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 .
Response to Pre-amendment
The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed by applicant on 06/07/2023. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 4, 6-7, 10-16 and 18-21. There is not any claim being added/canceled into/from the application.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 07/10/2025, applicant has made an election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 08/26/2025.
As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1, 4-13 and 18-21 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-3 and 14-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions. Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 2-3 and 14-17 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
It is noted that applicant has provided a list of claims in the Election filed on 08/26/2025.
The list of claims as filed does not comply with the requirement of rule 37 CFR 1.121 because applicant has not used proper status identifier for each of non-elected claims 2-3 and 14-17. In particular, the status identifier of each claims 2-3 and 14-17 should be --(Withdrawn)--, not “(Original)”, as shown in the list of claims filed on 08/26/2025.
In the spirit of cooperation, the list of claims filed on 08/26/2025 has been entered and used to examine in the present office action; however, applicant needs to correct the status identifier of each mentioned claims in response to the present office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, hereafter, IDS, filed on 08/25/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In particular, applicant has not provided an English translation of a concise explanation of the relevance of each Japanese reference Nos. JP-2019-48752-A; JP-2007-241032-A and Jp-2009-63942-A listed in the mentioned IDS.
It is noted that the Japanese reference No. JP-62-10914 listed in the IDS of 08/25/2023 while it has been considered but has been lined-through because applicant has not provided the name of patentee or applicant of cited document.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirteen sheets of figures 1-19 were received on 06/07/2023. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-13 and 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
a) In claim 1: the phrase thereof “0.7 times to 1.3 times a focal length” (line 6) has a grammatic error. Should “0.7 times” be changed to --0.7 time--?
b) In claim 5: the feature thereof “a focal length f of the infrared imaging lens” (line 2) is not consistent to the feature thereof “a focal length of the infrared imaging lens” recited in its base claim 1 on line 6. Should “a focal length of the infrared imaging lens” recited in claim 1 on line 6 be changed to --a focal length f of the infrared imaging lens-- and the “a focal length f of the infrared imaging lens” recited in claim 5 on line 2 be changed to --the focal length f of the infrared imaging lens--?
c) Claim 7 is unclear about the relationship among the three lenses recited in the claim on lines 3-5 and the “plurality of lenses” recited in its base claim 1 on line 1. In other words, it is unclear whether the second and third lenses are part of the “plurality of lenses” or not. Should “wherein the first lens” appeared in claim 7 on lines 2-3 be changed to –wherein the plurality of lenses comprises the first lens--?
d) In claim 8: the phrase thereof “the second lens and the third lens each have positive power” (lines 1-2) has a grammatic error. Should the term “have” (line 2) be changed to --has--due to the use of term “each”?
e) In each of claim 12 and 19: The similar objection and correction as mentioned in element b) above are raised to the claims.
f) The remaining claims are dependent upon the objected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 18 and 20-21, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al (US Publication No. 2009/0027766, submitted by applicant) in view of Teraoka et al (US Publication No. 2012/0019905).
Izumi et al discloses an infrared lens for use in an infrared camera which camera as understood comprises an infrared image sensor.
a) Regarding present claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 21, the infrared lens of the Example 1-2 of the Second Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0213]-[0233] and [0238] and shown in figs. 15 and 50(a) comprises the following features;
a1) a total of three lenses constituted by a positive lens (L1), a second positive lens (L2) and a third positive lens (L3) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the infrared lens;
a2) each lens is made by Zinc Sulfide; and
a3) the infrared lens having an image circle having a diameter, d, of 25.9 mm and the focal length, f, of the infrared lens is 25.9 mm thus the ratio of d/f is 1 which is inside the range of (0.7; 1.3) as claimed. Applicant should note that while the claim 1 recites an image circle; however, there is not any specific feature regarding the “image circle” being recited/provided in the claim. Thus, the “image circle having a diameter” recited on line 5 of the claim is understood as the (effective) diameter of the light incident/object-side lens surface of the first lens (L1) which allows the light from an object/screen passing therethrough.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
The only feature missing from the infrared lens of the Example 1-2 of the Second Embodiment is that it doesn’t disclose that the lens material having a refractive index in the range of (2.8 to 4.0) measured at a wavelength of 10 µm. However, the use of an infrared material for making an infrared lens wherein the infrared material is a Zinc Sulfide or Chalcogenide is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the infrared lens provided by Teraoka et al in which they disclose an infrared lens for use in an infrared device and the material used to make the infrared lens is either Zinc Sulfide or Chalcogenide, see paragraph [0191]. It is noted that the chalcogenide material has refractive index in the range of (2.8 to 4.0) measured at a wavelength of 10 µm is known to one kill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the infrared lens provided by Izumi et al by using Chalcogenide material instead of Zinc Sulfide as suggested by Teraoka et al to meet a particular application. Applicant should note that the Chalcogenide material has a low glass transition temperature which easily allows to mold and create aspheric or diffractive surface.
b) Regarding present claim 4, the first lens (L1) is a positive meniscus lens having a convex object-side lens surface facing the object side of the infrared lens, see figs. 15 and 16 and paragraph [0238].
c) Regarding resent claim 5, the focal length, f1, of the first lens (L1) is 36.2 mm and the focal length, f, of the infrared lens is 25.9 mm thus the ratio of f1/f is 1.40 which is inside the range of (1.0; 2.9).
d) Regarding present claim 6, the effective diameter of the object-side lens surface (1) of first lens (L1) serves as an aperture of the infrared lens. Applicant should note that the claim does not positively recite an aperture stop or any optical element acting/serving as an aperture stop, see the claim on lines 2-3.
e) Regarding claim 11, the infrared lens provided by Izumi et al has at least one lens surface of the first to third lenses is formed as a diffractive surface, see paragraphs [0016], [0022], for example.
f) Regarding present claim 18, the F-number, FNo, of the infrared lens of the Example 1-2 of the Second Embodiment is 1.0, see Fig. 50(a).
g) Regarding present claim 20, the total lens length, TL, of the infrared lens of the Example 1-2 of the Second Embodiment is 29.00 mm, see Fig. 16, which is less than 30 mm as claimed.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13, and 18-21, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi (US Publication No. 2009/0067041, submitted by applicant) in view of Teraoka et al (US Publication No. 2012/0019905).
Izumi discloses an infrared lens for use in an infrared camera which camera as understood comprises an infrared image sensor.
a) Regarding present claims 1, 7-8 and 21, the infrared lens of the Second Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0160]-[0196] and shown in fig. 3 comprises the following features;
a1) a total of three lenses constituted by a positive lens (G4), a second positive lens (G5) and a third positive lens (G6) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the infrared lens;
a2) each lens is made by Zinc Sulfide; and
a3) the infrared lens having an image circle having a diameter, d, of 9 mm and the focal length, f, of the infrared lens is 8.49 mm thus the ratio of d/f is 1.06 which is inside the range of (0.7; 1.3) as claimed. Applicant should note that while the claim 1 recites an image circle; however, there is not any specific feature regarding the “image circle” being recited/provided in the claim. Thus, the “image circle having a diameter” recited on line 5 of the claim is understood as the (effective) diameter of the light incident/object-side lens surface of the first lens (L1) which allows the light from an object/screen passing therethrough.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
The only feature missing from the infrared lens of the Second Embodiment is that it doesn’t disclose that the lens material having a refractive index in the range of (2.8 to 4.0) measured at a wavelength of 10 µm. However, the use of an infrared material for making an infrared lens wherein the infrared material is a Zinc Sulfide or Chalcogenide is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the infrared lens provided by Teraoka et al in which they disclose an infrared lens for use in an infrared device and the material used to make the infrared lens is either Zinc Sulfide or Chalcogenide, see paragraph [0191]. It is noted that the chalcogenide material has refractive index in the range of (2.8 to 4.0) measured at a wavelength of 10 µm is known to one kill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the infrared lens provided by Izumi et al by using Chalcogenide material instead of Zinc Sulfide as suggested by Teraoka et al to meet a particular application. Applicant should note that the Chalcogenide material has a low glass transition temperature which easily allows to mold and create aspheric or diffractive surface.
b) Regarding present claim 4, the first lens (G4) is a positive meniscus lens having a convex object-side lens surface facing the object side of the infrared lens, see fig. 3 and paragraph [0170].
c) Regarding present claim 6, the effective diameter of the object-side lens surface (S1) of first lens (G4) serves as an aperture of the infrared lens. Applicant should note that the claim does not positively recite an aperture stop or any optical element acting/serving as an aperture stop, see the claim on lines 2-3.
d) Regarding present claim 10, the second lens (G5) is a positive meniscus lens having a convex image-side lens surface facing the image side of the infrared lens, see fig. 3 and paragraph [0170].
e) Regarding claim 11, the infrared lens provided by Izumi has at least one lens surface of the first to third lenses is formed as a diffractive surface, see paragraphs [0018], [0110], for example.
f) Regarding present claim 13, the viewing angle of the infrared lens of the Second embodiment is 64.220 thus the half angle of view is 32.110 which is inside the range of (210; 360).
g) Regarding present claim 18, the F-number, FNo, of the infrared lens of the Second Embodiment is 0.94, see paragraph [0164]. While the FNo is not inside the range as claimed; however, it is so close to the lower value of 1 thus there is not any unexpected result or optical performance occurred between the infrared lens having a FN0 of 0.94 with respect to an infrared lens having a FNo of 1.0. In other words, it is expected that the infrared lens as disclosed by Izumi is working fine with the range of (1.0; 1.2) as claimed. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra. Alternative, it would have obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the infrared lens the Second Embodiment provided by Izumi and adjust the optical characteristics of the infrared lens so that the value of the FNo is inside the ranged claimed or any similar range(s) to meet a particular application. Applicant should further note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
h) Regarding present claim 19, the infrared lens of the Second Embodiment has a focal length of 8.49 mm which is inside the range of (7 mm; 12 mm) as claimed.
i) Regarding present claim 20, the total lens length, TL, of the infrared lens of the Second Embodiment is 9.9 mm, see paragraphs [0189]-[0192], which is less than 30 mm as claimed.
18. Claims 9 and 12, as best as understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al (US Publication No. 2009/0027766, submitted by applicant) in view of Teraoka et al (US Publication No. 2012/0019905), as applied to claims 1, 4, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Lidwell (US Patent No. 4,494,819).
The infrared lens of the Example 1-2 of the Second Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0213]-[0233] and [0238] and shown in figs. 15 and 50(a) as provided by Izumi ‘766 does not disclose that the third lens has a convex image-side lens surface and its power is largest among the three lenses as recited in present claim 5 and the ratio of its focal length, f3, and the focal length, f , of the infrared lens is in the range of (0.8; 1.2) as recited in present claim 12.
However, an infrared lens having three lenses wherein the third lens has a concave image-side lens surface or a convex image-side lens surface and its focal length is adjustable to meet a particular application is kwon and/or within the level of one skill in the art. An example of an infrared lens wherein the third lens has a concave image-side lens surface or a convex image-side lens surface is disclosed by Lidwell. In particular, Lidwell discloses an infrared lens in which in the embodiment shown in fig. 1 the third lens has a concave image-side lens surface; however, in the embodiment shown in fig. 2, the third lens has a convex image-side lens surface. It is noted that when lenses having different lens surfaces then the focal length of the lenses are changed to meet a particular lens design. Applicant should note that when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it to meet a predetermined/predefined application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined product provided by Izumi et al and Teraoka et al by varying the shape and/or lens characteristic such as radius of curvature, thickness, … to use such product to meet a particular design.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20. The US Patent No. 6,999,243 is cited as of interest in that it discloses an infrared lens constituted by three lenses.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHONE B. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872