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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0011902 to Nishimura et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishimura discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 14–17 and their descriptions) an eyepiece optical module (e.g., microscope objective), comprising: a first housing 211; a second housing 212, wherein one of the first housing and the second housing comprises at least three supporting cylinders (e.g., Fig. 15), the other comprises at least three guide grooves (e.g., Fig. 15, matching overlapping portions), and only the supporting cylinders are in direct contact with the guide grooves between the first housing and the second housing (Figs. 14–17); a lens element (e.g., 201/202) disposed between the first housing and the second housing (Fig. 14).
Nishimura does not explicitly disclose relative sizes of the components, and thus does not explicitly disclose wherein any one of the three supporting cylinders satisfies the following conditional expression: 0.20≤r1/H1≤4.40 and 0.34 mm≤r1≤1.35 mm, wherein r1 is a radius of one end of the supporting cylinder and H1 is a height of the supporting cylinder.
However, selecting appropriate sizes for the known components would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account desired use of the lens system, yielding predictable results based on known properties, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results (e.g., MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishimura would have rendered obvious wherein the first housing and the second housing have a center, and any two of the three supporting cylinders form two connection lines relative to the center, and an angle α formed by the two connection lines satisfies the following condition expression: 90 degrees≤α≤135 degrees (e.g., Figs. 14–17).
Regarding Claim 11, Nishimura would have rendered obvious wherein a depth of the guide groove is greater than or equal to 0.005 mm (where selecting appropriate sizes for the known components would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account desired use of the lens system, yielding predictable results based on known properties, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0341351 to Wu.
Regarding Claim 9, Nishimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens element has a circumference, and a lens element glue tank is formed between the circumference and the first housing.
Wu discloses a lens assembly, and teaches including a glue chute (corresponding to the claimed “glue tank”) that is filled around the circumference of the housing to “improve a strength and overall rigidity of the lens assembly, avoiding displacement or deformation of the lens” (paragraph [0037]; Figs. 1–3 of Wu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Nishimura such that the lens element has a circumference, and a lens element glue tank is formed between the circumference and the first housing, as suggested by Wu, in order to improve a strength and overall rigidity of the lens assembly, avoiding displacement or deformation of the lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10 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.
Claims 12–20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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 CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights