DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 08/29/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 2-10 are amended. Claims 1 and 11 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 2-10 are pending. The rejections of claims 1-3, 5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1-3, 5, and 11. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 10 are indefinite because they recite the limitation 1.80 ≤ b, which is another way of reciting the limitation 1 ≤ b, as any number raised to the power of zero is equal to one, and without any units to provide meaning or context to the value of b, the limitation is indefinite. Furthermore, the range of the value of b is indefinite, since the limitation as currently recited allows for any value of b greater than one, up to infinity. For examination purposes, Examiner will assume b = 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the claim lacks a full stop, and therefore it is unclear whether the full and complete limitations of the claim have been recited. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume claim 7 has a full stop at the end of the phrase “with an aspherical profile”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang et al. US PGPub 2020/0201005 A1 (hereinafter, “Dang”) in view of Stonely et al. US Patent 11,079,578 B1 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Stonely), Choi et al. US Patent 10,139,601 B2 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Choi”), Abbe US Patent 697,959 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Abbe”), Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007, hereinafter, “Gross”), Chen US PGPub 2020/0393653 A1 (hereinafter, “Chen”), Frey, Bradley J., Douglas B. Leviton, and Timothy J. Madison, "Temperature-dependent refractive index of silicon and germanium" Optomechanical Technologies for Astronomy, Vol. 6273. SPIE, 2006 (hereinafter, “Frey”), Marple, D. T. F. "Refractive index of ZnSe, ZnTe, and CdTe" Journal of Applied Physics 35.3 (1964): 539-542 (hereinafter, “Marple”), Watanabe US Patent 6,091,551 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Watanabe”), Lohmann, Adolf W. “Scaling laws for lens systems.” Applied Optics 28.23 (1989): 4996-4998 (hereinafter, “Lohmann”), and Plummer, William T. "Unusual optics of the Polaroid SX-70 Land camera." Applied Optics 21.2 (1982): 196-202 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Plummer”).
Regarding amended independent claim 2, Dang discloses an anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD (high definition) resolution sensor consists of ten main lenses; in a direction from an object plane to an image plane, the lens consists of:
lenses (L1), (L2), (L3), (L4), (L5), (L6) forming an outermost angular magnification lens group (G1) (Fig. 1 depicts an optical system that includes six lens elements, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and L6, refer to par. [0081-84], and these elements are equivalent to an outermost angular magnification lens group because they are closest to the object and therefore are the outermost lenses of the optical system, and these lenses provide angular magnification as shown in at least Fig. 1, with rays refracting through the lens surfaces, thereby producing angular magnification);
lenses (L7), (L8) forming a converging lens group (G2) (Fig. 1, the optical system includes lens elements L7 and L8, par. [0084], therefore these lenses are equivalent to a converging lens group as rays passing through lens elements L7 and L8 converge); and
lenses (L9), (L10) forming an intermediate image magnification lens group (G3) (Fig. 1, the optical system includes lens elements L9 and L10, par. [0085], and these lenses are equivalent to an intermediate image magnification lens group as they provide magnification that is intermediate in that the magnification is provided before the rays arrive at the image plane);
wherein in the direction from the object plane to the image plane, the magnification group (G1) includes 6 single lens elements (Fig. 1, lens elements L1 through L6 are single lenses); in which:
lens (L1) consisting of a convex spherical surface (S1) and a concave surface (S2) with an aspherical profile (refer to Fig. 1 and Table 3 for parameters of the optical lens system where lens element L1 has a convex surface S1 on the object side, and a concave surface S2 on the image side that is aspheric, par. [0019]);
lens (L2) consisting of a convex surface (S3) with a profile and a concave surface (S4) with a profile (Fig. 1 and Table 3, lens element L2 has a convex surface S3 on the object side, and a concave surface S4 on the image side, par. [0081]);
lens (L3) consisting of a surface (S5) with a profile and a surface (S6) with a profile (Fig. 1 and Table 3, lens element L3 has a convex surface S5 on the object side, and a concave surface S6 on the image side that is aspheric, par. [0081]);
lens (L4) consisting of a surface (S7) with a profile and a surface (S8) facing towards the image plane (Fig. 1 and Table 3, lens element L4 has a convex surface S7 on the object side, and a concave surface S8 on the image side, par. [0082]);
lens (L5) is made of germanium, consisting of a surface (S9) with a profile and a surface (S10) with an aspherical profile (Fig. 1 and Table 3, lens element L5 has a convex surface S9 on the object side, and a concave surface S10 on the image side that is aspheric, par. [0082]);
lens (L6) consisting of a concave spherical surface (S11) and a spherical surface (S12) facing towards the image plane (Fig. 1 and Table 3, lens element L6 has a concave aspheric surface S11 and a concave spherical surface S12, par. [0084]);
three lenses (L1), (L2), (L3) including a positive power lenses (L2) combined with negative power (L3) lens are responsible for receiving incident parallel light beams and focusing them at an intermediate image plane (Dang, in Table 3, provides parameters for the optical system disclosed therein, where second lens element L2 has positive refractive power as determined from the parameters in Table 3, and third lens element L3 has negative refractive power as determined from the parameters in Table 3, and Fig. 1 shows parallel light beams are received by the optical system and these beams are refracted by lens elements L1, L2, and L3 and focused at an intermediate image plane);
a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses (Dang discloses the optical system has a focal length for the lens elements L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm as calculated from parameters in Table 3);
the next three lenses of the magnification group (G1) are (L4), (L5), (L6) consisting of a positive power lens (L4) combined with one negative power lens (L5) (Fig. 1, the optical system has a fourth lens element L4 with positive power and a fifth lens element L5 with negative power, and a sixth lens element L6, pars. [0082-84]);
a focal length of the optical part created by these three lenses (the focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3);
group (G1) has the effect of magnifying a focal length of the optical part created by groups (G2,G3) to a ratio (A) (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
Dang does not disclose a fast steering mirror group (M1), nor a fixed mirror group (M2), and Dang does not disclose that lens L1 is made of silicon and has positive power (first lens element L1 is made from germanium and has negative power, par. [0081]), that lens L2 is made of germanium with aspheric surfaces (second lens element L2 is made of silicon and has two spherical surfaces, par. [0081]), that lens L3 is made of germanium consisting of a concave surface S5 with an aspherical profile and a convex surface S6 with an extended polynomial profile (third lens element L3 is made of silicon and has two spherical surfaces, par. [0081]), that lens L4 is made of zinc selenide (lens element L4 is made from silicon, par. [0082]), consisting of a concave surface S7 with an extended polynomial profile and a convex spherical surface S8 facing towards the image plane (lens element L4 has two spherical surfaces, par. [0082]), that lens L5 consists of a concave surface S9 with an aspherical profile and a convex surface S10 with an aspherical profile (Fig. 1 and Table 3 show lens element L5 has a convex object-side surface with a spherical surface and a concave image-side surface that is aspheric), that lens L6 is made of silicon consisting of a concave spherical surface S11 and a convex spherical surface S12 facing towards the image plane (lens element L6 is made from germanium, with an aspheric surface S11 and a concave surface S12, par. [0084]), and Dang does not teach L6 is positive (lens element L6 has negative power, par. [0084]). Dang also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies the condition 200 mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150 mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from parameters in Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100 mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150 mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3), and consequently Dang does not disclose a magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 that satisfy the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
Though Dang does not teach the specific order of lenses being made of germanium, silicon, and zinc selenide, Dang in Table 3 does disclose first, fifth, sixth, eight, ninth, and tenth lenses of germanium, second, third, and fourth lenses of silicon, and a seventh lens element of zinc selenide ZnSe, thereby teaching the use of the claimed materials germanium, silicon, and zinc selenide as suitable materials for lenses in an infrared optical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have noted that Dang teaches the use of germanium, silicon, and zinc selenide as appropriate materials for lenses in an optical system for focusing infrared light, and a person of ordinary skill would have been able to select the appropriate materials for the lenses such that first lens element L1 would be made of silicon, second lens element L2 would be made of germanium, third lens element L3 would be made of germanium, fourth lens element L4 would be made of zinc selenide, and sixth lens element L6 would be made of silicon, so as to provide an optimal sequence of lenses to focus infrared light (refer to Dang, par. [0008]).
In a related field of invention, Stonely discloses telescope 10 with fast steering mirror 20, see at least Figs. 2 and 3 and refer to col. 5, lines 23-44 thereof, where fast steering mirror 20 may be configured to control a direction of the reflection of the electromagnetic radiation, including infrared light (col. 5, lines 59-64 of Stonely). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Stonely to the disclosure of Dang and included a fast steering mirror, such as taught by Stonely, nearer the object side of the optical system (see Stonely, Figs. 1-3, where fast steering mirror 20 is nearer to the object-side of the imaging system), such as between lens elements L6 and L7 of Dang, to remove or minimize beam walk during motion of elements within the optical system disclosed by Dang (Stonely, col. 1, lines 40-46, col. 4, lines 1-7, col. 7 lines 35-38, col. 8, lines 35-38).
The prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely does not disclose a fixed mirror group (M2), and does not disclose lens L1 has positive power (first lens element L1 has negative power, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L2 has aspheric surfaces (second lens element L2 has two spherical surfaces, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L3 has a concave surface S5 with an aspherical profile and a convex surface S6 with an extended polynomial profile (third lens element L3 has two spherical surfaces, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L4 has a concave surface S7 with an extended polynomial profile and a convex spherical surface S8 facing towards the image plane (lens element L4 has two spherical surfaces, par. [0082]), that lens L5 has a concave surface S9 with an aspherical profile and a convex surface S10 with an aspherical profile (see Fig. 1 and refer to Table 3, where Dang teaches lens element L5 has a convex object-side surface with a spherical surface and a concave image-side surface that is aspheric), that lens L6 has a concave spherical surface S11 and a convex spherical surface S12 facing towards the image plane (Fig. 1, Table 3, Dang teaches lens element L6 has an aspheric surface S11 and a concave surface S12, par. [0084]), and does not teach L6 is positive (the sixth lens element L6 has negative power, Dang par. [0084]). The prior art combination also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from parameters in Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from parameters in Table 3), and consequently the prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely does not disclose magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 that satisfies the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
In a related field of invention, Choi discloses a telephoto lens 100, shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with mirror M1 to bend optical path at about 90 degrees (refer to col. 2, lines 45-47, col. 4, lines 24-27, col. 8, lines 23-26 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Choi to the disclosure of Dang and included a mirror, such as a mirror comparable to M1 of Choi, near the image side of the lens system (see Choi Fig. 6, mirror M1 is placed closer to the image plane IP), such as between lens elements L8 and L9 of the system disclosed by Dang, to reduce the thickness of the lens system (Choi, col. 8, lines 39-40).
The prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely and Choi does not disclose lens L1 has positive power (lens element L1 has negative power, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L2 has aspheric surfaces (second lens element L2 has two spherical surfaces, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L3 has a concave surface with an aspherical profile and a convex surface with an extended polynomial profile (third lens element L3 has two spherical surfaces, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L4 has a concave surface with an extended polynomial profile and a convex spherical surface facing towards the image plane (lens element L4 has two spherical surfaces with convex surface S7 and concave surface S8, Dang par. [0082]), that lens L5 has a concave surface with an aspherical profile and a convex surface with an aspherical profile (Dang Fig. 1 and Table 3 show lens element L5 has a convex object-side surface with a spherical surface and a concave image-side surface that is aspheric), that lens L6 has a concave spherical surface and a convex spherical surface facing towards the image plane (lens element L6 has an aspheric surface S11 that is concave and a concave surface S12, Dang par. [0084]), and the prior art combination does not teach L6 is positive (the sixth lens element L6 has negative power, Dang par. [0084]). The prior art combination also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3), and consequently the prior art combination does not disclose magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 satisfies the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3) / f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
In the general field of lens systems, Abbe teaches the use of aspheric surfaces for lenses (refer to at least page 1, second column, lines 72-76 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Abbe to the disclosure of Dang and made the first lens element L1 have an image-side surface with an aspheric profile, second lens element L2 with two aspheric surfaces, third lens element L3 with an object-side surface with an aspheric profile, and fifth lens element L5 with two aspheric surfaces, to improve the quality of the image produced by the optical system (Abbe, page 1, column 2, lines 80-86).
The prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely, Choi, and Abbe does not disclose lens L1 has positive power (lens element L1 has negative power, Dang par. [0081]), that lens L3 has a concave surface and a convex surface with an extended polynomial profile (see Dang Fig. 1 at least, where third lens element L3 has a convex object-side surface S5 and a concave image-side surface S6, par. [0081]), that lens L4 has a concave surface with an extended polynomial profile and a convex spherical surface facing towards the image plane (Fig. 1 of Dang shows lens element L4 has convex surface S7 and concave spherical surface S8, par. [0082]), that lens L5 has a concave surface and a convex surface (Dang Fig. 1 shows lens element L5 has convex surface S9 and a concave surface S10, par. [0082]), that lens L6 has a concave surface and a convex spherical surface facing towards the image plane (Dang Fig. 1 shows lens element L6 has a concave surface S11 and a concave spherical surface S12, par. [0084]), and the prior art combination does not teach L6 is positive (the sixth lens element L6 has negative power, Dang par. [0084]). The prior art combination also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3), and consequently the prior art combination does not disclose magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 satisfies the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3) / f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
In the general field of lens systems, Gross teaches (refer to at least page 378, section 33.1.4) that bending and/or flipping a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending and/or flipping a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip lens elements L3, L4, and L5 into a reverse orientation, such that the object-side surfaces S5 of L3, S7 of L4, and S9 of L5, would become the image-side surfaces, and the image-side surfaces S6 of L3, S8 of L4, and S10 of L5 would become the object-side surfaces of these lens elements, as Gross teaches the reversal of orientation of a lens does not alter the refractive power of the lens (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and to bend the image-side surface S12 of lens L6 to be convex, and a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when making these modifications because flipping the orientation of a lens does not alter the surface shapes or refractive powers and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup, and bending a lens is a zero-power operation that can assist in finding a design with optimal performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
The prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely, Choi, Abbe, and Gross does not disclose lens L1 has positive power (lens element L1 has negative power, Dang, par. [0081]), that lenses L3 and L4 have surfaces with an extended polynomial profile, and the prior art combination does not teach L6 is positive (lens element L6 has negative power, Dang par. [0084]). The prior art combination also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3), and consequently the prior art combination does not disclose magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 satisfies the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
In a related field of invention, Chen discloses an optical imaging system, a fifth embodiment of which is depicted in Fig. 9 thereof, refer to Table 9 for detailed data on the fifth embodiment, with a first lens element 510 having positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface 531, and a concave image-side surface 532 (par. [0210] thereof), a second lens element 520 with positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface 521, and a concave image-side surface 522 (par. [0211] thereof), and a third lens element 530 with negative refractive power (par. [0212] thereof). Chen also discloses in the fifth embodiment a fifth lens element 550 with positive refractive power (par. [0214] thereof), a sixth lens element 560 with negative refractive power (par. [0215] thereof), and a seventh lens element 570 with positive refractive power (par. [0216] thereof), thereby teaching a sequence of lenses with refractive powers of positive, negative, positive, the same as that claimed for the fourth, fifth, and sixth lens elements in the instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Chen to the disclosure of Dang and included a first lens with positive refractive power, such as taught by Chen in the fifth embodiment disclosed therein, to ensure sufficient positive refractive power in the optical system (Chen, par. [0060]), and to have included a sixth lens element with positive refractive power in the optical system of Dang, to balance the refractive powers of a middle group of lenses and provide correction for aberrations (Chen, par. [0062]).
The prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely, Choi, Abbe, Gross, and Chen does not disclose that lens L3 has surface S6 with an extended polynomial profile and that lens L4 has a surface S7 with an extended polynomial profile. The prior art combination also does not teach lenses L1, L2, and L3 have a focal length of the optical part generated by these three lenses that satisfies 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length of the first three lenses L1, L2, and L3 that is 17580 mm, as calculated from Table 3), nor that lenses L4, L5, and L6 are lenses that satisfy the condition 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm (Dang discloses an optical system with a focal length for lens elements L4, L5, and L6 that is -21.928 as calculated from Table 3), and consequently the prior art combination does not disclose magnification ratio for lenses L1 through L3 to lenses L4 through L6 satisfies the condition 1.2 ≤ f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) = A ≤ 2.0 (the ratio of the focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) is -801 for the optical system disclosed by Dang).
In the general field of infrared lens system design, Frey teaches properties of silicon and germanium for use in high quality lens systems for infrared radiation systems over a range of temperatures (refer to at least abstract and pages 3-8 of Frey). Frey teaches germanium has an index of refraction ranging from 3.95 to 4.15 over a range of temperatures and wavelengths in the infrared range (see Figure 4), and teaches silicon has an index of refraction ranging from 3.40 to 3.56 over a range of temperatures and wavelengths in the infrared range (see Figure 1).
In the general field of optics, Marple teaches zinc selenide has a refractive index of about 2.4 at a wavelength of 2.5 micrometers (see Fig. 2 thereof).
In the same field of invention, Watanabe an infrared lens system, Example I of which is shown in Fig. 1 and Example II of which is shown in Fig. 6 thereof, with lens elements L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7, L8, and L9, refer to col. 6, lines 20-58 and col. 7, lines 1-33, where lenses L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and L6 form an outermost angular magnification lens group as shown in Figs. 1 and 6 thereof. The first lens element L1 of Example I of Watanabe has radiuses of curvature of 216.0 mm and 379.3 mm for the object-side and image-side surfaces, respectively, as provided in Table I, and lens element L1 is made of germanium, therefore lens element L1 of Example I has a focal length of 159.458 mm as calculated from these parameters, where the index of refraction for germanium is 4.00 as evidenced by Frey (see at least pages 5-7 thereof for properties of germanium relevant to infrared optical systems). A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to make lens element L1 of silicon, because the prior art teaches the suitability of silicon for lenses in an infrared system, and therefore the first lens element L1 of Watanabe Example I, when made from silicon instead of germanium, would have a focal length of 199.869 mm, because silicon has a lower index of refraction for infrared radiation than germanium (silicon has an index of refraction of 3.40 for infrared radiation, while germanium has an index of refraction of 4.00 for infrared radiation, as evidenced by Frey in pages 3-7 thereof). Similarly, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use zinc selenide for the lens material of lens element L4, because the prior art teaches the suitability of zinc selenide for lenses in an infrared system, and the fourth lens element L4 of Watanabe Example I, when comprised of zinc selenide, would have a focal length of 164.072 mm as calculated from the parameters of Watanabe Table I and as evidenced by Marple, where zinc selenide has an index of refraction of 2.4 for infrared radiation. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use silicon for the lens material of lens element L6 of Watanabe Example II (refer to Table II for parameters of Example II), which, when made of silicon instead of germanium, lens element L6 of Example II would have a focal length of 112.34 mm.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have applied the teachings of Watanabe to the disclosure of Dang and modified the optical system to include a first lens such as that taught by Watanabe Example I, and a sixth lens element such as that taught by Watanabe Example II, and flipped the sixth lens because flipping a lens is a zero power operation as taught by Gross, and therefore can be done without changing the refractive power of the lens, and a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use germanium for a third lens element in the optical system disclosed by Dang, and consequently produce an optical system with a focal length for the first three lens elements, L1, L2, and L3, of f(L1,L2,L3) = 101 mm, and a focal length for the next three lens elements, L4, L5, and L6, of f(L4,L5,L6) = 56.9 mm, and these lens groups have a ratio f(L1,L2,L3)/f(L4,L5,L6) = 1.78, within the claimed range of 1.2 ≤ A ≤ 2.0. Examiner notes that the group focal lengths f(L1,L2,L3) and f(L4,L5,L6) of the optical system of Dang in view of Watanabe do not fall within the claimed ranges of 200mm > f(L1,L2,L3) > 150mm and 100mm < f(L4,L5,L6) < 150mm.
However, in the general field of lens systems, Lohmann teaches lens systems’ parameters such as focal length can be scaled linearly (page 4996, column 2 thereof), i.e., lens systems can be resized by multiplication by an appropriate scaling factor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied a scaling factor to the optical system produced by the prior art combination of Dang in view of Watanabe to produce focal lengths for f(L1,L2,L3) and f(L4,L5,L6) within the claimed range of 150 to 200 mm and 100 to 150 mm, respectively, while maintain a ratio of 1.78 for the focal lengths, satisfying the limitation as recited.
The description of an optical surface with a polynomial expression is well-known in the art, because as best understood by the Examiner, an extended polynomial profile is another term for a free-form surface, and free-form surfaces for optical components has been known since at least 1982, as evidenced by Plummer (refer to at least pages 197-198 thereof), and the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the three lenses of the magnification group (G1) are (L4), (L5), (L6) convert an intermediate image into parallel beams.
Finally, while Dang teaches a lens assembly of eleven lens elements, Watanabe teaches embodiments of the infrared zoom lens assembly with 8 and 9 lens elements in Example I and II respectively, and Watanabe further teaches modifications of the infrared zoom lens assembly disclosed therein is possible without departing from the scope of the invention (col. 15, lines 63-66 thereof), and therefore a person of ordinary skill would apply the teachings of Watanabe to the disclosure of Dang and note an eleventh lens of the assembly disclosed by Dang can be removed without departing from the scope of the invention disclosed therein, and a person of ordinary skill would a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because there are other parameters not claimed that can be modified and optimized to arrive at a functioning infrared lens assembly from the teachings of the prior art combination.
Examiner notes that, while the prior art does not explicitly and specifically disclose an anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using high-definition HD resolution sensor with folding structure, because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and act as an anti-blur infrared lens, therefore would be able to be used in a panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor with folding structure. See MPEP §2114(1)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In this case, the structures of the lens system claimed are taught by the prior art, as described and mapped above, and the intended use (i.e., use in a panoramic camera system) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the prior art structures map to the claimed structures and therefore satisfy the limitations with regard to intended use.
Regarding amended dependent claim 3, Dang in view of Stonely, Choi, Abbe, Gross, Chen, Frey, Marple, Watanabe, Lohmann, and Plummer (hereinafter, “modified Dang”) discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, and Watanabe further discloses wherein in the direction from the object plane to the image plane, the lenses (L3), (L4) are those with anti-blur effect when scanning (Watanabe Figs. 1, 6, and 11 showing Examples I, II, and III, respectively, have lens elements L3 and L4, arranged from object side to image side as shown, refer to col. 6, lines 20-58, col. 6, line 60 to col. 7 line 32, and col. 7 line 36 to col. 8 line 14); in which:
surfaces of the lenses (L3), (L4) are optimized so that when the fast steering mirror group (M1) rotates, an image point position corresponding to each field of view remains the same, ensuring an overall spot size of the lens is always smaller than a pixel pitch when the mirror group rotates continuously (because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and provide that an image point position corresponding to each field of view remains the same, ensuring an overall spot size of the lens is always smaller than a pixel pitch when the mirror group rotates continuously. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”).
