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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
The entirety of claim 1 is unclear and confusing. An effort will be made to address all of the 112 2nd issues pertaining to the claimed limitations, as follows:
Lines 1-3 recites “a method of machining a mold for a microlens array provided with plural microlenses that have optical axes in the same direction and that are identically shaped using a cutting tool provided with a cutting blade that rotates around a rotation axis”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the same direction” as no same direction has been previously introduced in the claim.
It is also unclear where exactly this “same direction” is taken from. Relative to what?
Furthermore, it is unclear where exactly these “optical axes” are being defined? From where to where?
It is unclear if 1) the method of machining a mold is performed using a cutting tool provided with a cutting blade that rotates around a rotation axis or 2) the microlenses are identically shaped using a cutting tool provided with a cutting blade that rotates around a rotation axis? What exactly is being machined “using a cutting tool provided with a cutting blade that rotates around a rotation axis”?
“a rotation axis” of what? The tool? The blade? The mold?
Lines 4-12 recites “wherein for a surface of the mold corresponding to a microlens surface, an XYZ orthogonal coordinate system is defined such that a z-axis is in the direction of the central axis of the surface of the mold, the central axis corresponding to the optical axis of the microlens… an angle φ is defined as an angle around the straight line of a plane containing the rotation axis of the cutting tool and the straight line and xyz orthogonal coordinate systems of plural surfaces of the mold corresponding to plural microlens surfaces are defined such that x-axes of the surfaces are parallel to one another and y-axes of the surfaces are parallel to one another”
In “wherein for a surface of the mold corresponding to a microlens surface” the term “corresponding” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this “corresponding” relation between a surface of the mold and a microlens surface is being set forth. How are they corresponding?
In “an XYZ orthogonal coordinate system is defined such that a z-axis is in the direction of the central axis of the surface of the mold”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the direction of the central axis of the surface of the mold” since no “direction” or “central axis” of the surface of the mold has been previously introduced in the claim. Where is this “direction” taken from? From where to where? In relation to what?
In “the central axis corresponding to the optical axis of the microlens” the term “corresponding” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this “corresponding” relation between the central axis and the optical axis of the microlens is being set forth. How are they corresponding? There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the optical axis of the microlens” since no “optical axis”, singular, of the microlens has been previously set forth.
In “an angle φ is defined as an angle around the straight line of a plane containing the rotation axis of the cutting tool and the straight line”, the metes and bounds of this angle are not clearly set forth. It is unclear where exactly this angle is being defined. Where is this “straight line of a plane containing the rotation axis of the cutting tool and the straight line”. The way this phrase has been set forth is confusing and unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the straight line of a plane”, since no “straight line” of a plane has been previously introduced in the claim.
In “xyz orthogonal coordinate systems of plural surfaces of the mold corresponding to plural microlens surfaces are defined such that x-axes of the surfaces are parallel to one another and y-axes of the surfaces are parallel to one another”. The entirety of this phrase is unclear and confusing. The term “corresponding” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this “corresponding” relation between the plural surfaces of the mold and plural microlens surfaces is being determined. How are they corresponding? How many surfaces are there?
Lines 13-14 recites “wherein in machining of a surface of the mold, the angle φ is kept constant and in machining of at least one surface of the mold, the angle θ is changed”. How many surfaces are there? What is the difference between “a surface of the mold” and “at least one surface of the mold”?
Lines 15-18 recites “wherein in machining of the plural surfaces of the mold, values of the angle φ for the plural surfaces of the mold are distributed so as to make variance of the values of the angle φ greater than a predetermined value such that variance in illuminance on a surface illuminated using a microlens array produced using the mold can be sufficiently reduced”. The entirety of this phrase is unclear and confusing.
How many surfaces are there? What is the difference between plural surfaces of the mold and “a surface of the mold”?
It is unclear how exactly the values of the angle are being “distributed so as to make variance of the values of the angle greater than a predetermined value”? How is this value “predetermined? Distributed in what sense? How exactly this “variance” is made?
It is unclear how exactly “variance in illuminance on a surface illuminated using a microlens array produced using the mold can be sufficiently reduced” is done. How is a surface illuminated? Which surface? How can variance be done on a surface using a microlens array produced using the mold? The method I for machining a mold, not to a microlens array, thus it is unclear what is meant by this. The entire phrase is unclear. The phrase “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the variance in illuminance is actually reduced or not. The term “sufficiently” renders the claim unclear as it is unclear how much reduction has to occur for it to be catalogued as “sufficiently” reduced.
Claim 2 recites in line 2 that “a maximum value of the angle θ is determined for each surface of the mold”. However, it is unclear how exactly this value is being “determined” and since claim 1, recites in various instances “surface of the mold” and/or “plural surfaces of the mold”, it is unclear to which of these surfaces, “each surface of the mold” is referring to.
Claim 3 recites in lines 1-2 “in surfaces of the mold corresponding to 50 percent or more of all the microlens surfaces” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “surfaces of the mold corresponding to 50 percent or more of all the microlens surfaces” are.
Claim 4 recites in line 2 and 4 “in machining of a surface of the mold…a predetermined value”. Reiterating, since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “a surface of the mold” in claim 4 is referring to. It is unclear how this value is “predetermined”.
Claim 5 recites in lines 1-4 “in machining of a surface of the mold, when the angle θ is changed, a value of angular acceleration of the angle θ is determined such that an working accuracy of positioning of the cutting tool in all moving directions is equal to or less than a predetermined value” which in its entirety is confusing and unclear.
Reiterating, since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “a surface of the mold” in claim 5 is referring to.
How exactly this “value of angular acceleration” on an angle is determined. How can angle have angular acceleration?
How “working accuracy of positioning of the cutting tool in all directions” is determined such as to determine a value of equal to or less than a predetermined value?
It is unclear how this value is “predetermined”.
Claim 6 recites in line 2 “machining of a surface of the mold”, since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “a surface of the mold” in claim 6 is referring to.
Claim 7 recites in lines 1-4 “in machining of the plural surfaces of the mold corresponding to the plural microlens surfaces, the plural surfaces of the mold are divided into one or plural groups and in each group values of the angle φ are uniformly distributed or set at regular intervals between 0 and 360 degrees” which in its entirety is unclear and confusing.
Reiterating, since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “the plural surfaces” in claim 7 is referring to.
The term “corresponding” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this “corresponding” relation between the surfaces is being set forth. How are they corresponding?
How are the surfaces “divided into one or plural groups”?
How exactly values of the angle are “uniformly distributed or set at regular intervals”?
Claim 8 recites in each of lines 3 and 4 the term “correspond” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this “correspond” relation between the axes and the three linear-motion axes is being set forth and how the angles are made to correspond to angles around two rotation axes, is being set forth. How are they corresponding?
Claim 9 recites in lines 2-3 “machining of a surface of the mold, the angle θ is made to increase with decrease in distance between a cutting point of the cutting tool and the central axis of the surface”.
Reiterating, since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “a surface of the mold” in claim 9 is referring to.
How is this decrease in distance between a cutting point of the cutting tool and the central axis of the surface is being determined? Where is this “point” defined so as to determine this distance?
Claim 10 recites in line 2 “machining of a surface of the mold” which renders the claim indefinite. Since different variations of “surface” and/or “surfaces” have been recited in claim 1, it is unclear what surface, “a surface of the mold” in claim 10 is referring to.
Examiner's Notes
It has been noted that no art has been presented for claims 1-11, however the examiner reserves the right to present art when the 35 USC 112 2nd issues are resolved.
Due to the clarity issues throughout the claims, an art rejection will not be attempted at this time. In the event the clarity issues are resolved, a prior art rejection may be made at that time in a final rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights