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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 17(a-b), 18(c), 19(c), 20(c), 36(a-e), 37(a-e), and 38(a-b) should each read “Foc[[u]]al distance”
If the arrows ↓ shown above f in each of Figures 1(a-d), 12(b-c), and 13(b-c) imply a focal distance that is measured from any point above a bottom surface of 2, then these descriptions are at odds with Figure 2, which shows an upper end of f bound by a bottom surface of 2
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1-7, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, should read “n is a natural number greater than or equal to 1”
Each of claims 1-7, 11, and 14 should end with a period; see MPEP 608.01(m)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “lenses which have a focal distance f” and wherein “a distance between the emitting unit and a focal position of the optical element is defined as L1.” As depicted by applicant’s Figure 2, f and L1 appear to be measured from opposite directions — focal distance f originates from a surface of lenses 21, while distance L1 originates from a surface of light sources 10. Therefore, it is unclear what point(s) of origin should be used to determine directionality for f and L1 in applicant’s claimed expression.
Applicant also claims “n is a natural number greater than equal to 1.” It is unclear when/why a value greater than 1 should be used. The specification does not clarify this issue, and even appears to suggest that n may just be “an arbitrary natural number” ([0047]).
Claim 10 is rejected for posing similar issues of clarity.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, the expression
n
P
2
2
λ
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
simplifies to 0 < H2 < f. However, these expressions are at odds with at least Figures 1(c-d) & 13(b-c), which depict H2 as necessarily being larger than f. It is unclear whether the expression of claim 6 is incorrect, or Figures 1(c-d) & 13(b-c) are incorrect.
Examiner’s Note
7. While applicant’s specification does appear to satisfy these inequalities, it is worth noting that each of the following requirements must be met, in order to avoid 112(d) rejections for failing to further limit the scope of the respective claims from which these claims depend:
In claims 3 and 12, f <
P
2
2
λ
In claims 4 and 13, t < f or t <
P
2
2
λ
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kornblit et al. (US 20040184155 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kornblit discloses an optical system device (Fig. 36) comprising:
an optical element (Fig. 36, 50) that comprises lenses (Fig. 36, 51) which have a focal distance f ([0028], effective focal length), allow light with a wavelength λ to pass through ([0033]), and are arranged periodically at a pitch P ([0029]);
an emitting unit (Fig. 36, 60) that comprises a light source (Fig. 36, 61a) which emits the light with the wavelength λ to the plurality of lenses (Fig. 36, 61a emits 62 to 51);
a bottom member (Fig. 33, 134) that fastens the emitting unit ([0052], “the microlens array [50] couples optical beams from an array 60 of optical sources 61 to an array 70 of optical receptors 71”);
a side member (Fig. 33, 133) that fastens the optical element and the bottom member with each other (Fig. 33, 133 fastens the microlens array with 134); and
either one of or both of an upper-end-side bonding layer that bonds the optical element and an upper end of the side member with each other ([0100], 117) or a lower-end-side bonding layer that bonds the bottom member and a lower end to the side member ([0116], epoxy or polyimide).
Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein when a distance between the emitting unit and a focal position of the optical element is defined as L1, n is a natural number greater than equal to 1, the distance L1 satisfies the following formula.
n
P
2
2
λ
-
f
<
L
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of L1 such that the above expression was satisfied, 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 focal position value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 2, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein when a height from an upper surface of the bottom member to an emitting surface of the emitting unit is defined as H0, a height H1 from the upper surface of the bottom member to the upper end of the side member satisfies the following formula, and a thickness δ1 of the upper-end-side bonding layer is 0 < δ1 < f.
n
-
1
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 values of f and H1 such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 focal distance of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 3, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height H1 satisfies the following formula, and the thickness δ1 of the upper-end-side bonding layer is 0 < δ1 < f.
n
P
2
2
λ
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of f such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 focal distance of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 4, Kornblit discloses wherein the light source is a VCSEL ([0053]) that has a resonator length t which is a converted distance in a medium between the emitting unit and the optical element ([0043]).
Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height H1 satisfies the following formula, and the thickness δ1 of the upper-end-side bonding layer is 0 < δ1 < t.
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
-
t
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of t such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 resonator length of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein when a height from an upper surface of the bottom member to an emitting surface of the emitting unit is defined as H0, a height H2 from the lower end of the side member and a lower surface of the optical element satisfies the following formula.
(
n
-
1
)
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of H2 such that the above expression was satisfied, 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 height H2 of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height H2 satisfies the following formula, and a thickness δ2 of the lower-end-side bonding layer is 0 < δ2 < f.
n
P
2
2
λ
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of f such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 focal distance of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 7, Kornblit discloses wherein the light source is a VCSEL ([0053]) that has a resonator length t which is a converted distance in a medium between the emitting unit and the optical element ([0043]).
Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose where the height H2 satisfies the following formula, and the thickness δ2 of the lower-end-side bonding layer is 0 < δ2 < t.
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
-
t
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of t such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 resonator length of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Kornblit discloses a mask which is placed between the emitting unit and the optical element, and which diffuses or absorbs light reflected on a surface of the optical element (Fig. 3, 85 is placed between 60 and 50).
Regarding claim 9, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein an electrode of the emitting unit is placed at a position that does not reflect again, to the optical element, reflected light by a surface of the optical element.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because Kornblit’s disclosure makes no suggestion that electrodes of its emitting unit are reflective. 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 ensure that an electrode of the emitting unit was placed at a position that does not re-reflect light to an optical element, motivated by suppressing stray light.