Regarding amended dependent claim 4, modified Dang discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, and Stonely further discloses wherein in the direction from the object plane to the image plane, using a fast steering mirror group (M1) located in an exit pupil position of the magnification group (G1) between the lenses (L6) and (L7) (Stonely discloses telescope 10 with fast steering mirror 20, see Figs. 2 and 3 thereof, and refer to col. 5, lines 23-44, where fast steering mirror 20 may be configured to control a direction of the electromagnetic radiation, including infrared light, col. 5, lines 59-64, and see Figs. 1-3 where fast steering mirror 20 is nearer to the object side of the imaging system); the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor uses a fast steering mirror (the prior art combination of Dang in view of Stonely teaches an infrared lens system with a fast steering mirror, see rejection of claim 2 above) and is designed to satisfy a compensation of rotation angle and meets:
α
=
β
×
A
2
1.8
0
≤
β
in which α is a rotation angle of the mirror, β is a maximum rotation angle of the device in an integration time for each frame, A is a magnification ratio of the group (G1); corresponding to each separate position of the mirror group satisfying the above equation, the image always maintains its sharpness, a spot radius at all positions on the sensor at every rotation angle of the mirror group are smaller than a pixel pitch of the sensor (Examiner notes that any number raised to the zeroth power, such as 1.80, is equal to one, therefore the claim recites the limitation 1 ≤ b, and as a consequence the claim recites the limitation a = A/2, and because the prior art combination teaches the magnification ratio limitation A, the prior art combination necessarily also teaches and renders obvious the value A/2, and therefore teaches the rotation angle of the mirror is A/2 at a maximum rotation angle of one, satisfying the limitation as recited).
Regarding amended dependent claim 5, modified Dang discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, and Watanabe further discloses in which: in the direction from the object plane to the image plane, converging lens group (G2), consisting of two positive power lenses (L7), (L8), focuses a light beam coming out of the group (G1) to create an intermediate image plane (as shown in Watanabe Figs. 1, 6, and 11, rays passing through lens elements L7 and L8 converge after exiting the image-side surface of L8 to create an intermediate image plane, satisfying the instant limitation);
lens (L7) is made of germanium (Watanabe in Table 1 teaches the seventh lens element L7 of the Example I system is made of germanium);
lens (L8), consisting of a convex surface (S15) with an aspherical profile and a concave surface (S16) with an aspherical profile (Watanabe Fig. 1, lens element L8 has a convex surface on the object side, and a concave surface on the image side);
and Dang further discloses the focus group at lens (L8) helps the lens to compensate for Dang discloses the optical system is designed to have a minimum focus range of 10 m at wide field-of-view configuration and 100 m at near field of view configuration, par. [0046], where Examiner assumes a 100 m focus range is functionally equivalent to infinity, and Dang discloses the system is designed to work in range of temperatures from -20°C to ~60°C, par. [0085], and Examiner infers that all the lens elements of Dang, including lens L8, contribute to the optical performance of the device disclosed by Dang).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose lens L7 consists of a convex surface (S13) with a hybrid asphero-diffractive profile and a concave spherical surface (S14) facing towards the image plane, nor that lens L8 is made of silicon, consisting of a convex surface (S15) with an aspherical profile and a concave surface (S16) with an aspherical profile. However, Dang does teach the application of hybrid aspheric-diffractive surfaces (Dang, par. [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dang and made a surface of lens L7 to have a hybrid asphero-diffractive profile, to maintain optical quality of the image produced by the system (Dang, par. [0008]), and to have flipped the orientation of lens L7 of Watanabe Example I (see Fig. 1 thereof) to have a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, because Gross teaches the flipping of a lens is a zero-power operation that does not change the refractive properties of the system and is a common activity to optimize lens designs.
Regarding amended dependent claim 6, modified Dang discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, and Choi further discloses wherein in the direction from the object plane to the image plane, the reflector (M2) is placed to create a double fold structure for the lens (Choi discloses a telephoto lens 100, shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with mirror M1 and prism P1 to bend the optical path at about 90 degrees twice, refer to col. 2, lines 45-47, col. 4, lines 24-27, col. 8, lines 23-26);
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the reflector is placed between the lens elements L8 and L9, and does not disclose a position of the arranged mirror is not on the intermediate image plane.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Choi to the disclosure of Dang and included mirrors, such as a mirror comparable to M1 of Choi, between lens elements L8 and L9 (see Choi Fig. 6, mirror M1 is placed closer to the image plane IP) to reduce the thickness of the lens system (Choi, col. 8, lines 39-40), and as a consequence, the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the position of the arranged mirror is not on the intermediate image plane (Choi, Fig. 1, mirror M1 is not on the intermediate image plane).
Regarding amended dependent claim 9, modified Dang discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for the panoramic camera system using the HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, optimized so that an exit pupil with diameter D is located directly in front of the sensor with a distance d; whereby the ratio between distance d and diameter D has a value d/D < 2, ensuring that the lens is compatible with F/#2 detectors.
The prior art combination does not specifically disclose whereby the ratio between distance d and diameter D has a value d/D < 2, ensuring that the lens is compatible with F/#2 detectors. Thus, modified Dang discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio d/D < 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the distance parameter d and the exit pupil diameter D, 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 the current instance, spacing and diameters of lenses are art-recognized results effective variables in that positioning of lenses influences the sharpness of an image on the image plane, as taught by Dang in at least par. [0043]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio d/D because it is ratio of two art-recognized result-effective variables, and is therefore a result effective variable itself, and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(D(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting parameters such as lens spacing, back focal length, and lens diameters is a common activity in lens design.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang in view of Stonely, Choi, Abbe, Gross, Chen, Frey, Marple, Watanabe, Lohmann, and Plummer as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Staver US PGPub 2015/0241667 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 06/02/2025, hereinafter, “Staver”).
Regarding amended dependent claim 7, modified Dang discloses the anti-blur infrared lens for panoramic camera system using HD resolution sensor, according to claim 2, and Watanabe further discloses in which:
intermediate image magnification group (G3), consisting of positive power lens (L9), is designed to magnify an intermediate image created by the convergent lens group (G2) (Watanabe, Figs. 1 and 6, lens element L9, col. 6, lines 20-58 and col. 7, lines 1-33, shows rays refracting through the lens surfaces of L9, thereby providing magnification of image light received by lens elements L7 and L8, equivalent to the converging lens group as shown in Figs. 1 and 6, where rays passing through lens elements L7 and L8 converge); whereby the image magnification ratio is from 1.1 to 2.5, equivalent to 1.1 ≤ |f(G1,G2,G3)/f(G1,G2)| ≤ 2.5 (a focal length for the first three lens groups, G1, G2, and G3, of f(G1,G2,GL3) = -29.73 mm, and a focal length for the lens groups G1 and G2 of f(G1,G2) = -25.45 mm, and these lens groups have a ratio f(G1,G2,G3) / f(G1,G2) = 1.17, within the claimed range of 1.1 ≤ |f(G1,G2,G3)/f(G1,G2)| ≤ 2.5);
lens (L9) is made of germanium, consisting of a surface (S17) with an aspherical profile and a surface (S18) (Dang, Table 3, lens element L9 is made of germanium and has a surface S17 that is aspheric);
lens (L10), consisting of a surface (S19) with an aspherical profile and a surface (S20).
Dang does not explicitly disclose lens L9 has a concave surface S17 with an aspherical surface and a hybrid asphero-diffractive surface S10, nor that L10 has positive power and a convex surface S19 with an aspherical profile and a concave surface S20 with an aspherical profile.
However, Dang does teach the application of hybrid aspheric-diffractive surfaces (Dang, par. [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dang and made a surface of lens L9 to have a hybrid asphero-diffractive profile, to maintain optical quality of the image produced by the system (Dang, par. [0008]),
Dang in Table 3 discloses germanium and silicon as lens materials, thereby teaching the use of the claimed materials as suitable materials for lenses in an infrared optical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have noted that Dang teaches the use of germanium and silicon as appropriate materials for lenses in an optical system for focusing infrared light, and a person of ordinary skill would have been able to select the appropriate materials for the lenses such that lens element L10 would be made of silicon so as to provide an optimal sequence of lenses to focus infrared light (refer to Dang, par. [0008]).
Gross teaches (refer to at least page 378, section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled