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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 27-28, 30 and 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner agrees that Iwane fails to qualify as prior art given the exceptions under 102(b)(1)(A) and 102(b)(2)(C). Since the claims are unchanged the new grounds of rejection below are non-final.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US Patent Application Publication 2006/0018012, of record, in view of Mandler US Patent 2,726,574, of record, in further view of Shafer US Patent 4,342,503, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Choi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0024958 and Roberts et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0207389.
Regarding claim 8 Smith discloses an imaging apparatus imaging apparatus (title e.g. figures 1-2 telescope 10) comprising: an optical system including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 12) that reflects light incident thereon, a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 14) on which the light reflected off the first reflector is incident and which reflects the reflected light (see figures 1-2); a first optical member (e.g. 14) in which the second reflector (e.g. 14) is formed; a second optical member (e.g. 12) in which the first reflector (e.g. 12) is formed; and a partition member (e.g. figures 3 & 10 telescope tube 38) disposed between the first optical member (e.g. 14) and the second optical member (e.g. 12) and including a medium (e.g. air) that transmits light, the first optical member (e.g. 14) being attached to the partition member (implicit the parts are attached) on an object side of the optical system (see figures 1-2), and the second optical member (e.g. 12) being attached to the partition member (implicit the parts are attached) on an image side of the optical system (figures 1-2), the first optical member (e.g. 14), the second optical member (e.g. 12), and the partition member (e.g. 38) forming an integrated unit (e.g. see figure 3 & 10 tube assembly 40 & paragraph [0045]); an image sensor (paragraph [0036] “optoelectronic imaging device such as a CMOS or CCD camera can be disposed at, near, or with respect to the focal plane 16 to record an image of the object”) disposed on the image side of the optical system (e.g. left side of figures 1-2), on which the light reflected off the second reflector is incident (see figures 1-2), and which captures an image of an object formed by the optical system (paragraph [0036] “optoelectronic imaging device such as a CMOS or CCD camera … to record an image of the object”); a light blocking member disposed on at least one of a side of the light reflected off the first reflector that is a side facing an optical axis of the optical system and a side of the light reflected off the second reflector that is a side opposite the optical axis of the optical system (e.g. see annotated figure A below and baffle 24); and a focusing mechanism attached to the partition member and configured to move the first optical member, the second optical member, and the partition member as a one-piece unit along the optical axis for focusing (implicit given paragraph [0037] discussing d1, the distance between 12 & 14 being “held fixed” and “translation of the mirrors causes the focal plane … shown in FIG. 1 to be distance d2 … to be displaced longitudinally as well” and since 12 & 14 move together to focus and are fixed to 38 it is implicit that a mechanism, i.e. actuator, is moving assembly 40), a correction member (e.g. refracting corrector plate 18) wherein the first and second reflectors are fixed with respect to the optical axis of the optical system (paragraph [0037] discusses d1, the distance between 12 & 14 being “held fixed”), the light blocking member includes at least one of a first light blocking member so formed as to protrude from the first reflector in a direction toward the second reflector (see annotated figure A below), and a second light blocking member so formed as to protrude from the second reflector in a direction toward the first reflector (see annotated figure A below), the first optical member (e.g. 14) includes an object side surface (e.g. right side) and an image side surface (e.g. left side) on which the second reflector is formed (e.g. reflecting surface 22), the second optical member (e.g. 12) includes an object side surface (e.g. right side) on which the first reflector is formed (e.g. reflecting surface 21), a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the second light blocking member is so shaped that an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated figure B below).
[AltContent: textbox (2nd light blocking member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st light blocking member)]
PNG
media_image1.png
545
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated version of Smith figures 1-2
[AltContent: textbox (2nd light blocking member extending towards 1st reflection surface)]
[AltContent: textbox (q1s)][AltContent: textbox (q2s)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
94
127
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Annotated version of a portion of Smith figure 2
Smith does not disclose the first optical member includes a first parallel plane glass plate having the object side surface onto which a light transmitting polymer forming the correction member is imprinted, the second optical member includes a second parallel plane glass plate, and a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member is so shaped that an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis.
Regarding the first light blocking member shape – Mandler teaches a similar optical system, see figures 1-2, and further teaches a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member (e.g. screening member 7) is so shaped that an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see figures 1-2) for the purpose of preventing the passage of undesirable light rays (column 1 lines 65-67). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith to have a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member is so shaped that an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis as taught by Mandler for the purpose of preventing the passage of undesirable light rays.
Mandler does not teach the first optical member includes a first parallel plane glass plate having the object side surface onto which a light transmitting polymer forming the correction member is imprinted, the second optical member includes a second parallel plane glass plate.
Shafer teaches a similar imaging apparatus (title e.g. figure 2) including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 12 commensurate with the claimed second optical member) with a planar surface (e.g. right side), a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 14) sharing an optical axis (see figure 2) with an object side (e.g. left side) and an image side (e.g. right side) where light travels a from the first reflector to the second reflector to an image plane (see figure 2) and the combination of a plate (10) and secondary mirror (14) is commensurate with the claimed first optical member; and further teaches the first optical member (e.g. combination of 10 & 14) includes a first plane glass plate (e.g. 10 see figure 2) having an image side surface on which the second reflector (e.g. 14) is formed (e.g. column 2 lines 55-65 “the secondary mirror 14 being mounted on the aspheric plate 10” see figure 2) for the purpose of mechanically simplifying and shortening the system (column 2 lines 55-65), and this technique of placing a reflector on a glass plate could be applied to the second optical member since it is using known techniques on similar devices in the same way to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143, and the second plate being a parallel plate is implicit since the right side of 12 is planar and there is no suggestion in figure 2 that would led one to introduce a optical power. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith as modified by Mandler to have the first optical member includes a first glass plate and the second optical member includes a second parallel plane glass plate as suggested by Shafer for the purpose of mechanically simplifying and shortening the system and since it is using known techniques on similar devices in the same way to yield predictable results and constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Shafer does not teach the first plate is a parallel plate where a surface has a light transmitting polymer forming a correction member is imprinted.
The examiner takes Official Notice that creating lens (i.e. a correction member) by imprinting1 polymer (a.k.a. hot embossing a.k.a. UV embossing a.k.a. imprint lithography) on the surface of a parallel plate is well known in the art, as evidenced by Choi paragraph [0074] discussing “generally-known method” of creating lens (e.g. paragraph [0072[ & figure 13 lens 100 with parallel plate 110 having polymer imprinted lens/correction element on one side) and Roberts (paragraph [0037] “the lens to allow the array to be manufactured with techniques such as UV embossing … hot embossing … each of which are known in the art”) for the purpose of enabling mass production (as evidenced by Choi paragraph [0073]). Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer to have the first plate be a parallel plate with a surface having a light transmitting polymer forming a correction member/lens is imprinted since it is a well-known means to create a lens/correction member that can be mass produced and since constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein an optical axis of the first reflector coincides with an optical axis of the second reflector (paragraph [0030] “primary 12, secondary 14, and corrector 18 are aligned about an optical axis 20 centrally located”).
Regarding claim 10 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the light blocking member is so formed as to surround the optical axis when viewed along a direction of the optical axis (see annotated figure A above).
Regarding claim 11 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the second reflector is disposed in a first region around the optical axis of the optical system, and the first reflector is so disposed as to surround a second region around the optical axis of the optical system (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 12 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the first reflector has an annular shape around the optical axis (see figures 1-2), the second reflector has a circular shape around the optical axis (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 13 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 11, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the first light blocking member is disposed at an inner circumferential portion of the first reflector (see annotated figure A above), and the second light blocking member disposed in an outer circumferential portion of the second reflector (see annotated figure A above).
Regarding claim 15 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the second light blocking member has a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis having an inner diameter that increases from the second reflection surface toward the first reflection surface (see annotated figure B above).
Regarding claim 17 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the second light blocking member satisfies the following conditional expression: 1.0<q2s/q1s<2.0 (baffle in figure 2 appears to increase in thickness as the baffle approaches surface 32, thus q2s/q1s would be slight greater than 1).
Regarding claim 18 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the second light blocking member satisfies the following conditional expression: 30°< q2s<90° (see annotated figure B above).
Regarding claims 19 and 21 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer disclose the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith and Mandler do not disclose or teach wherein the first light blocking member has a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis having an inner diameter that decreases from the first reflection surface toward the second reflection surface, as required by claim 19; and wherein the first light blocking member satisfies the following conditional expression: 30°<θ2m<90°, as required by claim 21.
Shafer also teaches another similar imaging apparatus embodiment (e.g. figure 7) including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 44), a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 48) sharing an optical axis (see figure 7) and a light blocking member (e.g. circularly symmetric baffle 50) where light travels a from the first reflector to the second reflector to an image plane (e.g. image plane 20) and the light blocking member (e.g. 50) protrudes from the first reflector (e.g. 44) towards the second reflector (e.g. 48) making it commensurate with the claimed first light blocking member; and further teaches the first light blocking member (e.g. 50) has a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis having an inner diameter that decreases from the first reflection surface toward the second reflection surface (see figure 7): and wherein a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member is so shaped that an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated figure C below); and wherein the first light blocking member satisfies the following conditional expression: 30°<θ2m<90° (see annotated figure C below) for the purpose of shielding of the focal plane from stray light (column 5 lines 28-31) of sufficient structural thickness. Further, it has been held that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966; see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B, and this would be simple substation of one shape for another shape to obtain predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer to have the first light blocking member has a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis having an inner diameter that decreases from the first reflection surface toward the second reflection surface; and wherein the first light blocking member satisfies the following conditional expression: 30°<θ2m<90° as further taught by Shafer for the purpose of shielding of the focal plane from stray light, and since shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious and this would be simple substation of one shape for another shape to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 27 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein a correction surface the correction member (e.g. 18) is located in a position closest to the object side (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 30 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the medium is a single material (e.g. air).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US Patent Application Publication 2006/0018012, of record, in view of Mandler US Patent 2,726,574, of record, and Shafer US Patent 4,342,503, of record, in further view of Zhao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0300959, of record.
Regarding claim 28 Smith as modified by Mandler and Shafer disclose the imaging apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above. Smith and Mandler and Shafer do not disclose or teach the imaging apparatus includes the optical system as a plurality of optical systems and the image sensor as a plurality of image sensors.
Zhao teaches a similar imaging apparatus (title e.g. figures 1-3) including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 12), a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 14), a first light blocking member (e.g. cylindrical baffle 32), a second light blocking member (e.g. conical baffle 34), and an image sensor (e.g. detector 22) which reflects light from the first reflector and then to the second reflector and then to the sensor (see figures 1-2) that captures an image (paragraph [0007]); and further teaches the imaging apparatus includes the optical system as a plurality of optical systems and the image sensor as a plurality of image sensors (abstract e.g. figures 4-5B) for the purpose of increasing the resolution (paragraph [0029] see figure 5A) or increasing the field of view (paragraph [0029] see figure 5B) or collecting different types of data, e.g. spectroscopic data and polarimetric data, across the same field of view (paragraph [0030] see figure 5A). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977); and further it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith to have the imaging apparatus includes the optical system as a plurality of optical systems and the image sensor as a plurality of image sensors as taught by Zhao for the purpose of increasing the resolution or increasing the field of view or collecting different types of data, e.g. spectroscopic data and polarimetric data, across the same field of view and since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US Patent Application Publication 2006/0018012, of record, in view of Shafer US Patent 4,342,503, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Choi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0024958, Roberts et al. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0207389, Young “Design of Cassegrain Light Shields” Applied Optics, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp 1063-1068, June 1967, of record; Cornejo et al. “Direct Design Solution for Cassegrain Shields” Boletín de los Observatorios de Tonantzintla y Tacubata, Vol. 4, No. 30, pp 246-252, 1968, of record; Prescott “Cassegrainian Baffle Design” Applied Optics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp 479-482, March 1968, of record; Ho et al. “Baffle Design for a Cassegrain Telescope” Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 7506, pp 75061S-1-75061S-10, 2009, of record; Kumar et al. “Design and analysis of optimum baffle for a Cassegrain telescope” Journal of Optics, Vol. 45, pp 180-185, 2015, of record; and Fest “Stray Light Analysis and Control; Chapter 9, Baffle and Cold Shield Design” pp 163-182, 2013, of record.
Regarding claim 32 Smith discloses an imaging apparatus imaging apparatus (title e.g. figures 1-2 telescope 10) comprising: an optical system including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 12) that reflects light incident thereon, a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 14) on which the light reflected off the first reflector is incident and which reflects the reflected light (see figures 1-2); a first optical member (e.g. 14) in which the second reflector (e.g. 14) is formed; a second optical member (e.g. 12) in which the first reflector (e.g. 12) is formed; and a partition member (e.g. figures 3 & 10 telescope tube 38) disposed between the first optical member (e.g. 14) and the second optical member (e.g. 12) and including a medium (e.g. air) that transmits light, the first optical member (e.g. 14) being attached to the partition member (implicit the parts are attached) on an object side of the optical system (see figures 1-2), and the second optical member (e.g. 12) being attached to the partition member (implicit the parts are attached) on an image side of the optical system (figures 1-2), the first optical member (e.g. 14), the second optical member (e.g. 12), and the partition member (e.g. 38) forming an integrated unit (e.g. see figure 3 & 10 tube assembly 40 & paragraph [0045]); an image sensor (paragraph [0036] “optoelectronic imaging device such as a CMOS or CCD camera can be disposed at, near, or with respect to the focal plane 16 to record an image of the object”) disposed on an image side of the optical system (e.g. left side of figures 1-2), on which the light reflected off the second reflector is incident (see figures 1-2), and which captures an image of an object formed by the optical system (paragraph [0036] “optoelectronic imaging device such as a CMOS or CCD camera … to record an image of the object”); a light blocking member disposed on at least one of a side of the light reflected off the first reflector that is a side facing an optical axis of the optical system and a side of the light reflected off the second reflector that is a side opposite the optical axis of the optical system (e.g. see annotated figure A below and baffle 24); and a focusing mechanism attached to the partition member and configured to move the first optical member, the second optical member, and the partition member as a one-piece unit along the optical axis for focusing (implicit given paragraph [0037] discussing d1, the distance between 12 & 14 being “held fixed” and “translation of the mirrors causes the focal plane … shown in FIG. 1 to be distance d2 … to be displaced longitudinally as well” and since 12 & 14 move together to focus and are fixed to 38 it is implicit that a mechanism, i.e. actuator, is moving assembly 40), the first optical member (e.g. 14) includes an object side surface (e.g. right side) and an image side surface (e.g. left side) on which the second reflector is formed (e.g. reflecting surface 22), the second optical member (e.g. 12) includes an object side surface (e.g. right side) on which the first reflector is formed (e.g. reflecting surface 21), the light blocking member includes at least one of a first light blocking member so formed as to protrude from the first reflector in a direction toward the second reflector (see annotated figure A below), and a second light blocking member so formed as to protrude from the second reflector in a direction toward the first reflector (see annotated figure A below), a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member is so shaped that: an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (see annotated figure A above).
Smith does not disclose wherein the first optical member includes a first parallel plane glass plate having the object side surface onto which a light transmitting polymer forming the correction member is imprinted, the second optical member includes a second parallel plane glass plate; and a cross-sectional shape in the direction of the optical axis of the first light blocking member is so shaped that: an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis and the plane perpendicular to the optical axis a thickness of a side portion of the first light blocking member increases from a side facing the first reflector toward a side facing the second reflector.
