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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 3, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the reference numbers should either be in parentheses of deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the erecting equal-magnification image” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted “the erecting equal-magnification image” as “an erecting equal-magnification image”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagata et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0014641).
With regard to independent claim 1, Yamagata et al teaches an optical device (page 1, paragraph [0001] and Figures 14A and 15) comprising: a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 1-3; page 5, paragraph [0057], lines 1-6 and Figures 14A, and 15, element 1), where the lenses are arrayed such that optical axes of the lenses are substantially parallel to each other (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 8-11); and a transparent dielectric array comprising a plurality of transparent dielectrics (Figure 15, element 13), where the transparent dielectrics are arrayed such that central axes of the transparent dielectrics are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]),wherein the lens array and the transparent dielectric array are arranged such that the optical axes and the central axes are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]) and an end surface of the lens array faces an end surface of the transparent dielectric array (Figure 15, wherein the bottom surface of element 1 faces the top surface of element 14).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Yamagata et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical device wherein the lenses each is a rod lens having a refractive index distribution in a radial direction (page 1, paragraph [0004] and page 2, paragraph [0037], pages 11-14).
With regard to dependent claim 8, Yamagata et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches an image sensor comprising such an optical device (page 3, paragraph [0039]).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Yamagata et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches a method for manufacturing such an optical device comprising: arranging the transparent dielectric array and the lens array such that the central axes of the transparent dielectrics are substantially parallel to the optical axes of the lenses and the end surface of the transparent dielectric array faces the end surface of the lens array substantially in parallel such an optical device (Figure 15, wherein the bottom surface of element 1 faces the top surface of element 14).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagata et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0014641) in view of Boek et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0258485).
With regard to dependent claim 10, although Yamagata et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 9, and further teaches the lens array to be constructed of glass rods (page 5, paragraph [0061]) glass rods are substantially parallel to each other; and forming a pair of planes substantially perpendicular to the central axes of the glass rods to obtain the transparent dielectrics (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 8-11), Yamagata et al fails to teach such a method comprising: wherein the plurality of glass rods are obtained by a down-draw process. In a related endeavor, manufacturing glass rods, Boek et al teaches a method of manufacturing an array of glass rods (page 2, paragraph [0011]) using a down-draw method (page 2, paragraph [0031]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method, as taught by Yamagata et al, with the down-draw method, as taught by Boek et al, as a known alternative in the glass manufacturing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7 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.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Although Yamagata et al teaches an optical device (page 1, paragraph [0001] and Figures 14A and 15) comprising: a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 1-3; page 5, paragraph [0057], lines 1-6 and Figures 14A, and 15, element 1), where the lenses are arrayed such that optical axes of the lenses are substantially parallel to each other (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 8-11); and a transparent dielectric array comprising a plurality of transparent dielectrics (Figure 15, element 13), where the transparent dielectrics are arrayed such that central axes of the transparent dielectrics are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]),wherein the lens array and the transparent dielectric array are arranged such that the optical axes and the central axes are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]) and an end surface of the lens array faces an end surface of the transparent dielectric array (Figure 15, wherein the bottom surface of element 1 faces the top surface of element 14), Yamagata et al fails to teach such an optical device: simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 0.3 x Po < Pi < 0.8 x Po, as claimed and defined in dependent claim 3; simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: AI = 2 X (Imax - Imin)/(Imax + Imin), as claimed and defined in dependent claim 5; or simultaneously satisfying the conditional expressions: tanθ0·H/n1 > P1/2 and sinθ0 = n0·g·r0, as claimed and defined in dependent claim 7.
With regard to dependent claim 4, claim 4 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 2 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
With regard to dependent claim 6, Yamagata et al teaches an optical device (page 1, paragraph [0001] and Figures 14A and 15) comprising: a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 1-3; page 5, paragraph [0057], lines 1-6 and Figures 14A, and 15, element 1), where the lenses are arrayed such that optical axes of the lenses are substantially parallel to each other (page 2, paragraph [0037], lines 8-11); and a transparent dielectric array comprising a plurality of transparent dielectrics (Figure 15, element 13), where the transparent dielectrics are arrayed such that central axes of the transparent dielectrics are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]),wherein the lens array and the transparent dielectric array are arranged such that the optical axes and the central axes are substantially parallel to each other (page 5, paragraphs [0058] and [0059]) and an end surface of the lens array faces an end surface of the transparent dielectric array (Figure 15, wherein the bottom surface of element 1 faces the top surface of element 14), Yamagata et al fails to teach such an optical device simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: H/(n1·L01) ≤ 0.6, s defined and claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawano et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0052776), Zeng et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0286144), Kobayashi (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0109676), Yamamura (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0021672) and Yang et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0273255) all teach optical devices comprising a lens array and a transparent dielectric array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
05 August 2026
Prosecution Insights