DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, claims 1-5 and 12 in the reply filed on Apr. 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-11 and 13 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical errors. In line 1, “molding of lens” should be “molding of a lens”. In line 14, “each in ring-shaped” should be “each ring-shaped”. In line 15 “each in ring-shaped” should be “each ring-shaped”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 12 is/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.
In line 3 of claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation “a plurality of first molding parts”, but in lines 6-7, Applicant references “the first molding part”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the limitation in lines 6-7 applies to the plurality of first molding parts, just one of the plurality of first molding parts or each first molding part.
In line 5 of claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation “second molding parts”, but in line 7 of claim 1, Applicant claims “the second molding part”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the limitation in lines 7-8 for “the second molding part” applies to “the second molding parts”, just one of the second molding parts or each second molding part.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding first molding part" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, since there are a plurality of first molding parts, it is unclear to the Examiner which first molding part Applicant is referencing or if Applicant is referencing each first molding part.
In line 6 of claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation “first balancing rings”, but in lines 8-9 of claim 1, Applicant claims “the first balancing ring”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the limitation in lines 8-9 for “the first balancing ring” applies to “the first balancing rings”, just one of the first balancing rings, or each first balancing ring.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding second molding part” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, since there are second molding parts, it is unclear to the Examiner which second molding part Applicant is referencing or if Applicant is referencing each second molding part.
Additionally, in lines 10-11 of Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the outer peripheral edge of the second molding part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, since second molding parts are recited in line 5, it is unclear to the Examiner which second molding part Applicant is referencing in lines 10-11.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “the outer peripherals of the third molding parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the outer peripherals of the third molding parts” should be “ outer peripherals of the annular third molding parts”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer peripherals of the fourth molding parts" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets “the outer peripherals of the fourth molding parts” should be “outer peripherals of the fourth molding parts”.
In line 16 of claim 1, Applicant recites “the second balance ring” and “the outer peripheral edge of the fourth molding part, but it is unclear to the Examiner which second balance ring or which outer peripheral edge of the fourth molding parts Applicant is referencing.
Claim 1, lines 19-20 recites “the first molding part and the third molding part”, and it is unclear to the Examiner which first molding part and which third molding part is being referenced.
Claim 1, line 22 recites “the second molded part” and “the fourth molded part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The Examiner notes there are “second molding parts” and “fourth molding parts”.
Claim 1, line 24 recites “the first balancing ring” and “the second balancing ring”, but recites “first balancing rings” in line 6 and “second balancing rings” in line 15. It is unclear to the Examiner which balancing ring is being referenced for first balancing rings and second balancing rings.
Please clarify claim 1. Examined claims 2-5 and 12 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite. Due to the excessive antecedent basis issues in claim 1, the Examiner is requesting Applicant Please check for antecedent basis for all structural limitations of the mold claimed in claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 12 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite and the antecedent basis issues of claim 1.
In general claim 1 claims a first mold comprising a plurality of first molding parts, second molding parts, and first balancing rings, and a second mold comprising a plurality of annular third molding parts, fourth molding parts, and second balancing rings. Claim 1 then claims the first molding part, the second molding part, the first balance ring, the third molding part, the fourth molding part, and the second balance ring, but fails to clarify if Applicant is referencing each of these parts/rings or which one of these parts/rings Applicant is referencing. Claim 5 also claims the first molding part, the second molding part, the first balance ring, the third molding part, the fourth molding part, and the second balance ring, but fails to clarify if Applicant is referencing each of these parts/rings or which one of these parts/rings Applicant is referencing.
Claim 12 claims functional language of the first balancing ring and the second balancing ring. The functional language states “the first balancing ring and the second balancing ring jointly realize overflow or flow obstruction”. It is unclear to the Examiner what structural limitations Applicant I attempting to claim with this limitation.
Examiner Comments - Claims
There are no prior art rejections against claim 1. However, there are 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with claims 1-5 and 12. Accordingly allowability of claim 1 is unable to be determined. If claim 1 is allowed, claims 6-11 can be rejoined if the resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with claim 1 do not conflict with the scope of limitations claimed in claims 6-11 and if 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues in claims 6-11 are resolved along with resolution of issues identified in claim 1.
The Examiner notes, for claim 13, the wherein statement including “wherein the method is implemented based on the mold according to claim 1”, can be interpreted as not requiring the mold of claim 1. The Examiner will consider rejoining of claim 13 if it is clear there is an active step of providing the mold in the body of claim 1 with the claimed active steps of S1-S6.
Below is a discussion of the closest prior art, assuming the Examiner’s interpretation of a first mold comprising plurality of molding parts with second molding parts and first balancing rings, wherein each second molding part is in a ring shape formed at an outer periphery of a corresponding first molding part, and wherein each first balance ring is in a ring shape and surrounds a corresponding second molding part, and a second mold comprising a plurality of annular third molding parts with fourth molding parts and second balancing rings, wherein each fourth molding part is in a ring shape formed at an outer periphery of a corresponding third molding part, and a wherein each second balancing ring is in a ring shape and surrounds a corresponding fourth molding part.
Yamada et al. (US 2010/0290123) ([0013]-[0014], [0022], Fig. 1A, and Fig. 10) discloses a manufacturing apparatus for manufacturing a wafer lens array of Fig. 1A. Yamada discloses a first mold (“upper mold 111”) and a second mold (“lower mold 113”) matching the first mold arranged correspondingly. Yamada ([0014] and Figs. 2A-2F) discloses modified examples of the wafer lens array of Figs. 1A and 1B and ([0010] and Figs. 10, 11A-11B) discloses forming a first mold and second mold having a transfer surface to mold softened material between the transfer surface of the first mold and the second mold.
Yamada (Figs. 10 and 11A-11B) teaches a product forming mold comprising a first body having a plurality of first molding parts with an arc-shaped surface formed by a side of the first mold body close to the second mold body. As discussed above, Yamada ([0014] and Figs. 2A-2F) teaches modified examples of the wafer lens array. While Yamada does not explicitly teach forming a first mold and a second mold providing for the modified wafer lens arrays of Figs. 2A-2F, Yamada teaches molds formed by forming a master having the same shape as the product and forming upper and lower molds (i.e. first and second molds) such that the upper and lower molds are fitted to the master (for example, see paragraphs [0010] and [0012]). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art an apparatus comprising a first mold and a second mold formed so as to be complimentary to the modified wafer lens arrays of Figs. 2A-2F.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With the obviousness to form a first and second mold to be complimentary to the modified wafer lens arrays of Figs. 2A-2F (see annotated Fig. 2D below), Yamada teaches a first mold comprising a first mold body, a plurality of first molding parts with an arc-shaped surfaced (example - labeled with region A – 103a) by a side of the first mold close to the second mold, second molding parts (example labeled with region B) each second molding part ring-shaped and formed by outer peripherals of the first molding part and first balancing rings (example labeled with region C), each first balance ring (region C) surrounds each second molding part (region B) and configured to facilitate an inclined transition between the outer peripheral edge of the each second molding part and the side of the first mold body close to the second mold.
Yamada (annotated Fig. 2B above) teaches a second mold comprising a second mold body, a plurality of annular third molding parts (example slope feature labeled with region D) formed on a side of the second mold body close to the first mold, fourth molding parts each ring-shaped (example depression region labeled E) and respectively formed around outer peripherals of third molding parts (example slope feature labeled region D) and second balancing rings (example protrusion feature labeled region F) formed by the outer peripherals of the fourth molding parts (example depression region labeled E) and each second balance ring (protrusion feature labeled region F) ring-shaped and formed by outer peripherals of the fourth molding parts (example depression region labeled E) and each second balance ring is configured to facilitate a transition between an outer peripheral edge of the fourth molding part and the side of the second mold body close to the first mold. As discussed above, Yamada (Fig. 10) discloses the first mold and the second mold arranged correspondingly. Based on the obviousness to form a first and second mold to be complimentary to the modified wafer lens arrays of Figs. 2A-2F and annotated Fig. 2D above. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, a first molding part (example – labeled with region A) corresponds to a third molding part (example – labeled with region D) and are spaced apart to from a first gap, the first gap is configured to form an optical part of the lens. Yamada discloses a second mold part and a fourth mold part are spaced apart from each other to form a second gap. Yamada discloses the plurality of first molding parts are arranged in an array and the plurality of the third molding parts are arranged in an array, as claimed in claim 2.
Yamada fails to disclose one of a second mold part and one of a fourth mold part correspond to each other and the first balancing ring and the second balancing ring correspond to each other and are spaced apart from each other to form a third gap, and the third gap is configured to form an auxiliary part of the lens, as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights