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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-15, 17-21, 24 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12, 17-18, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra (WO 2019195182 A1) in view of Bietry (WO 2010039219 A1) and Mann (US 20070058269 A1).
Re Claim 1, Perterra discloses, a projection lens system ( Fig. 4), comprising: a Fourier lens assembly along axis to a distal end (components along axis from DMD 200 through mask 412, thus mask 412 is the most distal end) including a first section (components along axis from lens 404 to mask 412), the Fourier lens assembly configured to form a Fourier transform (lens 404 Fourier transforms light) of an object (DMD 200 is a LCD or LCOS) at a Fourier plane (Fourier plane 408) at an exit pupil of the Fourier lens assembly (Fourier plane 408 is at focal point of lens 404); a Fourier aperture (mask 412 at Fourier plane that can selectively transmit certain diffraction orders) [Par 82-83] configured to block a portion of incident light (mask 412 has at least one transmissive region and can have other opaque or reflective regions) [Par 83], the aperture located approximately at the Fourier plane (Fourier plane 408); and a lens assembly (collimation lens 418) including a second section (components from transmissive region 416 through collimated light 420 along the optical axis).
Further Perterra teaches wherein the Fourier plane is located at the distal end of the Fourier lens assembly (Fourier plane 408 is at distal end of the Fourier lens assembly from lens 404 at the location of the Fourier mask 412 which also is an aperture) [Par 82-83].
But Perterra does not explicitly disclose, a first attachment section, zoom lens assembly including a second attachment section configured to be removably attached to the first attachment section, wherein the Fourier lens plane is located at the first attachment section, an access portion for providing access to the aperture, wherein the aperture is swappable, an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Bietry teaches, on Fig. 6a-6b, that it is desirable in projection systems to include a first attachment section (base projection lens 62), zoom lens assembly (L151-L153) including a second attachment section (zoom attachment 44) configured to be removably attached to the first attachment section ( different attachments can be provided, including an afocal attachment 40 or zoom lens 44 ) [Page 7, Par 2-3], an access portion (the removal of zoom attachment 44 would provide a mounting interface), for providing access to the aperture (Fig. 6a shows aperture A between attachment sections 44 and 62 ).
While, Bietry does not specifically teach a Fourier aperture, or a Fourier plane, Bietry does teach the following:
See Fig. 6a, wherein there are no other lenses provided on the base lens 62 on the object side of aperture A, as evidenced by the detailed listing of lenses provided in lens 62 as only L130 and L131 both on Page 7, Par 2-5 and on Table 4, therefore the removal of zoom lens 44 would allow general access to aperture A, further Bietry specifically teaches the following:
“Attachment 40, 44, or 60 can be combined with base projection lens 30 by mounting against base projection lens components, using mounting techniques for lens accessories well known to those skilled in the optical design arts. The method and apparatus of the present invention support a modular design approach, with potential advantages in cost and flexibility for projection systems. A single base projection lens 30 can be designed and optimized for a type of spatial light modulator and with a particular component placement and packaging arrangement, for example. Then, using this base projection lens 30, any number of afocal attachments 40, 44, or 60 can be developed, making a projection apparatus adaptable to any of a number of different projection venues.“) [Page 7, Par 2-5].
Bietry’s teaching of well-known mounting techniques for the mounting of lens accessories and attachments 40, 44, and 60, [Page 7, Par 2-5], as well as a modular design approach [Page 7, Par 2-5], and the design and optimization of both the projection lens 30 and attachments 40, 44, and 60 [Page 7, Par 2-5], make it clear that both the mounting of lens accessories and attachments and the modular design, and a lens system that can be “adaptable” is taught by the prior art. Together, this teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing and arranging attachments 40, 44, and 60 to allow access to aperture A. Further, Bietry is clear that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have such a modular design, for multiple reasons, to make the projection apparatus adaptable to any number of different projection venues, or to improve cost and flexibility [Page 7, Par 2-5].
Thus, Perterra teaches the use of a Fourier lenses at the distal end of a focal system (Fig. 4) and a Fourier aperture at the same distal location (Fig. 4), and Bietry teaches the modular attachment of zoom lenses to attachment sections (See explanation above), at the location of an aperture (See Fig. 6). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combined teachings of Bietry and Perterra would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art for the Fourier plane to be located at the first attachment section, and an access portion for providing access to the Fourier aperture,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra with Bietry in order to provide adjustable reduction or enlargement of the projector field of view, as taught by Bietry [Page 7, Par 2].
But Pertierra in view of Bietry does not explicitly disclose nor suggest, wherein the aperture is swappable, and an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mann teaches, on Fig. 1 and6a, that it is desirable in optical system to include wherein the aperture is swappable (aperture is interchangeable) [Par 209], while the first (projection objective 101) and second attachment sections (mirror base extension attachable to objective 101 or optionally interferometer extensions) [Par 186 and 211] remain attached (interchangeable aperture can be changed in addition to mirrors) [Par 209].
This teaching of Mann would inherently teach, “…an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached…”, this being reasonably interpreted, because Mann’s teaching of an interchangeable aperture [Par 209] would require means of accessing said aperture (port, window, slit, channel, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pertierra in view of Bietry with Mann in order to provide, high resolution and low image distortion, as taught by Mann [Par 62-64].
Re Claim 4, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1, Bietry further discloses on Fig. 6a-6b, wherein, in an assembled state, the Fourier lens assembly (previously taught by Perterra in Claim 1) and the zoom lens assembly are substantially coaxial (Bietry teaches wherein Zoom attachment 44 and base projection lens 62 are coaxial).
Re claim 5, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1, and Perterra further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the Fourier lens assembly includes a plurality of lenses (Fourier lens 404 may be a compound lens or an assembly of multiple lenses) [Par 121].
Re Claim 6, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 5.
But Perterra in view of Bietry does not explicitly disclose, wherein a distance between the Fourier plane and a nearest lens surface of the plurality of lenses is greater than 12 mm.
However, optimizing the focal length of lenses, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Perterra teaches focal length (Fig. 2: focal length 410 can even be changed relative to focal length 424 and the components of lens 404 can modified) [Par 82, 84, and 121], as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting focal length and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize focal length since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 7, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1, and Perterra further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the Fourier lens assembly (components along axis 422 from DMD 200 to mask 412) includes an electronic crystal (DMD 200 is a micro-opto-electromechanical system, or spatial light modulator, comprising a reflective liquid crystal on silicon) [Par 75-77] configured to shift a projection image in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis of the Fourier lens assembly (DMD 200 steers light by modulation the refractive index of the liquid crystal] [Par 75-77].
Re Claim 9, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann disclose, the projection lens system according to claim 1, and Bietry further discloses on Figure 6, wherein the Fourier lens assembly is configured to compensate for an aberration introduced by the zoom lens assembly (“base projection lens 30 can be designed so that it has a field of view at a first value that lies toward the middle of a range of field angles. Then, afocal attachments 40, 44, or 60 can be used when it is necessary to adapt the design of the projection apparatus with either a larger or smaller field of view. This same approach can also be advantageous with a zoom attachment. Base projection lens 30 can be designed so that its field of view is in the middle range of the zoom attachment, so that zoom adjustment can change field of view to values above or below this center value.”) [Page 7, Par 1].
Re Claim 10, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1, and Bietry further discloses on Fig. 6, wherein the zoom lens assembly (zoom attachment 44) is configured to compensate for an aberration introduced by the Fourier lens assembly (Bietry teaches an embodiment where the base projection lens 30 is configured with a large field of view and zoom lens 44 is used to reduce the filed of view) [Page 7, Par 1].
Re Claim 17, Perterra discloses, a method of providing a projection lens system (Fig. 4), comprising: a Fourier lens assembly extending along an optical axis to a distal end (components along axis from DMD 200 through mask 412, thus mask 412 is the most distal end) including a first section (components along axis from lens 404 to mask 412), the Fourier lens assembly configured to form a Fourier transform (lens 404 Fourier transforms light) of an object (DMD 200 is a LCD or LCOS) at a Fourier plane (Fourier plane 408) at an exit pupil of the Fourier lens assembly (Fourier plane 408 is at focal point of lens 404); a Fourier aperture (mask 412 at Fourier plane that can selectively transmit certain diffraction orders) [Par 82-83] configured to block a portion of incident light (mask 412 has at least one transmissive region and can have other opaque or reflective regions) [Par 83], the aperture located approximately at the Fourier plane (Fourier plane 408); and a lens assembly (collimation lens 418) including a second section (components from transmissive region 416 through collimated light 420 along the optical axis).
Further Perterra teaches wherein the Fourier plane is located at the distal end of the Fourier lens assembly (Fourier plane 408 is at distal end of the Fourier lens assembly from lens 404 at the location of the Fourier mask 412 which also is an aperture) [Par 82-83].
But Perterra does not explicitly disclose, a zoom lens assembly including a second attachment section configured to be removably attached to the first attachment section for providing access to the aperture, providing an access portion in one of the first attachment section or the second attachment section for providing access to swap out the Fourier aperture, and removably attaching the second attachment section to the first attachment section, an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Bietry teaches, on Fig. 6a-6b, that it is desirable in projection systems to include a first attachment section (base projection lens 62), zoom lens assembly (L151-L153) including a second attachment section (zoom attachment 44) configured to be removably attached to the first attachment section ( different attachments can be provided, including an afocal attachment 40 or zoom lens 44 ) for providing access to the aperture, removably attaching the second attachment section to the first attachment section.
See Fig. 6a, wherein there are no other lenses provided on the base lens 62 on the object side of aperture A, as evidenced by the detailed listing of lenses provided in lens 62 as only L130 and L131 both on Page 7, Par 2-5 and on Table 4, therefore the removal of zoom lens 44 would allow general access to aperture A, further Bietry specifically teaches the following:
“Attachment 40, 44, or 60 can be combined with base projection lens 30 by mounting against base projection lens components, using mounting techniques for lens accessories well known to those skilled in the optical design arts. The method and apparatus of the present invention support a modular design approach, with potential advantages in cost and flexibility for projection systems. A single base projection lens 30 can be designed and optimized for a type of spatial light modulator and with a particular component placement and packaging arrangement, for example. Then, using this base projection lens 30, any number of afocal attachments 40, 44, or 60 can be developed, making a projection apparatus adaptable to any of a number of different projection venues.”) [Page 7, Par 2-5].
Bietry’s teaching of well-known mounting techniques for the mounting of lens accessories and attachments 40, 44, and 60, [Page 7, Par 2-5], as well as a modular design approach [Page 7, Par 2-5], and the design and optimization of both the projection lens 30 and attachments 40, 44, and 60 [Page 7, Par 2-5], make it clear that both the mounting of lens accessories and attachments and the modular design, and a lens system that can be “adaptable” is taught by the prior art. Together, this teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing and arranging attachments 40, 44, and 60 to allow access to aperture A. Further, Bietry is clear that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to have such a modular design, for multiple reasons, to make the projection apparatus adaptable to any number of different projection venues, or to improve cost and flexibility [Page 7, Par 2-5].
Thus, Perterra teaches the use of a Fourier lenses at the distal end of a focal system (Fig. 4) and a Fourier aperture at the same distal location (Fig. 4), and Bietry teaches the modular attachment of zoom lenses to attachment sections (See explanation above), at the location of an aperture (See Fig. 6). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combined teachings of Bietry and Perterra would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art for the Fourier plane to be located at the first attachment section, and an access portion for providing access to the Fourier aperture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra with Bietry in order to provide adjustable reduction or enlargement of the projector field of view, as taught by Bietry [Page 7, Par 2].
But Pertierra in view of Bietry does not explicitly disclose, wherein the aperture is swappable, an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Mann teaches, on Fig. 1 and 6a, that it is desirable in optical system to include wherein the aperture is swappable (aperture is interchangeable) [Par 209], while the first (projection objective 101) and second attachment sections (mirror base extension attachable to objective 101 or optionally interferometer extensions) [Par 186 and 211] remain attached (interchangeable aperture can be changed in addition to mirrors) [Par 209].
This teaching of Mann would inherently teach, “…an access portion for providing access to the aperture while the first and second attachment sections remain attached…”, this being reasonably interpreted, because Mann’s teaching of an interchangeable aperture [Par 209] would require means of accessing said aperture (port, window, slit, channel, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pertierra in view of Bietry with Mann in order to provide, high resolution and low image distortion, as taught by Mann [Par 62-64].
Re Claim 18, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the method according to claim 17.
But Perterra in view of Bietry, does not disclose, further comprising: providing a second zoom lens assembly including a third attachment section; removing the second attachment section from the first attachment section; and removably attaching the third attachment section to the first attachment section.
However, Bietry does disclose, a zoom lens assembly (L151-L153) including a second attachment section (zoom attachment 44) configured to be removably attached to the first attachment section ( different attachments can be provided, including an afocal attachment 40 or zoom lens 44 ) [Page 7, Par 2]. Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been well within ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second zoom assembly, similar to the first, that can be attached to the first attachment section similar to the attachment of the second section, the first zoom assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view of Bietry, in order to provide alternative zoom options as taught by Bietry [Page 7, Par 2].
Re Claim 20, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the method according to claim 17, Bietry further discloses on Fig. 6a-6b, wherein the second attachment section (zoom attachment 44) and the first attachment section (base projection lens 62) are removably attached in a manner such that the Fourier lens assembly (Perterra previously taught in claim 17) and the first zoom lens assembly are substantially coaxial (Bietry teaches wherein Zoom attachment 44 and base projection lens 62 are coaxial).
Re Claim 21, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the method according to claim 17, and Bietry further discloses on Fig. 6a-6b, further comprising: receiving a zoom lens assembly request; and providing the first zoom lens assembly in response to the zoom lens assembly request section (different attachments can be provided based on need, including various zoom lenses 44 of different focal length and FOV) [Page 7, Par 2-3]
Re claim 24, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 4, and Perterra further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein, the Fourier aperture (mask 412) is substantially coaxial to the optical axis (mask 412 is symmetric on the optical axis such that its axis and the optical axis are the same) and the Fourier lens assembly (axis of lens 404 is coaxial with optical axis of the lens system in Fig. 4), and Bietry further discloses on Fig. 6a, wherein in an assembled state the aperture (aperture A) is coaxial to the optical and the zoom lens assembly (aperture A and zoom assembly 44 attachment are coaxial along the optical axis).
Claim(s) 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra, Bietry, and Mann as applied to claim 1 and 17 above respectively, and further in view of Yokoi (WO 2019150472 A1).
Re claim 3, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry does not disclose, wherein the first attachment section and the second attachment section are configured to mate by at least one of a thread, a fastener, a screw, a cam, a flange, a pin, or a slot.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yokoi teaches, on Fig. 2 and 8a-8b, that it is desirable in optical systems for the first attachment section (main body BD) and the second attachment section (optical system OS) to be configured to mate by at least one of a thread, a fastener, a screw, a cam, a flange, a pin, or a slot (zoom pin 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view Bietry and Mann, with Yokoi in order to provide attachment, and operation, as taught by Yokoi [Page 6, Par 4-5].
Re claim 19, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the method according to claim 17.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose, wherein the first attachment section and the second attachment section are configured to mate by at least one of a thread, a fastener, a screw, a cam, a flange, a pin, or a slot.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yokoi teaches, on Fig. 2 and 8a-8b, that it is desirable in optical systems for the first attachment section (main body BD) and the second attachment section (optical system OS) to be configured to mate by at least one of a thread, a fastener, a screw, a cam, a flange, a pin, or a slot (zoom pin 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra and Bietry and Mann, with Yokoi in order to provide attachment, and operation, as taught by Yokoi [Page 6, Par 4-5].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra, Bietry, and Mann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugita (US 20140009832 A1).
Re Claim 8, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann, discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose, wherein the Fourier lens assembly is telecentric.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sugita teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in zoom lenses for the lens assembly to be telecentric (Sugita teaches in all provided embodiments to arrange the lens system such that each off axis principle ray is near telecentric; Sugita also teaches that is common in some lens systems to make light flux in an image peripheral area telecentric) [Par 59-60].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perteirra in view of Bietry and Mann, with Sugita in order to provide a wide angle of view as taught by Sugita [Par 60].
Claim(s) 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai (JP 2016031405 A).
Re Claim 11, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose, it further comprising a thermal dissipation device configured to dissipate heat from the aperture.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches, on Fig. 2 and 4, that it is desirable in optical systems to include a thermal dissipation device (support portion 32a) configured to dissipate heat from the aperture (“By fixing the first aperture stop ST1 to the lens frame FL via the first aperture support portion 32a, the thermal resistance between the first aperture stop ST1 and the lens frame FL can be increased.”) [Page 5, Par 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann,with Sakai, in order to provide for increased thermal resistance, as taught by Sakai [Page 5, Par 1].
Re Claim 14, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose, wherein the zoom lens assembly includes a fixed lens group and at least one movable lens group.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in zoom lenses for the zoom lens assembly to include a fixed lens group (G1) and at least one movable lens group (G2-G4) [Page 3, Par 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann, with Sakai in order to decrease flare, as taught by Sakai [Page 3, Par 10].
Re Claim 15, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose, wherein the zoom lens assembly includes a plurality of fixed lens groups.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in zoom lenses for the zoom lens assembly to includes a plurality of fixed lens groups (G1 and G5) [Page 3, Par 9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann, with Sakai in order to decrease flare, as taught by Sakai [Page 3, Par 10].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 20090116122 A1).
Re Claim 13, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to claim 1.
But Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann does not explicitly discloses, wherein the zoom lens assembly exhibits internal focus.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Koboyashi teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in projection lenses for the zoom lens assembly (zoom lens 10) to exhibit internal focus [Par 17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann, with Koboyashi in order to miniaturize the zoom lens, as taught by Koboyashi [Par 17].
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perterra, Bietry and Mann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noda (US 6014262 A).
Re Claim 12, Perterra in view of Bietry and Mann discloses, the projection lens system according to Claim 1, and Perterra further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the aperture (mask 412) is thermally isolated from the Fourier lens assembly (lens 404) and the zoom lens assembly (mask 412 and lens 404 are separated from the other included lens 418 by focal length 410 and focal length 424)
But Pertierra in view of Bietry and Mann does not disclose wherein the aperture is thermally isolated from the Fourier lens assembly and the zoom lens assembly by a distance of more than 12 mm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Noda teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in optical systems, to control the distance between components (in this case focal length between a lens) to optimize thermal isolation (back focal length is optimizse such that lens 1 is thermally isolated from LED 3)[Col 1, Lines 25-45]. Thus, it would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to thermally isolate a different component such as an aperture. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so, in order to provide, reduced optical abberations [Col 1, Lines 25-45].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pertierra in view of Bietry and Mann, in order to provide, reduced aberrations, as taught by Noda. [Col 1, Lines 25-45]
But Pertierra in view of Bietry, Mann and Noda do not explicitly disclose, wherein wherein the aperture is thermally isolated from the Fourier lens assembly and the zoom lens assembly by a distance of more than 12 mm.
Optimizing thermal isolation distance, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at, Noda teaches thermal isolation distance as a variable which achieves a recognized result, reducing optical aberration [Col 1, Lines 25-45].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting thermal isolation distance and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thermal isolation distance such that the claimed condition is satisfied, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okumura (WO 2017013862 A1) teaches a Fourier lens system with a stop and a projection lens, but does not teach a zoom lens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights