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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyano (US 2004/0125469).
Regarding claim 1, Miyano (figure 4) discloses a compound lens comprising:
four coaxially aligned lenses including a first lens and, in order of increasing distance therefrom, and on a same side thereof, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens L1-L4);
the first lens and the third lens being negative lenses (L1 and L3; see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0064);
the second lens and the fourth lens being positive lenses (L2 and L4; see at least paragraphs 0060 and 0068);
an image-side surface of the second lens and an object-side surface of the third lens having respective radii of curvature of equal magnitude (L2 and L3);
the first lens and the second lens being consecutive (L1 and L2).
Regarding claim 2, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the image-side surface being conformal to the object-side surface (L2 and L3).
Regarding claim 3, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the image-side surface adjoining the object- side surface (L2 and L3; see at least paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 5, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the image-side surface and the object-side surface being convex and concave, respectively, at the optical axis of the four coaxially aligned lenses.
Regarding claim 6, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the first lens having a planar object-side surface (L1).
Regarding claim 7, Miyano (figure 4) discloses a first biplanar substrate, the planar object-side surface on the image-side surface of the first biplanar substrate (cover glass 3); a thickness of the first biplanar substrate being between 0.1 millimeters and 0.6 millimeters (0.2; table 4).
Regarding claim 8, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the first lens, second lens, third lens, and fourth lens collectively having an effective focal length f.sub.eff such that the image is formed at an image plane located a distance T from an object-side surface of the first biplanar substrate, and the ratio T/f.sub.eff satisfying 3.4<T/f.sub.eff<8.4 (10.665/1.742 = 6.1223; tables 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the third lens having a planar image-side surface (L3).
Regarding claim 15, Miyano (figure 4) discloses the first lens. second lens. third lens. and fourth lens collectively having a positive effective focal length (1.742; see at least table 5).
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyano (US 2004/0125469) in view of Yun et al. (US 2013/0235464).
Regarding claim 4, Miyano discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Miyano is silent regarding an adhesive layer between, and conformal to, each of the image-side surface and the object-side surface. Yun et al. (figure 2) teaches an adhesive layer between, and conformal to, each of the image-side surface and the object-side surface (see at least paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lenses as taught by Yun et al. in order to achieve a projection lens having improved properties such as a high throughput, a large field of view.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyano (US 2004/0125469).
Regarding claim 11, Miyano discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio f2/feff satisfying 0.7 < f2/feff < 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first lens, second lens, third lens, and fourth lens collectively having an effective focal length feff such that an image is formed at an image plane; the second lens having a focal length f2, the ratio f2/feff satisfying 0.7 < f2/feff < 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 12, Miyano discloses the claimed invention except for the first lens and the fourth lens having respective focal lengths f1 and f4, the ratio f1/f4 satisfying -0.7 < fl/f4 < -0.4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -0.7 < fl/f4 < -0.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 13, Miyano discloses the claimed invention except for a difference between respective Abbe numbers of the second lens and the third lens being greater than or equal to twenty. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a difference between respective Abbe numbers of the second lens and the third lens being greater than or equal to twenty, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 14, Miyano discloses the claimed invention except for the second lens and the third lens have respective refractive indices n2 and n3 that have respective temperature dependences An2/AT and An3/AT, the ratio (An2/AT)/(An3/AT) satisfying 0.3 < (An2/AT)/(An3/AT) < 1.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.3 < (An2/AT)/(An3/AT) < 1.2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
