DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pg. 8), filed 12/23/2025, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “claims 1, and 6-8 are amended to correct the noted informalities” and that “a more detail explanation is given in following sections”. However, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the form of adding punctuation and the following terms (underlined) the claim 1 limitation: “the direction of the downstream offset of the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor relative to the straight line being parallel to the initial segment of the parabasal ray and oriented in accordance with the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray” is insufficient to overcome the indefiniteness issues of the claims. Such a newly-amended limitation incorporating ‘a direction of the…offset…relative to the straight line…’ fails to remedy the deficiencies of the claim limitation. Applicant’s remarks directed to explanation of “Features 0-2” (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks) are also not germane to the issues at hand, namely that all of the upstream and downstream “edges”, “offsets”, and “boundaries” (as stated within “Feature 1” limitation) appear to be undefined since it is unclear where any of the said boundaries, offsets and edges are located, i.e., there appears to be no reference frame or context whereby one could envisage these positional relationships (i.e., downstream/upstream with respect to which structure/context/reference frame?). Applicant’s discussion of the Features 0-2 merely restate in ipsis verbis the generic claim language as recited in claim 1, which do not resolve the outstanding indefiniteness issues, i.e., in Feature 0, it still remains unclear where the terminal segment of the parabasal ray is located and it is unclear what it means for said ray “to pass by a lateral side of the secondary mirror which is opposite to a lateral offset of the primary mirror relative to said secondary mirror”, especially in light of ‘the lateral offset’ being undefined and the ‘lateral side’ of the secondary mirror also lacking a proper reference frame. The limitation of said ray “passing by” appears to be relative terminology lacking any objective standard for measuring the scope of the term; similarly ‘Feature 2’ recites limitations such as “the secondary mirror or the screen which surrounds said secondary mirror intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor”, wherein it is unclear which structure intercepts “rays” and it is also unclear where the screen is located since none of the as-filed Drawings depict such a screen intercepting rays; furthermore, it is unclear which ‘rays’ are being referred to, since there appear to be numerous types of rays recited in claim 1. Additionally, there appear to be an infinite number of ‘straight lines’ that can be drawn ‘directly from the primary mirror to the photosensitive surface of the sensor’. Applicant’s explanation directed to the terms “upstream” and “downstream” are also insufficient to overcome the indefiniteness issues because Applicant has merely restated an ipsis verbis appearance of the generic claim language wherein the metes and bounds of the claim scope remain unclear (see pg. 11 of Remarks). Furthermore, Applicant’s annotation of instant FIG. 2 proffered in the Remarks (pg. 10) are insufficient to overcome these indefiniteness issues because these annotations are not reflected in the present claim language. Applicant’s amendments nonetheless still render indefinite the positional relationships between the claimed structures, (e.g., it is unclear where the initial segment of the parabasal ray is located, and it is also unclear where the downstream offset is located), thereby resulting in arbitrary characterizations of the structures and their positional relationships as comprised within the imaging optical system.
Applicant’s bona fide attempt to advance the application has addressed, only in part, some of the indefiniteness issues of the claims by amending a portion of the limitations in claim 1 and amending claims 6-8. However, there remains numerous outstanding indefiniteness issues not only in claim 1, but also in claims 3-5 (as detailed previously in pgs. 2-5 of NFOA). The outstanding indefiniteness issues, especially in claims 3-5 (as presented by the Examiner in the previous Office Action), have neither been addressed in the newly-amended limitations of the claims nor are the rejections traversed by Applicant in the Remarks filed 12/23/2025. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 112(b), as detailed supra and further below.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 9-12) regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Nakano does not show above features 1 and 2” (pg. 12). Additionally, Applicant’s argument that “the structure of optical system according to Figure 1 of Nakano is completely different from the structure of claim 1 of the present patent application” is an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support and therefore insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). Applicant’s arguments also do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, these arguments do not sufficiently show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that Nakano does indeed anticipate the structural features directed to Features 1 and 2 in light of the indefiniteness issues and resulting claim interpretation for the purposes of examination (see 112(b) discussion above and further below). Nakano discloses in FIGS. 1 & 3 (first embodiment) the secondary mirror M2 intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror M1 to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor 7 due to the fact that the image sensor can be moved and optimized along the z-direction (see especially FIG. 3 showing the claimed feature; ¶0033: the image plane 7 can be pulled out from the first reflecting mirror 1 in the + z direction, so that the detector placed on the image plane 7 can be arranged). Nakano further states a range for angle β formed by the direction vector of the principal ray at the center of the field of view emitted from such that the claimed features of ray propagation through the optical system may be achieved. Similarly, Nakano discloses Feature 1 in light of the indefiniteness issues which render one of ordinary skill in the art unable to ascertain the orientation of the optical elements based on the arbitrary ‘straight line’ that may be connected with respect to the undefined downstream and/or upstream ‘edges’ of the structures (as recited in claim 1). Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to Features 1-2 are unpersuasive, and Examiner maintains that Nakano discloses each and every feature of the claimed structures as recited. Applicant is respectfully reminded that “features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). Since the examiner has explained that the prior art structure inherently possesses the structurally and functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus, the burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, Applicant has not sufficiently identified with any evidence that Nakano’s imaging optical system does not possess the characteristics relied on with regards to the structural limitations of the claimed imaging optical system apparatus. See MPEP § 2114 Section I.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Figure 2 of Nakano, reproduced below, does not reproduce feature 0 and feature 3 (mirror 2 is not between mirror 1 and the sensor), so that parasitic rays having even low entrance angle beta can directly reach sensor 7 without any reflections on mirrors 1, 2, 3 (thus not achieving the technical advantage of the invention of reducing the amount of stray light which reaches the image sensor” (pgs. 11-12 of Remarks). Applicant further asserts that “This has an important technical effect: according to Figure 1 of Nakano, a lot parasitic light rays (for example, due to stray light or unwanted reflections within the system) can go directly from mirror 1 to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor” (pg. 12). As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that ‘Feature 3’ is not identified or explained anywhere in the Remarks filed 12/23/2025, thus rendering unclear what Applicant is referring to. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments also appear to be incorrect: Nakano does indeed disclose mirror 2 between mirror 1 and sensor 7 (see FIG. 3 clearly showing mirror 2 between mirror 1 and image sensor 7). Additionally, Examiner did not rely upon FIG. 2 of Nakano (see pgs. 6-8 Non-Final Rejection filed 09/26/2025) which renders Applicant’s arguments as irrelevant to the Examiner’s evidentiary findings. More importantly, the Examiner notes that all of Applicant’s arguments are directed to features that are not positively recited anywhere in the claims (i.e., the argument directed to mirror 2 between mirror 1 and sensor 7 and the arguments directed to the technical advantages regarding parasitic and stray light effects). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145 Section VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988). Furthermore, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP § 2144 Section IV citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains that the teachings and disclosure of Nakano anticipate each and every limitation as recited in newly amended claim 1.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus the newly amended Claims 1-13 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed further below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the screen must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Unclear antecedent basis for “rays” (underlined) as recited in claim 1 limitation: “the secondary mirror or the screen which surrounds said secondary mirror intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor”.
(2) Unclear antecedent basis for “the direction” (underlined) as recited in claim 1 limitation: “the direction of the downstream offset…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
1. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “wherein the secondary and tertiary mirrors are oriented so that the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor is offset downstream relative to a straight line which connects an upstream edge of the primary mirror to: an upstream edge of the secondary mirror or to an upstream edge of a screen which surrounds the secondary mirror, so that the secondary mirror or the screen which surrounds said secondary mirror intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor, the upstream edge and a downstream edge of the primary mirror, respectively of the secondary mirror, being defined in relation to respective projections of said upstream and downstream edges of the primary mirror, respectively of the secondary mirror, onto the initial segment of the parabasal ray and in relation to the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray, and the downstream offset of the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor being parallel to the initial segment of the parabasal ray and oriented in accordance with the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray”. It is unclear how the upstream and downstream edges, offsets, and boundaries are being defined since it is unclear where these boundaries, offsets and edges are located to begin with as there appears to be no reference frame or context whereby one could envisage these positional relationships (i.e., downstream/upstream with respect to which structure/context/reference frame?). See also MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section II, citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also accompanying ‘Response to Remarks’ discussion supra directed to indefiniteness issues of claim 1 limitation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the secondary and tertiary mirrors are oriented so that the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor is offset downstream relative to an upstream edge of the primary mirror”.
Claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
2. Similarly, claims 3-5 recite terms such as “first field edge marginal rays”, “downstream edge which joins terminal segments of second field edge marginal rays”, a run-on clause of “second entrance baffle having a downstream edge which is connected to an upstream edge of the tertiary mirror, or to a screen which surrounds said tertiary mirror, or to an opaque mount for said tertiary mirror, or else said downstream edge of the second entrance baffle is located downstream of a straight line which connects the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor to the downstream edge of the first entrance baffle”, and “the second entrance baffle has an upstream edge which is located upstream of a straight line which connects the downstream edge of the first entrance baffle to the downstream boundary of the photosensitive surface”. See discussion supra regarding improper clauses and the lack of reference frames/context which render the various positional relationships unclear (and therefore indefinite) by virtue of the present claim language allowing a plurality of plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements. For the purposes of examination, claim 3 will be treated as: “further comprising a first entrance baffle on a same first side of the entrance field as the image sensor, opposite to the tertiary mirror”; claim 4 will be treated as: “further comprising a second entrance baffle on a same second side of the entrance field as the tertiary mirror, opposite to the image sensor”; claim 5 will be treated as: “wherein the second entrance baffle has an edge which is located upstream of the first entrance baffle”.
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 1-2 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (JP 2004126510 A; as cited in the IDS filed 06/16/2023).
The Examiner notes that the text of foreign references as cited throughout this Office Action are to the English translation retrieved from the Patent Translate feature of https://worldwide.espacenet.com and provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Nakano discloses: An imaging optical system comprising three mirrors, including a primary mirror, a secondary mirror, and a tertiary mirror which are adapted and arranged so that light rays originating from a scene located in an entrance field of the system are reflected first by the primary mirror, then by the secondary mirror, and then by the tertiary mirror, to form an image of the scene in a focal plane of the system (FIGS. 1-3; ¶0015: first reflective mirror 1, the second reflective mirror 2, and the third reflective mirror 3 in the order of the optical path of the incident light), a light ray which originates from the scene and which contributes to forming the image being thus divided into an initial segment upstream of the primary mirror, a first intermediate ray segment between the primary mirror and the secondary mirror, a second intermediate ray segment between the secondary mirror and the tertiary mirror, and a terminal ray segment between the tertiary mirror and the focal plane, and, in the imaging optical system: the primary and secondary mirrors are oriented so that the second intermediate segment of a parabasal ray of the system intersects the initial segment of said parabasal ray, and the secondary and tertiary mirrors are oriented so that the terminal segment of the parabasal ray passes by a lateral side of the secondary mirror which is opposite to a lateral offset of the primary mirror relative to said secondary mirror, so that the terminal segment of the parabasal ray does not intersect the first intermediate segment of said parabasal ray (¶0013, 0021, 0032, 0039; see FIG. 1 showing parabasal ray 8 traversing through optical system between mirrors as claimed), the system further comprising an image sensor arranged so that a photosensitive surface of said image sensor is superimposed on the focal plane, the photosensitive surface extending from an upstream boundary to a downstream boundary, the upstream and downstream boundaries of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor being defined in relation to respective projections of said upstream and downstream boundaries onto the initial segment of the parabasal ray and in relation to the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray, wherein the secondary and tertiary mirrors are oriented so that the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor is offset downstream relative to a straight line which connects an upstream edge of the primary mirror to: an upstream edge of the secondary mirror, or an upstream edge of a screen which surrounds the secondary mirror, so that the secondary mirror or the screen which surrounds said secondary mirror intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror to the photosensitive surface of the image sensor, the upstream edge and a downstream edge of the primary mirror, respectively of the secondary mirror, being defined in relation to respective projections of said upstream and downstream edges of the primary mirror, respectively of the secondary mirror, onto the initial segment of the parabasal ray and in relation to the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray, and the direction of the downstream offset of the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor relative to the straight line being parallel to the initial segment of the parabasal ray and oriented in accordance with the direction of propagation of the parabasal ray in said initial segment of the parabasal ray (¶0033, 0035: the detector placed on the image plane 7 can be arranged so as not to interfere with the first reflecting mirror 1; ¶0057; see FIGS. 1 & 3 showing an image sensor 7 with surface extending from an upstream boundary to a downstream boundary, such that the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface is offset downstream relative to an upstream edge of the primary mirror 1; ¶0033: the image plane 7 can be pulled out from the first reflecting mirror 1 in the + z direction, so that the detector placed on the image plane 7 can be arranged; see FIG. 3 showing the secondary mirror intercepts rays which would otherwise propagate in a straight line directly from the primary mirror to the image sensor 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: wherein at least one among the primary mirror, the secondary mirror, and the tertiary mirror has a freeform reflective surface (¶0091).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: wherein a longitudinal dimension of the image sensor determines a first angle of view of the system, the system being adapted so that said first angle of view is greater than or equal to 9° (¶0033, 0035).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 6, as above. Nakano further discloses: wherein the image sensor has a matrix arrangement, and a transverse dimension of said image sensor, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension, determines a second angle of view of the system, the system being further adapted so that said second angle of view is greater than or equal to equal to 12° (¶0025).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: having an aperture number value N which is less than 5, the aperture number N being equal to f/D where f is a focal length f of the system and D is a dimension of an entrance pupil of said system (¶0153: D = 11, f = 25; f/D = 2.27).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: further comprising a pupillary diaphragm, said pupillary diaphragm being located at the primary mirror or at the tertiary mirror (¶0082).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: further comprising a spectral separation device which is arranged between the tertiary mirror and the image sensor, and an additional image sensor which is arranged in an image of the focal plane of the system, said image having been formed by the spectral separation device (¶0197).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: wherein the primary, secondary, and tertiary mirrors are contained in a sphere which has a diameter of between 2 and 6 times a value of a focal length f of the system (¶0010).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: wherein at least one among the primary, secondary, and tertiary mirrors comprises a rigid part made of an injected polymer-based material, and optionally a reflective metal layer (¶0184).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano further discloses: An optronic imaging device comprising the system in accordance with claim 1, said device being selected among an airborne vehicle homing device, a thermal camera, a vision assistance device, and an optronic pod for surveillance and detection (¶0006).
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 3-5 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (JP 2004126510 A) in view of Neil (US 2012/0038812 A1).
Regarding Claims 3-5, as best understood, Nakano discloses the imaging optical system according to claim 1, as above. Nakano does not appear to explicitly disclose: further comprising a first entrance baffle which is superimposed on initial segments of first field edge marginal rays, on a same first side of the entrance field as the image sensor, opposite to the tertiary mirror, and said first entrance baffle having a downstream edge which joins terminal segments of second field edge marginal rays (claim 3); further comprising a second entrance baffle which is superimposed on initial segments of the second field edge marginal rays, on a same second side of the entrance field as the tertiary mirror, opposite to the image sensor, and said second entrance baffle having a downstream edge which is connected to an upstream edge of the tertiary mirror, or to a screen which surrounds said tertiary mirror, or to an opaque mount for said tertiary mirror, or else said downstream edge of the second entrance baffle is located downstream of a straight line which connects the upstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor to the downstream edge of the first entrance baffle (claim 4); wherein the second entrance baffle has an upstream edge which is located upstream of a straight line which connects the downstream edge of the first entrance baffle to the downstream boundary of the photosensitive surface of the image sensor (claim 5).
Neil is related to Nakano with respect to an optical system comprising three freeform mirrors positioned off-axis and a photosensitive image sensor therein (FIGS. 1-2, 7-9; Cols. 1 & 6), and Neil teaches the presence of a plurality of baffles (¶0051: the introduction of baffles between or around the mirrors or by placing a field stop at intermediate image…In some cases (e.g., embodiments 1 and 4), baffles that extend to the bottom portion of intermediate image IIM would obscure the optical path and so could only reside on the top portion of the intermediate image and thus only be partially effective. On the other hand, in some cases (e.g., embodiments 2 and 3), full baffles could be used). Neil further teaches that introduction of baffles can be manipulated by optimizing the location and number of baffles used, thereby providing the beneficial results of blocking spurious or unwanted light that may or may not have originated at a source in object space and that follows a spurious path to the image plane and thus to an image sensor (¶0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakano’s optical system in view of Neil to satisfy the claimed condition of the first and second entrance baffles, because such baffles are known and would be selected to optimize the blocking of unwanted light which follows a spurious path to the image plane and thus to an image sensor, as taught in ¶0051 of Neil.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872