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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 04/02/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250), hereinafter “Xie”, in view of Lin et al. (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290), hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses a lens enclosure (354) of a metrological camera for industrial and/or geodetic measuring serving as lens spacer for enclosure of at least a glass lens as a first optical element and of a second optical element of the metrological camera (see Fig. 3, Paragraphs 1, 2, 15), the lens enclosure (354) comprising: a first support area (354A) for support of the first optical element (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44), and a second support area (354C) for support of the second optical element (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44), wherein: the first and second support area are spaced apart from each other in direction of an optical axis of the lens enclosure (354) (see Fig. 3), and the first and second support area are shaped as a segment (see Fig. 3), a central axis of which is coaxial to/extends along the optical axis (see Fig. 3), and such that the first and second optical element are mounted in spaced succession along the optical axis due to the spacing of the first and second support area (354A, 354C) and a shape of the respective support area (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44). Xie discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone, such that the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis, cone segment shape. In the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 18), such that the support of the first and second optical element (24, 26) each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis (Paragraph 26), cone segment shape (see Figs. 2, 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens enclosure of Xie with segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone, such that the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis, cone segment shape of Lin for the purpose of providing improved image quality by mutually aligning the optical axis of each lens in the lens module (Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Xie further discloses wherein the support of a respective optical element is non-self-locking (Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 3, Xie further discloses wherein the enclosure of a respective optical element is locally defined, virtually punctiform or linear (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Xie discloses an imaging objective of a metrological camera for industrial and/or geodetic measuring (Paragraphs 1, 2), comprising: a lens enclosure (354) serving as lens spacer (see Fig. 3); a first optical element embodied as a glass lens (see Fig. 3, Paragraphs 15, 44); and at least a second optical element (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44), wherein: the lens enclosure (354) comprises a first support area (354A) for support of the first optical element and a second support area (354C) for support of the second optical element (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44), the first and second support area are spaced apart from each other in direction of the optical axis of the objective (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44), and a respective support area and/or a respective contact area of the first or second optical element for contacting the respective support area is shaped as a segment, the central axis of which extends along the optical axis (see Fig. 3), and such that the first and second optical element are mounted in spaced succession along the optical axis due to the spacing of the first and second support area (354A, 354C) and a segment shape of the respective support area (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44). Xie discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone, such that the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis, cone segment shape. In the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 18), such that the support of the first and second optical element (24, 26) each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis (Paragraph 26), cone segment shape (see Figs. 2, 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide imaging objective of Xie with segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone, such that the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis, cone segment shape of Lin for the purpose of providing improved image quality by mutually aligning the optical axis of each lens in the lens module (Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 10, Xie further discloses wherein an optical axis of a respective optical element is aligned coaxially to the optical axis of the objective solely due to the self-centering support (see Fig. 3, Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 12, Xie further discloses wherein the objective comprises fixation means for fixation of the lens enclosure and/or the optical elements (Paragraph 44), whereby: a respective fixation is free of play in direction of the optical axis (Paragraph 44); and/or at least one of the fixation means serves for fixation of at least two optical elements (Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 18, Xie further discloses wherein: the objective comprises materials with different coefficients of thermal expansion (Paragraph 45), and at least the coefficients of thermal expansion of the lens enclosure and first and second optical element are different to each other (Paragraph 45). The coefficients of thermal expansion are expected to be different when the materials of each element is different. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Xie further discloses a metrological camera for industrial and/or geodetic measuring, comprising the objective according to claim 9 (Paragraphs 1, 2).
Regarding claim 20, Xie further discloses wherein the enclosure of a respective optical element is locally defined, virtually punctiform or linear (see Fig. 3).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250) in view of Lin (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (USP No. 11,899,269), hereinafter “Lin ‘269”.
Regarding claim 4, Xie discloses wherein a draft angle of a respective support area (see Fig. 3). Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify is between 60° and 120°. As this feature is widely known in the art, Lin ‘269 is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Lin ‘269 discloses is between 60° and 120° (Col. 3, Lines 24-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the enclosure of Xie and Lin with is between 60° and 120° of Lin ‘269 for the purpose of carrying an optical element and providing optical space between any two optical elements (Col. 1, Lines 35-37). Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Xie, Lin and Lin ‘269 teach the lens enclosure set forth above for claim 4, Lin ‘269 further discloses wherein the draft angle is between 70° and 110° (Col. 3, Lines 24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens enclosure of Xie and Lin with the teachings of Lin ‘269 for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 4. Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250) in view of Lin (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirie (USP No. 7,158,318).
Regarding claim 6, Xie and Lin teach the lens enclosure set forth above for claim 1, Lin discloses wherein a maximum diameter of the respective support area (Paragraph 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens enclosure of Xie with the teachings of Lin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify is 30mm at most. As this feature is widely known in the art, Shirie is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Shirie discloses is 30mm at most (Col. 2, Lines 29-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the enclosure of Xie and Lin with is 30mm at most of Shirie for the purpose of providing a miniaturized imaging unit (Col. 2, Lines 29-31). Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Xie and Lin teach the lens enclosure set forth above for claim 1, Lin discloses wherein a maximum diameter of the respective support area (Paragraph 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens enclosure of Xie with the teachings of Lin for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify is 14mm at most. As this feature is widely known in the art, Shirie is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Shirie is 14mm at most (Col. 2, Lines 29-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the enclosure of Xie and Lin with is 14mm at most of Shirie for the purpose of providing a miniaturized imaging unit (Col. 2, Lines 29-31). Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250) in view of Lin (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ezawa et al. (USPG Pub No. 2013/0107381), hereinafter “Ezawa”.
Regarding claim 8, Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the first support area and the second support area are arranged in such a way as to be accessible for a turning tool of a turning machine in one and the same clamping provided by the turning machine. In the same field of endeavor, Ezawa discloses wherein the first support area and the second support area are arranged in such a way as to be accessible for a turning tool of a turning machine in one and the same clamping provided by the turning machine (Paragraphs 65, 67, 82). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the enclosure of Xie and Lin with wherein the first support area and the second support area are arranged in such a way as to be accessible for a turning tool of a turning machine in one and the same clamping provided by the turning machine of Ezawa for the purpose of providing an adjustment mechanism (Paragraph 65)
Regarding claim 13, Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the first and second optical element are preloaded, by a spring element, by a force which is at least a hundred times the weight of a respective optical element, in particular whereby the force is maximal 100N. In the same field of endeavor, Ezawa discloses wherein the first and second optical element are preloaded, by a spring element, by a force which is at least a hundred times the weight of a respective optical element, in particular whereby the force is maximal (Paragraphs 82, 88). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with wherein the first and second optical element are preloaded, by a spring element, by a force which is at least a hundred times the weight of a respective optical element, in particular whereby the force is maximal of Ezawa for the purpose of providing an adjustment mechanism (Paragraph 82). Xie, Lin and Ezawa disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify 100N. 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 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie, Lin and Ezawa with 100N for the purpose of providing an adjustment mechanism for the desired application of the objective (Paragraph 82 of Ezawa).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250) in view of Lin (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sugita (USPG Pub No. 2015/0226933).
Regarding claim 11, Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein: the lens enclosure is supported self-centered due to the lens enclosure having an outer support area shaped as a segment of a surface of another right cone, referred to as outer cone, and the central axes of the at least one inner cone and the outer cone are coaxial. In the same field of endeavor, Sugita discloses wherein: the lens enclosure is supported self-centered due to the lens enclosure having an outer support area shaped as a segment of a surface of another right cone, referred to as outer cone, and the central axes of the at least one inner cone and the outer cone are coaxial (see Figs. 1, 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with wherein: the lens enclosure is supported self-centered due to the lens enclosure having an outer support area shaped as a segment of a surface of another right cone, referred to as outer cone, and the central axes of the at least one inner cone and the outer cone are coaxial of Sugita for the purpose of providing a lens barrel that can provide an optical axis adjustment that accords an optical axis of an optical element with a center axis of a barrel body and stably holds the optical element even in a high temperature environment (Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 14, Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the surface of a respective support area and/or contact area is coated with a hardened and/or low-friction coating. In the same field of endeavor, Sugita discloses wherein the surface of a respective support area and/or contact area is coated with a hardened and/or low-friction coating (Paragraph 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with wherein the surface of a respective support area and/or contact area is coated with a hardened and/or low-friction coating of Sugita for the purpose of providing a lens barrel that can provide an optical axis adjustment that accords an optical axis of an optical element with a center axis of a barrel body and stably holds the optical element even in a high temperature environment (Paragraph 6).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (USPG Pub No. 2011/0228250) in view of Lin (USPG Pub No. 2011/0317290) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shigemitsu et al. (USP No. 12,050,360), hereinafter “Shigemitsu”.
Regarding claim 15, Xie and Lin disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein a length of the objective is between 4mm and 40mm. In the same field of endeavor, Shigemitsu discloses wherein a length of the objective is between 4mm and 40mm (Col. 7, Lines 41-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with wherein a length of the objective is between 4mm and 40mm of Shigemitsu for the purpose of utilizing the objective for the desired application (Col. 7, Lines 39-40). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Xie, Lin and Shigemitsu teach the objective set forth above for claim 15, Shigemitsu further discloses wherein the length of the objective is between 5mm and 30mm (Col. 7, Lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with the teachings of Shigemitsu for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Xie, Lin and Shigemitsu teach the objective set forth above for claim 16, Shigemitsu further discloses wherein the length of the objective is (Col. 7, Lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the objective of Xie and Lin with the teachings of Shigemitsu for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15. Xie, Lin and Shigemitsu disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify between 10mm and 25mm. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, 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 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the objective of Xie, Lin and Shigemitsu with between 10mm and 25mm for the purpose of utilizing the objective for the desired application (Col. 7, Lines 39-40 of Shigemitsu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Xie and Lin, alone or in combination, do not disclose or teach the limitation “the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis”.
As presented above, Fig. 3, along with the corresponding disclosure, of Xie teaches the lens enclosure as recited, but does not specify the support areas shaped as a segment of a surface of at least one right cone each, referred to as inner cone, such that the support of the first and second optical element each is self-centering with respect to translation in all directions as well as tilt in relation to the optical axis.
Fig. 3 of Lin illustrates a lens barrel (22) with first and second support areas (230, 232) that are shaped as truncated cone segments (see Paragraph 18). Paragraphs 19, 21 and 23 teach that the angles θ1 (of first contact surface 230) = θ3 (of third contact surface 246) and θ2 (of second contact surface 232) = θ4 (of fourth contact surface 248). Since the structural requirements, as recited, are met, the “self-centering” limitation is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed support area is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the support areas from the prior art Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). In addition, the configuration of the support areas prevent undesirable shifting or misalignment, or “translation in all directions as well as tilt”, of the lens elements, ultimately providing the same end result as claimed which is alignment to the optical axis. The action of “self-centering” is inherent and is an expected result where the support areas are configured to align the lens elements. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights