DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/092026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 01/09/2026) with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-15 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended each of claims 1 and 10, such that the first lens of each first lens group “ha[s] a convex image-side surface.” On page 6, applicant argues that this limitation is “nowhere disclosed nor suggested by the cited references,” at least “because the first lens of example 1 of Chen has a concave image-side surface.” In support, applicant cites [0115] of Chen.
However, [0115] of Chen mentions that there is “one inflection point on the image-side surface 112” (surface 112 represents the image-side surface of the first lens of the first lens group, as previously cited by the examiner). Thus, the first lens does include a convex image-side surface, as evidenced by Image 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Image side-surface of Chen’s first lens 110, plotted using Desmos graphing calculator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20210103124 A1, of record) in view of Kamo (US 6259564 B1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens group (Fig. 14B, 110-130);
a first reflective portion (Fig. 15D, IR20) comprising a reflective surface (Fig. 15D, IR21); and
a second reflective portion (Fig. 15D, IR30) comprising a reflective surface (Fig. 15D, IR31),
wherein the first lens group, the first reflective portion, and the second reflective portion are sequentially arranged from an object side (Fig. 15D),
wherein the first lens group comprises a first lens having a convex image-side surface (Tables 1-2, S2), a second lens (Fig. 1A), and a third lens having a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1A) and
wherein 2.0 < TTL/f1< 4.0 is satisfied (Table 1, TTL=33.630 and f1=13.69, giving 2.456), and 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 (Table 1, BFL=29.082 and TTL=33.630, giving 0.86476) are satisfied,
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens of the lens group to an imaging plane.
Chen fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second reflective portions comprise a plurality of reflective surfaces.
However, Kamo teaches a similar lens system having two reflective portions, wherein a first reflective portion (Fig. 19, 10) comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 19, 12-15) and a second reflective portion (Fig. 19, 20) comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 19, 22-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Chen and Kamo such that each reflective portion was to comprise a plurality of reflective surfaces, motivated by allowing for more versatile manipulation of an optical path.
Modified Chen fails to disclose wherein 32 < V1-V2 < 38 is satisfied, where V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and V2 is the Abbe number of the second lens.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the first and/or second lenses of modified Chen such that 32 < V1-V2 < 38 was satisfied, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to a select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen discloses wherein the first reflective portion further comprises:
a first rearmost reflective surface disposed closest to the second reflective portion (Kamo - Fig. 19, 14); and
a first reflective surface configured to re-reflect light reflected from the first rearmost reflective surface to the second reflective portion (Kamo - Fig. 19, 15).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen discloses wherein the first reflective portion further comprises a first frontmost reflective surface configured to reflect light exiting the first lens group to the first rearmost reflective surface (Kamo - Fig. 19, 13).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chen discloses wherein the second reflective portion further comprises:
a second frontmost reflective surface disposed closest to the first reflective portion (Kamo - Fig. 19, 24); and
a second reflective surface configured to reflect light irradiated from the first reflective surface to the second frontmost reflective surface (Kamo - Fig. 19, 23).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen discloses wherein the second reflective portion further comprises a second rearmost reflective surface configured to reflect light irradiated from the second frontmost reflective surface to the imaging plane (Kamo - Fig. 19, 22).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen fails to disclose wherein an included angle between the first rearmost reflective surface and the first reflective surface is equal to an included angle between the second frontmost reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust an included angle between modified Chen’s first rearmost reflect surface and the first reflective surface such that it was equal to an included angle between the second frontmost reflective surface and the second reflective surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the angles of the device such that the parameter was satisfied, motivated by optimizing the shape profile of the prism(s).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses wherein the first lens group has positive refractive power (Chen - Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen fails to disclose a third reflective portion disposed on an object side of the first reflective portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose a third reflective portion on an object side of the first reflective portion, since 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), motivated by allowing for more versatile manipulation of an optical path.
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses an imaging lens system comprising:
a lens group (Fig. 14B, 110-130) comprising a first lens having a convex image-side surface (Tables 1-2, S2), a second lens (Fig. 1A), and a third lens having a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1A));
a first reflective portion (Fig. 15D, IR20) comprising a reflective surface (Fig. 15D, IR21); and
a second reflective portion (Fig. 15D, IR30) comprising a reflective surface (Fig. 15D, IR31),
wherein the lens group, the first reflective portion, and the second reflective portion are sequentially arranged from an object side (Fig. 15D), and
wherein the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion each include a total reflection surface (Fig. 15D), and
wherein 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 (Table 1, BFL=29.082 and TTL=33.630, giving 0.86476)
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens of the lens group to an imaging plane.
Chen fails to disclose wherein each of the first and second reflective portions comprise a plurality of reflective surfaces.
However, Kamo teaches a similar lens system having two reflective portions, wherein a first reflective portion (Fig. 19, 10) comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 19, 12-15) and a second reflective portion (Fig. 19, 20) comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 19, 22-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Chen and Kamo such that each reflective portion was to comprise a plurality of reflective surfaces, motivated by allowing for more versatile manipulation of an optical path.
Modified Chen fails to disclose wherein 32 < V1-V2 < 38 is satisfied, where V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and V2 is the Abbe number of the second lens.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the material of the first and/or second lenses of modified Chen such that 32 < V1-V2 < 38 was satisfied, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to a select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146. It would have been obvious, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen discloses wherein the lens group comprises:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Chen - Table 1); and
a second lens having negative refractive power (Chen - Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chen discloses wherein 2.0 < TTL/f1 < 4.0 is satisfied (Chen - Table 1, TTL=33.630 and f1=13.69, giving 2.456),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f1 is a focal length of the first lens.
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen discloses wherein -5.0 < TTL/f2 < -0.2 is satisfied (Chen - Table 1, TTL=33.630 and f2=-10.37, giving -3.243),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens.
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen discloses wherein 1.1 < TTL/f is satisfied (Chen - Table 1, TTL=33.630 and f=28.23, giving 1.191),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a frontmost lens of the lens group to an imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kamo, and further in view of Gross et al. (Gross, H. (Ed.). 2005. Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems, 377-379. Wiley-Vch.—of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen fails to disclose a second lens group disposed between the third reflective portion and the first reflective portion.
However, Gross teaches wherein “it is an [sic] advantageous to make changes in [a lens] system without any great perturbation of the existing setup” and “[o]ne class of modifications of this type are those which do not introduce any refractive power”; and discloses that “inserting a powerless thin or thick meniscus lens” is one of the most essential such operations (page 378, 33.1.4 Zero Power Operations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Chen, or modified Tan, with Gross such that a second lens group was disposed between the third reflective portion and the first reflective portion, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872