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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellis (US 2,764,058).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches an optical glass module comprising:
A first lens (17, figure 4) for being close to a light source to focus light rays from the light source,
A second lens (16, figure 4) for focusing light rays passing through the first lens (light rays emanate from 45);
The positions of the first lens and the second lens corresponding to each other (see figure 4), and a light focusing path being formed from the first lens to the second lens (17 is a condenser lens therefore focusing).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis teaches the first lens and the second lens are convex lenses (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Ellis teaches two sides of the first lens are respectively a convex surface of the first lens (the left side of 17, figure 4) and a plane of the first lens close to the light source (see right side of 17, figure 4, which faces 45); two sides of the second lens are respectively a convex surface (left side of 16, figure 4) of the second lens and a plane of the second lens (right surface of 16, figure 4), the convex surface of the first lens corresponds o the plane of the second lens (see figure 4, wherein the planar surface of 16 faces the convex surface of 17).
Regarding claim 4, Ellis teaches a condenser lens tube (38, figures 2 and 4) having a light focusing channel provided therein, wherein both the first lens and the second lens are provided in the light focusing channel (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ellis teaches the light focusing channel increases in diameter from the first lens to the second lens (see tapered shape of 38 from 45 to 16).
Regarding claim 6, Ellis teaches a snoot comprising an imaging negative film (column 2 lines 33-43), a mounting tube (33, figure 2), and the optical glass module of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein a mounting channel is provided in the mounting tube (see 20, 21, figure 4), one end of the mounting channel is sleeved on one end of the condenser lens tube (right end of the mounting channel is sleeved on the left end of the condenser tube in figure 4), the imaging negative film (column 2 lines 33-43) is provided in the mounting tube (see figure 4), and the light focusing path passes through the mounting channel and through the imaging negative film (11, figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Ellis teaches the mounting tube is provided with an insertion slot therethrough to the mounting channel, and the imaging negative film is detachably inserted into the mounting channel through the insertion slot (20, 21, figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Ellis teaches an extended optical glass module is movably provided at the other end of the mounting channel (see 28, figure 4).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 2,764,058) in view of Decker (US 2003/0059648 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ellis does not specify that the negative film is provided with a projected pattern of a plurality of through holes.
Decker teaches a snoot with a slide that has a plurality of different through holes for light control (30, figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pattern display of Ellis to use the patterns of Decker in order to make the pattern display compatible with photographic lighting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, closest prior art Ellis does not teach one end of the mounting channel is sleeved on one end of the lampshade.
Claims 9-15 contain allowable subject matter at least inasmuch as they depend from claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, closest prior art, Ellis, does not teach the one end of the mounting channel is detachably sleeved on the other end of the lens tube via a threaded structure.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter at least inasmuch as it depends from claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, prior art (Ellis) does not teach the optical glass module comprises the third through sixth lenses as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 6/09/2026
Prosecution Insights