Shafer teaches a similar imaging apparatus (title e.g. figure 2) including a first reflector (e.g. primary mirror 12 commensurate with the claimed second optical member) with a planar surface (e.g. right side), a second reflector (e.g. secondary mirror 14) sharing an optical axis (see figure 2) with an object side (e.g. left side) and an image side (e.g. right side) where light travels a from the first reflector to the second reflector to an image plane (see figure 2) and the combination of a plate (10) and secondary mirror (14) is commensurate with the claimed first optical member; and further teaches the first optical member (e.g. combination of 10 & 14) includes a first plane glass plate (e.g. 10 see figure 2) having an image side surface on which the second reflector (e.g. 14) is formed (e.g. column 2 lines 55-65 “the secondary mirror 14 being mounted on the aspheric plate 10” see figure 2) for the purpose of mechanically simplifying and shortening the system (column 2 lines 55-65), and this technique of placing a reflector on a glass plate could be applied to the second optical member since it is using known techniques on similar devices in the same way to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), see MPEP 2143, and the second plate being a parallel plate is implicit since the right side of 12 is planar and there is no suggestion in figure 2 that would led one to introduce a optical power. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith as modified by Mandler to have the first optical member includes a first glass plate and the second optical member includes a second parallel plane glass plate as suggested by Shafer for the purpose of mechanically simplifying and shortening the system and since it is using known techniques on similar devices in the same way to yield predictable results and constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Shafer does not teach the first plate is a parallel plate where a surface has a light transmitting polymer forming a correction member is imprinted.
The examiner takes Official Notice that creating lens (i.e. a correction member) by imprinting2 polymer (a.k.a. hot embossing a.k.a. UV embossing a.k.a. imprint lithography) on the surface of a parallel plate is well known in the art, as evidenced by Choi paragraph [0074] discussing “generally-known method” of creating lens (e.g. paragraph [0072[ & figure 13 lens 100 with parallel plate 110 having polymer imprinted lens/correction element on one side) and Roberts (paragraph [0037] “the lens to allow the array to be manufactured with techniques such as UV embossing … hot embossing … each of which are known in the art”) for the purpose of enabling mass production (as evidenced by Choi paragraph [0073]). Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging apparatus as disclosed by Smith as modified by Shafer to have the first plate be a parallel plate with a surface having a light transmitting polymer forming a correction member/lens is imprinted since it is a well-known means to create a lens/correction member that can be mass produced and since constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
The combination of Smith as modified by Shafer discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first light blocking member increase as it protrudes towards the second reflector, which would cause an angle between a surface facing the optical axis and a plane perpendicular to the optical axis is smaller than an angle between a surface opposite the optical axis. Light blocking members (a.k.a. baffles) in these (Cassegrain-type) apparatus are well-known as evidenced by Young e.g. figure 1; Cornejo e.g. figure 2; Prescott e.g. figure 1; Ho e.g. figure 3; Kumar second paragraph; and Fest e.g. figure 9.16. The reasons to use baffles in general is well-known as evidenced by Young second paragraph, Cornejo first two paragraphs; Prescott second paragraph; Ho introduction’s second paragraph; Kumar introduction’s first paragraph; and Fest section 9.3 first three paragraphs. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to increase the thickness since applicant has not disclosed that a thicker edge near the second reflector solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well to block stray light with a uniform thickness and/or a decreasing thickness. It has been held that shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCPA 1966; see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. One might be motivated to have a thicker wall at the apex of the frustum based on manufacturing concerns such as making the removal from a mold easier. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first light blocking member in the imaging apparatus as disclosed by the combination of Smith as modified by Shafer to have a shape of an increasing thickness from a side facing the first reflector toward a side facing the second reflector since shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant and one might be motivated to have a thicker wall at the apex of the frustum based on manufacturing concerns such as making the removal from a mold easier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmitt et al. “Full wafer microlens replication by UV imprint lithography” Microelectronic Engineering 87 (2010) 1074–1076, in further evidence of well-known means to manufacture lenses by imprinting polymer on a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 9, 2026
1 Imprinting is a manufacturing step, i.e. a process limitations in a product claim. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113.
2 Imprinting is a manufacturing step, i.e. a process limitations in a product claim. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113.