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 .
1.Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1, line 7, the period needs to be deleted and the line amended accordingly so that “portion. The” is changed to –portion, the--. At line 11 of claim 1, The recitation “hot melt connecting” is indefinite as it is not clear exactly what is being specified. Hot melt connecting would appear to mean melting the first connection portion and/or the second connection portion, although such would also refer to employing a hot melt adhesive. It should be clearly set forth in claim 1 exactly which portions are being melted if such is occurring so that it is clear that no hot melt adhesive is being used. Claim 5, line 6, “is capable moves” is stilted grammatically and either “is capable” should be deleted or “moves” should be changed to –of moving--. Claim 5, line 8 and lines 12 and 13, applicant has changed the language of the peripheral portion of the lens from “connection” to –connecting--. Hence, “the first connecting portion” at line 8 and the connecting portion occurrences at lines 12 and 13 lack antecedent basis since they were earlier set forth as “connection portion”. Claim 11, line 2, “the pressing groove” lacks antecedent basis. Also, it is it is not clear what is intended by the language “is same with a standard surface of the first lens” at line 2 of claim 11. Does applicant mean that the first lens fits into the pressing groove? Also, what is the significance of “standard surface”? Clarification concerning this is required. Claim 14, line 4, “the insulating board” lacks antecedent basis. The same for the occurrence at lines 2 and 3 of claim 15. Claim 16, lines 7 and 8, “connection” should be –connecting--. Applicant should employ consistent terminology throughout the claims when referring to the same components. Claim 17, line 2 the comma is misplaced above the line and this requires editing.
2.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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Suzuki et al 7,885,018 (see 4 and 6 in Fig. 1; column 6, line 3).
Suzuki et al discloses a lens assembly comprised of a first lens and second lens (4, 6), each lens having an optical portion near the center and a connecting portion at the edges of the lens, wherein the lenses are plastic (see col. 6, line 3) and the faces of the optical portions are bonded together and the connecting portions are connected to each other. The patentability of product claims depends on the structure claimed, not the method by which the product is made. In the instant case, the instant method does not provide any additional structure that is not taught in Suzuki et al.
3.Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al 7,885,018 in view of Taiwan Patent TW M3999921 (see 70 in Fig. 4).
Suzuki et al discloses the basic claimed lens assembly as set forth in paragraph 2, supra, the primary reference essentially lacking a plating layer coated on the second optical portion/second face. Taiwan -921 shows such a plating layer as 70 in Fig. 4, the layer being between two lenses in a lens assembly and coated as set forth in instant claim 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the lens assembly of Suzuki et al as taught by TW -921 dependent on the optical function desired for the lens assembly. In this regard, see the last eight lines of page 3 of the translation of TW -921, teaching radiation filtering films for the plating layer.
4.Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al .
Suzuki et al (see Figs. 2a and 2b) discloses the basic claimed manufacturing method of a lens assembly comprising joining two lenses (4,5) having optical portions and connecting portions including the steps of heating a first lens (5) and softening the lens and pressing the softened first lens (5) to the second lens (4) to thereby bond the first and second faces—as well as the connecting portions-- of the two lenses together. The applied reference essentially lacks a clear teaching that the connection portions are hot melt connected during the bonding of the faces. It is clear that the first lens (5) is heated to a temperature 485 deg C which is higher than the softening point (459 deg C) of the material of the first lens and hence the lens material is deformed during the pressing and bonding. The second lens (4) is also deformed during the bonding (compare the upper face of element 4 between Figs. 2a and 2b), so it must therefore achieve sufficient moldability or softening to be deformed. It is submitted that the degree of heating applied to the first lens to enable a softening—as taught in Suzuki et al—or a melting to enable a hot melt connecting of the connection portions would have been an obvious modification to the method of the applied reference dependent on the extent of bonding desired between the two lenses. It is certainly within the skill level of the art to heat a material past its softening temperature-- and up to a melting temperature -- given that the shape of the lens element so heated can be changed as is generally shown in Suzuki et al and hence the aspect of hot melt connecting the connection portions of the lenses is submitted to have been an obvious aspect in the applied reference. It is submitted that heating as set forth in instant claim 2 is obvious over Suzuki et al for the reasons just given. Certainly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to heat the lens portions of the first lens to a desired temperature -- be it softening or melting—to achieve the desired bonding between the two lenses. Instant claim 4 is taught in Figs. 2a and 2b of the applied reference. Concerning instant claim 5, the locating mold with groove to receive the second lens 4 is shown as lower die 2 and the pressing mold as upper die 1 in Figs. 2a and 2b of the applied reference. Suzuki et al teaches heating the lens 5 and such would require a heating assembly as set forth in instant claim 5. It is submitted that providing a heating assembly that is capable of moving would have been obvious in Suzuki et al to facilitate heating the first lens 5 as needed. Heating elements inside molds as set forth in instant claim 6 are conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and such would have been an obvious modification to the device of Suzuki et al to facilitate heating the lens to the desired temperature. The upper die 1 of Suzuki et al (see Figs. 2a and 2b) presses the first lens 5 against the second lens 4. It certainly would have been obvious to have modified the upper die with a pressing groove into which a surface of the first lens 5 would fit as set forth in instant claim 11 dependent on the exact final shape desired for lens 5. Again, the lower die contains a locating groove for the second lens 4 and such would have been an obvious feature in the fitting of the first lens 5 and upper die 1. Instant claims 12 and 13 are submitted to be well known in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—and are rejected essentially for the same reasons as instant claim 6 supra. A heating tube embedded in a pressing mold is notoriously well known and such would constitute an obvious non-contacting heating arrangement to perform the required heating in Suzuki et al.
5.The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A translation of TW M399992 is attached as indicated on the accompanying 892 form.
6.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742