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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Taiwan Patent Application No. 113116281, filed on May 1, 2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi Akishi (JP 2011043433 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi Akishi teaches an optical ranging module (e.g., Technical-Field “The present invention relates to an optical distance measuring sensor that optically detects a distance to an object, and an electronic device equipped with the same”), comprising: a base (e.g., 11 and/or 1); a light transmitting unit (e.g., Figures 1, 10, 13, 14) including a first optical lens (e.g., 19 and/or 7) and an infrared light source (e.g., 12 and/or 2), wherein the infrared light source is disposed on the base; a light receiving unit (e.g., Figures 1, 10, 13, 14) including a second optical lens (e.g., 20 and/or 7) and a photosensitive element (e.g., 13 and/or 3), wherein the photosensitive element is disposed on the base; and a light shielding cap (e.g., 21 and/or 8) disposed on the base, wherein first and second accommodation spaces (e.g., Figures 7 and/or 14(b)) are defined between the light shielding cap and the base for respectively accommodating the light transmitting unit and the light receiving unit, wherein the light shielding cap includes first and second opening regions (e.g., 26; 27; Figure 14(b)) for respectively disposing the first and second optical lenses; wherein the first and second optical lenses have an integrally formed structure (e.g., DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS “… a lens plate 21 in which a light emitting side lens 19 and a light receiving side lens 20 has are formed by molding, and this optical distance measuring sensor is provided… As shown in FIG. 5, a plurality of lens plates 21 in which holes 26 and 27 are provided in a portion where the light emitting side lens 19 and the light receiving side lens 20 are molded are arranged on a single metal plate 25 by punching, for example. Is formed. Then, the light emitting side lens 19 and the light receiving side lens 20 are formed in the holes 26 and 27 in each lens plate 21 by molding using a thermosetting resin such as an epoxy resin containing a dye that cuts visible light. Form. After that, the individual lens plates 21 are separated”).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
178
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, including “integrally formed structure” and the like. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974). However, even where the claim limitation may be narrowly interpreted as a singularly and uniformly formed structure, Yamaguchi Akishi states as part of “BACKGROUDN-ART,” e.g., Figures 14(a) and 14(b) that “although the lenses 7 and 7 and the case 8 are thermoplastic resins in any case, since the resin materials are different, they are integrally formed by injection molding called two-color molding… the storage case is formed of a conductive resign containing carbon and grounded to GND (Ground), so that the distance measuring sensor is affected by electromagnetic noise from the outside.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize known techniques or method in forming a first and second lens structure integral structure. The claim would have been obvious because the technique molding, injection molding, thermosetting resin, two-color molding, and the like were part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Yamaguchi Akishi. Specifically, all the claimed element were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the old vs. new method of as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing a cost to manufacture as well as minimizing assembly error(s), increase tolerance, and the like for more precise performance out of the optical ranging module by making parts integral.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Yamaguchi Akishi further teaches the optical ranging module according to claim 1, wherein the first and second optical lenses are made of the same material or different materials (e.g., “BACKGROUND ART – … the resin material are different”).
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 9, Yamaguchi Akishi further teaches the optical ranging module according to claim 2, wherein the light shielding cap comprises a positioning pillar (e.g., 29-31, 28-30, and/or 8) disposed between the first and second optical lenses for positioning the first and second optical lenses.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Yamaguchi Akishi further teaches the optical ranging module according to claim 2, further comprising: a light shielding material (e.g., Abstract “… since the lens plate 21 is provided with a projection part 21a, light form the light emission side is prevented from directly entering a lens 20 on the light reception side”) located between the first and second optical lenses (e.g., Figure 6), wherein the light shielding material and the first and second optical lenses are an integrally formed structure.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Yamaguchi Akishi further teaches the optical ranging module according to claim 3, further comprising: a light shielding material located between the first and second optical lenses, wherein the light shielding material and the first and second optical lenses are an integrally formed structure.
Regarding claim 6. Yamaguchi Akishi teaches the same/similar optical ranging module as described above satisfying apparatus claimed limitation(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specify methods with the teachings of Yamaguchi Akishi. The claim, i.e., both independent and its dependent claims, would have been obvious because the technique of assembling an optical ranging module with necessary steps would have been part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Yamaguchi Akishi.
Therefore, Yamaguchi Akishi teaches a method of assembling an optical ranging module, comprising steps of: providing a base; disposing an infrared light source of a light transmitting unit and a photosensitive element of a light receiving unit on the base; disposing a light shielding cap on the base, wherein the light shielding cap includes first and second opening regions; and respectively disposing a first optical lens of the light transmitting unit and a second optical lens of the light receiving unit in the first and second opening regions, wherein the first and second optical lenses have an integrally formed structure, and first and second accommodation spaces are defined between the light shielding cap and the base for respectively accommodating the light transmitting unit and the light receiving unit. Also, dependent claims 7-14 are similarly rejected as described above.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi Akishi (JP 2011043433 A) in view of Chen Huang-Chang (TW 201111144 A).
Yamaguchi Akishi teaches various method of manufacturing an optical lens and its structure to integrally formed via injection molding called two-color molding as we as other techniques including, molding, thermoplastic resins, thermosetting resin such as an epoxy resin, and the like.
Yamaguchi Akishi does not explicitly state or explain the details of these known manufacturing techniques, including singe more core, measuring, and cutting.
Chen Huang-Chang teaches general optical lens and method of manufacturing including these details, including manufacturing a single mole core (e.g., 51, 52), measuring the single mold core (e.g., Description “… the positioning mechanism 9141 can be used as an eccentricity measurement”) disposing the single mole core in a molding machine (e.g., Figure 6, 19, 20), and using the single mold core to make at least one lens material (e.g., 2) into a semi-finished product of first and second optical lenses having an integrally formed structure (e.g.,, Figure 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use optical lens manufacturing method of Chen Huang-Chang and incorporate making lens integral . All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the teachings of Yamaguchi Akishi as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result to reduce a cost to manufacture as well as minimizing assembly error(s), increase tolerance, and the like for more precise performance out of the optical ranging module by making parts integral. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13. Yamaguchi Akishi in view of Chen Huang-Chang teaches the method of manufacturing an optical lens of an optical ranging module according to claim 12, further comprising steps of: simultaneously cutting (e.g., “Description … SA4: cutting the optical lens array to separate into a plurality of single lenses”) an outer contour of the semi-finished product of the first and second optical lenses to form the first and second optical lenses having an integrally molded structure, wherein the first and second optical lenses are made of the same material or different materials. In addition to the obviousness statement provide above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture multi lens optical ranging module as taught by both Chen Huang-Chang and Yamaguchi Akishi. In this case, while utilizing the manufacturing method of Chen Huang-Chang to cut a pair of lens instead of a single lens as this involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wada et al. (US 2013/0001398 A1) – Optical distance-measuring device and electronic device
Wada et al. (US 2013/0003039 A1) – Optical distance-measuring device and electronic device
Yamamoto et al. (US 2004/0263824 A1) – Range finder
Lee et al. (USPN 10,890,837 B2) – Structured light projection system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB Y CHOI whose telephone number is (469)295-9060. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays from 5:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. CT.
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.
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.
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights