ([0073]); at least one reflection surface (Fig. 7, 23-24) having positive optical power for reflecting and converging the light made incident via the incident surface ([0082], 24), the at least one reflection surface comprising at least one downstream-side reflection surface (Fig. 7, 24) and at least one upstream-side reflection surface (Fig. 7, 23); an emission surface (Fig. 7, 25) that emits the light reflected by the reflection surface ([0076]), and the lens mirror array comprises: at least one travel inhibiting surface among the at least one downstream-side reflection surface (Fig. 6, outer face surface of 26), the at least one travel inhibiting surface comprising a plurality of grooves (Fig. 6, 27) arranged in the main scanning direction of the plurality of optical elements ([0078]); and a light blocking member (Fig. 7, 26) provided in the plurality of grooves ([0079]). Regarding claim 2, Shiraishi discloses wherein the at least one travel inhibiting surface having a predetermined width in the main scanning direction (Fig. 6, outer facing surface of 26) is present between the at least one reflection surface (Fig. 6, between 23 and 24), and the plurality of grooves are provided side by side in a width direction on the at least one travel inhibiting surface (Fig. 6, 27). Regarding claim 3, Shiraishi discloses wherein the at least one travel inhibiting surface continues to an adjacent reflection surface in the main scanning direction without a step (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 4, Shiraishi discloses wherein the at least one travel inhibiting surface projects further to an outer side than an adjacent reflection surface in the main scanning direction (Fig. 7, further than 22). Regarding claims 5 and 7, Shiraishi discloses wherein the plurality of grooves are shaped to receive light blocking ink ([0077]) by capillary action ([0079]) and allow the light blocking ink to spread to the plurality of grooves ([0079]), the light blocking ink being hardenable to form the light blocking member ([0077]). Regarding claim 8, Shiraishi discloses one ink application surface to which the light blocking ink is applied ([0077], surface of 21), the ink application surface being connected to the at least one travel inhibiting surface among the at least one reflection surface on one end side of the plurality of grooves (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 9, Shiraishi discloses wherein the ink application surface is an inclined surface, with respect to the at least one travel inhibiting surface, to a side where the plurality of grooves are provided (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 10, Shiraishi discloses wherein the ink application surface is a surface disposed at an obtuse angle with respect to the at least one travel inhibiting surface (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 11, Shiraishi discloses wherein the plurality of grooves are provided at a fixed pitch in a plurality of regions of a predetermined width in the main scanning direction centering on an edge where two downstream-side reflection surfaces of the at least one reflection surface are adjacent in a main scanning direction cross (Fig. 6, edge where surfaces 24 cross). Regarding claim 13, Shiraishi discloses the lens mirror array further comprising an ink application surface connected to the at least one travel inhibiting surface on one end side in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of grooves ([0077] & Fig. 6). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi. Regarding claim 6, Shiraishi discloses wherein the plurality of grooves are formed among a plurality of triangular prisms of a structure (Figs. 6-7) having one side being approximately 2 µm to approximately 20 µm in length, the plurality of triangular prisms being arranged in a direction crossing an axial direction of the triangular prisms (Figs. 6-7). Shiraishi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the structure has one side being approximately 2 µm to approximately 20 µm in length. However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, shapes of optical components, and device size, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the size of one side of Shiraishi’s structure (depicted in its Figs. 6-7) such that the side was approximately 2-20 µm in length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the size dimensions of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by maintaining device compactness. 7. Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi in view of Shiraishi (US 20220187581 A, of record, hereinafter referred to as Shiraishi ‘581). Regarding claim 12, Shiraishi discloses wherein the two downstream-side reflection surfaces are free curved surfaces extending toward an outer side (Fig. 7, 24), and the plurality of grooves have a shape curved along the free curved surfaces (Fig. 6, zig-zag portions to the right of 28). Shiraishi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the two downstream-side reflection surfaces are free curved surfaces. However, Shiraishi ‘581 teaches a similar lens mirror array (Figs. 3 & 10), and discloses wherein a downstream-side reflection surface is a free curved surface ([0079], 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shiraishi and Shiraishi ‘581 such that the two downstream-side reflection surfaces were free curved surfaces, motivated by accommodating more precise optical needs. Regarding claim 14, Shiraishi discloses wherein the at least one downstream-side reflection surface is a free curved surface convex to an outer side (Fig. 7; [0071], “24 … [is] curved to as to be convex outward”) and the at least one upstream-side reflections surface is flat (Fig. 7; [0071], “23 is a flat surface”). Shiraishi fails to disclose wherein the at least one downstream-side reflection surface is a free curved surface. However, Shiraishi ‘581 teaches a similar lens mirror array (Figs. 3 & 10), and discloses wherein a downstream-side reflection surface is a free curved surface ([0079], 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shiraishi and Shiraishi ‘581 such that the at least one downstream-side reflection surface was a free curved surface, motivated by accommodating more precise optical needs. Regarding claim 15, Shiraishi discloses wherein the at least one upstream-side reflection surface is adjacent to an opposite side of a projecting portion with respect to an incident-side lens surface (Shiraishi - Fig. 7, of projecting portion 28). Regarding claim 16, Shiraishi discloses wherein the downstream-side reflection surface totally reflects the reflected light reflected by the upstream-side reflection surface toward the emission surface (Shiraishi - [0073] & [0075]). Conclusion 8. 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. 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p. 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. /D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 08, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591113
LENS ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12566316
CAMERA OPTICAL LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12461343
OPTICAL IMAGING LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12429711
OPHTHALMIC DEVICE WITH BUILT-IN SELF-TEST CIRCUITRY FOR TESTING AN ADJUSTABLE LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Patent 12429715
Synthesis and Application of Light Management with Thermochromic Hydrogel Microparticles
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
62%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 48 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month