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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figure 1), including claims 1-6 and 15-20, in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (WO 2018/100795) in view of Matsuda et al. (JP 2017-041639).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses an optical device comprising:
a light-transmissive body to allow light having a predetermined wavelength to pass therethrough (the translucent part 17 is preferably made of a material having a transparent part such as glass and transparent plastic; see at least page 3, 4th paragraph);
a housing to hold the light-transmissive body (4a, 16, 18);
a vibrator to vibrate the light-transmissive body held by the housing (10);
a first lens positioned in the housing to face the light-transmissive body (lens module 9);
a fixing portion to fix the first lens to the housing (camera body 4); and
wherein the fixing portion is connected to a portion of the housing that is a node of vibration by the vibrator (in the vibration shown in FIG. 7, the boundary 17c between the outermost periphery and the hatched portion 17a and the non-hatched portion 17b is a vibration node. Further, in the hatched area, the central part surrounded by the vibration nodes and the central part between the vibration nodes in the white area are the antinodes of the vibration; see at least page 4, 7th paragraph).
Fujimoto et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Fujimoto et al. is silent regarding a position adjustment portion that is provided in the fixing portion to adjust alignment of the first lens with respect to the light-transmissive body. Matsuda et al. (figures 18-19) teaches a position adjustment portion that is provided in the fixing portion to adjust alignment of the first lens with respect to the light-transmissive body (a spacer 65 is interposed between the mounting seat 62 of the main case 6 described above and the mounting portion 35c of the camera module 32 (FIG. 18). By preparing a plurality of types of spacers 65 having different thickness dimensions in advance as the spacer 65, or by overlapping one or more spacers 65 having the same thickness dimension, the variation in focal length of the bar code reader 2 is adjusted; see at least paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the position adjustment portion as taught by Matsuda et al. in order to improve flexibility of an illumination device.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the light-transmissive body is a second lens (the translucent part 17 has a dome shape and is preferably made of a material having a transparent part such as glass and transparent plastic; see at least page 3, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the vibrator includes at least one surface that is provided with a piezoelectric element (the vibration device 10 includes first to fourth piezoelectric vibrators 12 to 15; see at least page 3, 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fixing portion has a mechanical quality factor Qm smaller than a mechanical quality factor Qm of the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mechanical quality factor Qm of the fixing portion to be smaller than a mechanical quality factor Qm of the housing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify mechanical quality factor as taught by Matsuda et al. in order to provide faster vibration damping, lower acoustic resonance storage, and better thermal shock compliance. Claim 4 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 5, Fujimoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fixing portion is made of resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fixing portion being made of resin, since it was known in the art that resin lens spacers offer lightweight durability, high impact resistance, and low production costs. Claim 5 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda et al. (figures 18-19) teaches wherein the position adjustment portion is provided at an end portion of the fixing portion connected to the housing (32, 62, and 65).
Regarding claim 15, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses an imaging unit comprising: the optical device according to claim 1. Fujimoto et al. is silent regarding an imager positioned such that the light-transmissive body and the first lens are provided in a visual field direction of the imaging unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imager positioned such that the light-transmissive body and the first lens are provided in a visual field direction of the imaging unit, since it was known in the art that such combination provides clear optical pathways, reduces internal reflections, and maximizes light collection efficiency. Claim 15 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 16, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the light-transmissive body is a second lens (the translucent part 17 has a dome shape and is preferably made of a material having a transparent part such as glass and transparent plastic; see at least page 3, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Fujimoto et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the vibrator includes at least one surface that is provided with a piezoelectric element (the vibration device 10 includes first to fourth piezoelectric vibrators 12 to 15; see at least page 3, 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Fujimoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fixing portion has a mechanical quality factor Qm smaller than a mechanical quality factor Qm of the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mechanical quality factor Qm of the fixing portion to be smaller than a mechanical quality factor Qm of the housing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify mechanical quality factor as taught by Matsuda et al. in order to provide faster vibration damping, lower acoustic resonance storage, and better thermal shock compliance. Claim 18 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 19, Fujimoto et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fixing portion is made of resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fixing portion being made of resin, since it was known in the art that resin lens spacers offer lightweight durability, high impact resistance, and low production costs. Claim 19 is therefore unpatentable.
Regarding claim 20, Matsuda et al. (figures 18-19) teaches wherein the position adjustment portion is provided at an end portion of the fixing portion connected to the housing (32, 62, and 65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights