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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
None of Applicant’s remarks are persuasive. Examiner is generally at a loss as to how to convey the issues beyond what has already been written.
Applicant’s affidavit does not resolve the issues presented in the Office Action mailed April 15, 2025. Most notably, the affidavit does not address the examples provided in the originally filed specification and the breadth and scope of claim 1. Examiner understands Applicant’s affidavit as an attempt to show there are other specific solutions to the equation on page 10 lines 12-25 of the affidavit, yet such Excel tables do not address the actual examples as originally filed.
Also of note, claim 1 captures both fluid filled and solid lenses. Applicant’s affidavit provides only a discussion of a fluid filled type.
For brevity Examiner will refer to appendix A and associated spreadsheet.
The originally filed specification (Fig. 9) lists the following values: n1 = 1.38, n2 = 1.65, R1 = 6.05, R2 = 3.92, R3 = ∞. Applicant’s spreadsheet uses different values for R1 and R2. Specifically, R1 = 6.913, R2 = -5.227. Examiner understands that Fig. 9 is likely R2 = -3.92 given the concavity of R2 as shown.
Thus, Applicant’s affidavit does not actually address the embodiment as originally filed and therefore Applicant’s affidavit does not resolve the issues since such affidavit itself constitutes prohibited new matter (MPEP716.09 - Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts which the specification itself should recite. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991))
Examiner also notes various numerical and mathematical inconsistencies within the spreadsheet for Fig. 9. For instance, row 5 lists Fluid dn/dT = 0.000. However row 4 shows Fluid n = 1.380 (T1 = 30oC) and row 6 states Fluid n T2 = 1.377 (T2 = 40oC) which would require Δn/ΔT = 1.377-1.380/(40-30) = -0.0003. Did Applicant round this? The table implies there is no dn/dT, yet Applicant decidedly needs the change in index of refraction since the index at both 30oC and 40oC have different values. The same would be true for the glass, yet Applicant doesn’t provide any temperature dependence of the glass.
Another inconsistency is that the “drift” determined in the affidavit includes two separate rows. The first is the diopter change with units [dpt] and the second is the diopter change per Celsius with unit [dpt/degC]. While Examiner assumes it is the [dpt/degC] value that Applicant intends by the arguments since those are closest to zero, this is inconsistent with the originally filed specification page 9, lines 20-25 where the drift ΔFP = FPTotal(T1) - FPTotal(T0) and would have units of diopter [dpt].
As calculated by Applicant in appendix A, the lenses have decidedly non-zero drift of -0.012 dpt, -0.009 dpt, and -0.010 dpt, and thus not as claimed “due to a change in temperature is zero”. Even considering the drift [dpt/degC], appendix A values are also -0.001 dpt/degC, -0.001 dpt/degC, -0.001 dpt/degC which are not zero, and thus not what is claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the prior art, Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant again turns to the method of designing “[t]here is no disclosure of designing n1(t), n2(T), R1(T), R2(T), R3(T)”1.
The claims are directed to the device. The devices of Carlie and Aschwanden explicitly have first and second refractive elements, those first and second refractive elements include first and second indices of refraction (they must, these are lenses made of real materials), and as shown in the figures, those lenses incorporate the various surfaces R1, R2, R3. The result of such “design” by Aschnwanden and Carlie is an athermal doublet as claimed by Applicant. In other words, the prior at contains all the structural limitations of the claimed device. MPEP 2113 - "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Perhaps the issue is Applicant does not appear to understand the term “athermal”? Applicant states “[n]o passage in Carlie demonstrates, predicts, or even suggests that ∂Ktotal/∂T ≈ 0”. Yes Carlie does. Carlie states “for athermalization K1δ1 + K2δ2 = Kαh”. ∂Ktotal/∂T ≈ 0 means athermalization. That’s what that condition is. The change in power/change in temperature for a given total power Ktotal = 0 is known as athermalization.
Perhaps Applicant is having a hard time seeing Carlie’s full equation? Although the inventors/Applicants filed an affidavit so Examiner presumed they would be familiar with the science and math.
Unlike Applicant’s disclosure, Carlie didn’t assume the lenses were in air, but housed. Carlie includes the thermal expansion so as to generalize the athermalization conditions. This is why Carlie considers αh. Why does this show up on the total power side? Because the thermal expansion of the housing would work like a change in the focal length and therefore Carlie treats it as such. Here’s a picture.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Applicant’s particular case, where the housing doesn’t exist or doesn’t move the image plane/CCD as per its thermal expansion, then αh = 1. This means Carlie’s equation becomes: K1δ1 + K2δ2 = K.
For a given total power K, then as directed by Carlie, those of ordinary skill would solve for the radii and indices refraction to satisfy K1δ1 + K2δ2 = K under the same conditions as Applicant - i.e. no housing.
The radii and indices of refraction come from K1, K2 via the lensmaker’s equation. Writing out Carlie’s K1 and K2 with lensmaker’s:
K
1
=
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
K
2
=
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
1
n
2
R
21
R
22
Where:
R11 = left side radius of the first lens
R12 = right side radius of the first lens
n1 = index of the first lens
d1 = the thickness of the first lens
R21 = left side radius of the second lens
R22 = right side radius of the second lens
n2 = index of second lens
d2 = the thickness of the second lens
Carlie’s equation for the athermalization is in differential form, whereas Applicant’s is in the delta or difference form. Thus Carlie’s athermalization is for Applicant’s condition where limit(T1-T2 ) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0. Carlie’s athermalization equation starts at the point where the differential has already been taken which leads to the δ1 δ2 variables that include the linear expansion of the materials and the thermal dependence of the refractive indices.
Carlie’s full equation for the athermalization allows for those of ordinary skill in the art, just like Applicant’s disclosure, to solve for the various radii and indices of refraction for a given K to be athermalized.
K1δ1 + K2δ2 = K
(
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
) *(δ1) + (
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
)*( δ2) = K
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
∂
n
1
∂
T
n
1
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
+
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
∂
n
2
∂
T
n
2
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
= K
For Applicant’s example of K = 0D, this leads to the differential version of Applicant’s combined equation on page 2 of the affidavit filed October 15, 2025.
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
∂
n
1
∂
T
n
1
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
+
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
∂
n
2
∂
T
n
2
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
= 0
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
∂
n
1
∂
T
n
1
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
= -
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
∂
n
2
∂
T
n
2
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
In summary, Carlie teaches what Applicant’s claim covers and is directed to. Specifically, the equation to determine the radii and indices of refraction for a given total focal power (K) of a doublet lens so as to result in “a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero” (a.k.a. athermalization).
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, 8, 13-15, 25 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.
As to claims 1 and 27, the claims recite “a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero” is unclear as per Applicant’s affidavit filed October 15, 2025.
Issue #1 - the affidavit makes reference to zero and “substantially zero” being somehow the same. Applicant’s claims do not say “substantially zero”, nor is there any discussion with the originally filed specification as to what is, or is not, included in substantially zero (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Issue #2 - the affidavit appears to contradict what is mean by “drift”. As per the originally filed specification (page 9, lines 20-25), the drift would have units of diopter due to the drift equation: ΔFP = FPTotal(T1) - FPTotal(T0). Applicant’s affidavit appears to contradict this by suggesting the drift is ΔFP/ΔT.
The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the claims cover substantially zero (not claimed) and what constitutes the drift are unclear.
Claims 8, 13-15, 25 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 25, the claim recites “the given focal power is zero” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will interpret the claim as “the given total focal power”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8, 13-15, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 27, the claims recite “the radii of the surfaces are selected such that for a given temperature and total focal power, a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero” is a claim drawn to the genus of materials, shapes, and temperatures of solving the problem of athermalization (drift of the total focal power...is zero) of what appears to be a doublet lens (MPEP 2163.II.3.a.ii).
Specifically, Applicant appears to have disclosed three species of curvature (R1, R2, R3) and materials (n1, n2) but only one species of total focal power (zero) and only one temperature (30oC).
Applicant does not appear to have possession of such an invention at any other focal power or any other given temperature.
Applicant fails to provide evidence of a representative number of species of the entire genus. The genus being any arbitrary total focal length and for any particular given temperature. While Applicant provides suggested materials (silicone oil, glass, fused silica)2, the embodiments are a single species of silicone oil + fused silica. As such Applicant appears to have disclosed essentially a single species of fused silica and silicone oil as a doublet lens with 0 (zero) total focal power as the only solution. No other species are disclosed.
MPEP 2163.II.3.a.ii - Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claims 8, 13-15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 25 resolves the issue by requiring the given total focal power to be zero.
Claims 1, 8, 13-15, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the drift of the total focal power due to a changing temperature is zero for a given total focal power of zero, does not reasonably provide enablement for the drift being zero for a non-zero total focal power for an arbitrary pre-defined temperature range. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In evaluating the enablement of the claimed subject matter, the Office considers relevant Wands Factors (MPEP 2164.01(a)). In this case, the most relevant Wands Factors are A) breadth of claims; F) amount of direction provided by the inventor; G) existence of working examples; H) quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention.
As to claims 1 and 27, the breath of the claims provides for a drift of the focal power due to a changing temperature to be zero for any given total focal power. Such drift being zero is for an arbitrary pre-defined temperature range.
Applicant’s specification provides three examples: Figures 9, 11 and 12. In each example, the only time the drift (dFP/dT) is zero is when the total focal power is also zero (See Figures 9B-C, 11B-C, 12B-C). While Applicant’s specification suggests the temperature range can be -40 to 85oC3, the embodiments do not show any particular temperature range over which such drift is zero. The embodiments of Figures 9, 11, and 12 appear to only have been calculated for T0 = 30oC, thus it is unknown what the temperature range for the drift of Figures 9B, 11B, and 12B is with respect to.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification and Figures do not give the values of the index of refraction for the materials across the temperature range. For example Figure 9C states n1 = 1.38. Is this index at the starting temperature T0? The index at final temperature T1? Some other value in-between? Similarly, Figure 9C states n2 = 1.65. Is this index at the starting temperature T0? The index at final temperature T1? Some other value in between?
The breadth of the claims includes non-zero total focal powers having a drift equal to zero for an arbitrary temperature. For example, at a total focal power of 10 Diopters, and a temperature range of 100oC, Applicant’s claims purport to achieve zero drift however the amount of direction provided by the inventor’s specification fails to show how to achieve such a result - i.e. what materials, curvature, etc. would achieve such a result. In fact, Applicant’s Figures 9B, 11B, 12B shows for a total focal power of 10D at 30oC , the focal power drift is in fact non-zero. Thus, Applicant’s claims encompass an example that is in fact not enabled by Applicant’s own figures/specification.
There is an undue quantity of experimentation on those of ordinary skill in the art in order to make the invention within the full scope of the claims given the limited number of working examples and direction provided by Applicant’s specification.
PNG
media_image2.png
577
855
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 13-15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 25 resolves the issue by requiring the given total focal power to be zero.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 13-15, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Carlie (US 2016/01688015; of record).
As to claim 1, Carlie teaches an optical device comprising
a first refractive element configured to refract incoming light, wherein the first refractive element comprises a first refractive index and a first surface for receiving a wavefront of said incoming light, wherein the first surface comprises a first radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]);
a second refractive element configured to refract light coming from the first refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 2, 1; para. [0088]-[0090]), wherein the second refractive element is arranged adjacent the first refractive element such that a second surface is formed between the first refractive element and the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2), via which second surface light can pass from the first refractive element to the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - light rays), wherein the second surface comprises a second radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - internal surfaces of lenses 1, 2), and wherein the second refractive element comprises a second refractive index and a third surface for transmitting light coming from the first refractive element and passing through the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]), wherein the third surface comprises a third radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - exiting surface of lens (2));
wherein the refractive indices, and the shapes of the surfaces, depend on temperatures of the refractive elements (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]);
wherein the refractive indices and the radii of the surfaces are selected such that for a given temperature and total focal power, a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]).
As discussed above, Carlie’s athermalization equation is the differential form of Applicant’s disclosed equation. When the radii, thicknesses, and indices of refraction are included as per the lensmaker’s equation, and the lens is un-mounted, Carlie’s equation becomes:
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
∂
n
1
∂
T
n
1
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
+
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
∂
n
2
∂
T
n
2
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
= K
As to claim 8, Carlie teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carlie further teaches the second surface comprises a curved shape (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2).
As to claim 13, Carlie teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carlie further teaches the first refractive index exhibits a stronger temperature dependence than the second refractive index (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]).
As to claim 14, Carlie teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carlie further teaches the first material comprises a general volumetric thermal expansion coefficient that is larger than the general volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of the second material (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]).
As to claim 15, Carlie teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Carlie further teaches the first refractive index is lower than or equal to the second refractive index (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]).
As to claim 27, Carlie teaches an optical device comprising
a first refractive element configured to refract incoming light, wherein the first refractive element comprises a first refractive index and a first surface for receiving a wavefront of said incoming light, wherein the first surface comprises a first radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]);
a second refractive element configured to refract light coming from the first refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 2, 1; para. [0088]-[0090]), wherein the second refractive element is arranged adjacent the first refractive element such that a second surface is formed between the first refractive element and the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2), via which second surface light can pass from the first refractive element to the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - light rays), wherein the second surface comprises a second radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - internal surfaces of lenses 1, 2), and wherein the second refractive element comprises a second refractive index and a third surface for transmitting light coming from the first refractive element and passing through the second refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]), wherein the third surface comprises a third radius (Carlie Fig. 1 - exiting surface of lens (2));
wherein the refractive indices, and the shapes of the surfaces, depend on temperatures of the refractive elements (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]);
wherein the refractive indices and the radii of the surfaces are selected such that for a given temperature and total focal power, a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero (Carlie Fig. 1 - 1, 2; para. [0088]-[0090]);
wherein each of the first, second, and third surfaces provide a focal power to the respective refractive element (Carlie Fig. 1 - see below; Carlie para. [0088]-[0090] - teaching the powers K1, K2, which when substituted with the lensmaker’s equation recites the first, second, and third surfaces).
PNG
media_image3.png
430
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, Carlie’s athermalization equation is the differential form of Applicant’s disclosed equation. When the radii, thicknesses, and indices of refraction are included as per the lensmaker’s equation, Carlie’s equation becomes:
1
R
11
-
1
R
12
+
n
1
-
1
d
1
n
1
R
11
R
12
∂
n
1
∂
T
n
1
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
+
1
R
21
-
1
R
22
+
n
2
-
1
d
2
n
2
R
21
R
22
∂
n
2
∂
T
n
2
-
1
-
1
L
∂
L
∂
T
= K
Claims 1, 8, 13-15, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Aschwanden (WO 2017/118656; of record).
As to claim 1, Aschwanden teaches an optical device comprising
a first refractive element configured to refract incoming light, wherein the first refractive element comprises a first refractive index and a first surface for receiving a wavefront of said incoming light, the first surface comprises a first radius (Aschwanden Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 4 - 10, 12);
a second refractive element configured to refract light coming from the first refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 60), wherein the second refractive element is arranged adjacent the first refractive element such that a second surface is formed between the first refractive element and the second refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 10, 60), via which second surface light can pass from the first refractive element to the second refractive element, (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - L), wherein the second surface comprises a second radius (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - surface between 10, 60) and wherein the second refractive element comprises a second refractive index and a third surface for transmitting light coming from the first refractive element and passing through the second refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 60), wherein the third surface comprises a third radius (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - rear surface of (60));
wherein the refractive indices and shapes of the surfaces, depend on temperatures of the refractive elements (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 10, 60; page 10:lines 28-34; page 12:15-25 - implicit, refractive elements made of matter and thus have such properties);
wherein the refractive indices and the radii of the surfaces are selected such that for a given temperature and total focal power, a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero (Aschawanden page 10:lines 28-34; page 11:lines1-34; page 12:lines 15-25 - as discussed, doublet is thermally compensated to minimize focal power drift and changes).
As to claim 8, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Aschwanden further teaches the second surface comprises a curved shape (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 10, 60).
As to claim 13, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Aschwanden further teaches the first refractive index exhibits a stronger temperature dependence than the second refractive index (Aschwanden Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 4 - 10, 60; page 2:lines 25-27; page 4:lines 10-13 - first lens silicone oil, second lens glass/plastic).
As to claim 14, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Aschwanden further teaches the first material comprises a general volumetric thermal expansion coefficient that is larger than the general volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of the second material (Aschwanden Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 4 - 10, 60; page 2:lines 25-27; page 4:lines 10-13 - first lens silicone oil, second lens glass/plastic).
As to claim 15, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Aschwanden further teaches the first refractive index is lower than or equal to the second refractive index (Aschwanden Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 4 - 10, 60; page 2:lines 25-27; page 4:lines 10-13 - first lens silicone oil, second lens glass/plastic).
As to claim 27, Aschwanden teaches an optical device comprising
a first refractive element configured to refract incoming light, wherein the first refractive element comprises a first refractive index and a first surface for receiving a wavefront of said incoming light, the first surface comprises a first radius (Aschwanden Fig. 1 - 10; Fig. 4 - 10, 12);
a second refractive element configured to refract light coming from the first refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 60), wherein the second refractive element is arranged adjacent the first refractive element such that a second surface is formed between the first refractive element and the second refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 10, 60), via which second surface light can pass from the first refractive element to the second refractive element, (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - L), wherein the second surface comprises a second radius (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - surface between 10, 60) and wherein the second refractive element comprises a second refractive index and a third surface for transmitting light coming from the first refractive element and passing through the second refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 60), wherein the third surface comprises a third radius (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - rear surface of (60));
wherein the refractive indices and shapes of the surfaces, depend on temperatures of the refractive elements (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - 10, 60; page 10:lines 28-34; page 12:15-25 - implicit, refractive elements made of matter and thus have such properties);
wherein the refractive indices and the radii of the surfaces are selected such that for a given temperature and total focal power, a drift of the total focal power due to a change in temperature is zero (Aschawanden page 10:lines 28-34; page 11:lines1-34; page 12:lines 15-25 - as discussed, doublet is thermally compensated to minimize focal power drift and changes);
wherein each of the first, the second, and third surfaces provide a focal power to the respective refractive element (Aschwanden Fig. 4 - see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
411
603
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlie (cited above)
As to claim 25, Carlie teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the particular given focal power is zero.
Carlie teaches the same focal power condition/equation as Applicant (Carlie para. [0089] - K1 + K2 = K) and when considering the focal power change of the doublet and housing expansion (K1*δ1 + K2*δ2 = Kαh), and thus the given focal power (K) as a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to athermalize for K = 0, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As discussed by Carlie, solving for the athermalization of the doublet is well known in the art for eliminating thermal effects for the lens (Carlie para. [0088]-[0089]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 5,691,847; of record).
As to claim 25, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the particular given focal power is zero.
In the same field of endeavor Chen teaches equations to athermalize a group of lenses (Chen col. 2:50-67; col. 3:1-25), this includes the desired total power (Φtotal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to athermalize for Φtotal = 0, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As discussed by Chen (Chen col. 2:50-67; col. 3:1-25), such variable represents the desired total focal power of the lens system to be athermalized.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschwanden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grey (Athermalization of Optical Systems; of record) .
As to claim 25, Aschwanden teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the particular given focal power is zero.
In the same field of endeavor Grey teaches the equations to athermalize a group of lenses (Grey pages 542-544; equations (1) through (6b)), this includes the desired total power (Grey - equations (5) and (6a)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to athermalize for the total focal power = 0, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As discussed by Grey, athermalization for any given number of thin or thick lenses and their associated total focal power is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
1107
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 December 16, 2025
1 Remarks page 10
2 Page 8, line 9; page 10, line 21
3 Spec. page 2, lines 14-15
Prosecution Insights