Regarding claim 10, Kornblit discloses a manufacturing method for manufacturing ([0028], “the following sections describe…microlens apparatuses…as well as methods of making them”) an optical system device (Fig. 36) that comprises an optical element (Fig. 36, 50) that has lenses (Fig. 36, 51) which have a focal distance f ([0028], effective focal length), allow light with a wavelength λ to pass through ([0033]), and are arranged periodically at a pitch P ([0029]), an emitting unit (Fig. 36, 60) that includes a light source (Fig. 36, 61a) which emits the light with the wavelength λ to the plurality of lenses (Fig. 36, 61a emits 62 to 51), a bottom member (Fig. 33, 134) that fastens the emitting unit ([0052], “the microlens array [50] couples optical beams from an array 60 of optical sources 61 to an array 70 of optical receptors 71”), and a side member (Fig. 33, 133) that fastens the optical element and the bottom member with each other (Fig. 33, 133 fastens the microlens array with 134), the method comprising:
an upper-end-side bonding adhesive placing process to place a bonding adhesive between the optical element and an upper end of the side member ([0100], 117) or a lower-end-side bonding adhesive placing process to place a bonding adhesive between the bottom member and a lower end of the side member ([0116], epoxy or polyimide);
a distance adjusting process to adjust a distance between the emitting unit and the optical element by depressing the bonding adhesive in such a way that ([0116], during assembly), and
a bonding adhesive curing process to cure the bonding adhesive with the distance L1 being maintained ([0116]).
Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein when a distance between the emitting unit and a focal position of the optical element is defined as L1, and n is a natural number greater than or equal to 1, the distance L1 satisfies the following formula;
n
P
2
2
λ
-
f
<
L
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of L1 such that the above expression was satisfied, 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 focal position value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose, prior to the distance adjusting process, a side member forming process to form the side member on the bottom member in such a way that, when a height from an upper surface of the bottom member to an emitting surface of the emitting unit is defined as H0, a height H1 from the upper surface of the bottom member to the upper end of the side member satisfies the following formula.
n
-
1
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of H1 such that the above expression was satisfied, 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 focal distance of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the side member forming process, the side member is formed on the bottom member in such a way that the height H1 satisfies the following formula; 0 < δ1 < f.
n
P
2
2
λ
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
and in the distance adjusting process, the bonding adhesive placed in the upper-end-side bonding adhesive placing process is depressed in such a way that a thickness δ1 of the bonding adhesive becomes 0 < δ1 < f.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of f such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 focal distance of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 13, Kornblit discloses wherein the light source is a VCSEL ([0053]) that has a resonator length t which is a converted distance in a medium between the emitting unit and the optical element ([0043]).
Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the side forming process, the side member is formed on the bottom member in such a way that the height H1 satisfies the following formula;
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
-
t
+
H
0
<
H
1
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
and in the distance adjusting process, the bonding adhesive placed in the upper-end-side bonding adhesive placing process is depressed in such a way that the thickness δ1 of the bonding adhesive becomes 0 < δ1 < t.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of t such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 resonator length of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Kornblit fails to explicitly disclose, prior to the distance adjusting process, a side member forming process to the form the side member on the optical element in such a way that, when a height from an upper surface of the bottom member to an emitting surface of the emitting unit is defined as H0, a height H2 from the lower end of the side member and a lower surface of the optical element satisfies the following formula.
(
n
-
1
)
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of H2 such that the above expression was satisfied, 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 height H2 of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Kornblit fails to disclose wherein in the side member forming process, the side member is formed on the optical element in such a way that the heigh H2 satisfies the following formula;
n
P
2
2
λ
+
H
0
<
H
2
<
n
P
2
2
λ
+
f
+
H
0
and in the distance adjusting process, the bonding adhesive placed in the lower-end-side bonding adhesive placing process is depressed in such a way that a thickness δ2 of the bonding adhesive becomes 0 < δ2 < t.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 values of t and f such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 t and f values of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by improving aberration correction.
Regarding claim 16, Kornblit discloses wherein the light source is a VCSEL ([0053]) that has a resonator length t which is a converted distance in a medium between the emitting unit and the optical element ([0043]).
Kornblit fails to disclose wherein in the side member forming process, the side member is formed on the optical element in such a way that the height H2 satisfies the following formula;
and in the distance adjusting process, the bonding adhesive placed in the lower-end-side bonding adhesive placing process is depressed in such a way that the thickness δ2 of the bonding adhesive becomes 0 < δ2 < t.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, 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 value of t such that the above expressions were satisfied, 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 resonator length of the system such that the expressions were satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the device.
11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kornblit in view of Rossi et al. (US 9273846 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Kornblit fails to discloses wherein in the distance adjusting process, the bonding adhesive is depressed until a contrast of a dot pattern obtained by emitting light from the emitting unit to the optical element becomes greater than or equal to a predetermined value so as to adjust the distance between the emitting unit and the optical element.
However, Rossi teaches a similar microlens array having focal distance f (column 12 lines 13-16), light with a wavelength λ (column 4 lines 6-17), and a pitch P (Abstract), and discloses wherein an emitting unit and an optical element are adjusted and a contrast of a dot pattern obtained by emitting light from the emitting unit to the optical element becomes greater than or equal to a predetermined value (column 6 lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kornblit and Rossi such that the contrast of a dot pattern was greater than or equal to a predetermined value, motivated by producing illumination patterns “which have an increased complexity” (column 5 lines 50-51).
Conclusion
12. 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
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights