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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 March 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, directed to Claims 1 and 23-26, in the reply filed on 02 March 2026 is acknowledged.
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 phase shifter is of a transmission type or a reflection type 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, and 23-26 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.
With respect to Claims 1 and 23-26, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g).
In the current instance, "A lens unit which comprises a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens that are disposed in order and which is used for an infrared region that includes at least any one of wavelengths in a range of 7 μm to 14 μm" in Claim 1 recites functional language, for the claim limitations merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, “which is used for an infrared region” merely states the intended use of the lens unit rather than reciting structural limitations of the lens unit itself in regard to the infrared region. The claim recites only a purpose and it is unclear what structural features distinguish the claimed lens unit from other lens units when utilizing the infrared region, and thus, these limitations are purely functional and result-oriented. Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 24, the limitation “wherein the phase shifter is of a transmission type or a reflection type” renders the claim indefinite because the addition of the relative term “type” expands the otherwise definite element “phase shifter” into undefined categories. The claim fails to provide objective boundaries as to what structures constitute a “transmission type” or a “reflection type” phase shifter, the functional categories do not define what structural features satisfy a phase shifter of either type, and the as-filed specification does not clearly define these categories. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope, the optical system and phase shifter are also rendered indefinite by the use of the relative term “type.” See MPEP § 2173.05.
With respect to Claim 25, the recitation “wherein a modulation transfer function in a wavelength range of 7 μm to 14 μm and at a spatial frequency of 41.7 cycles/mm satisfies not less than 0.35 in an image circle” is indefinite because “in an image circle” does not provide objective boundaries as to where within the image circle the claimed MTF value must be satisfied e.g., center, edge, across the entire image circle, etc. Furthermore, the claim does not specify the particular MTF definition or measurement condition corresponding to the value “0.35” e.g., sagittal, meridional, polychromatic, or just at a particular field position. Therefore, the scope of the claimed optical performance cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a lens unit, optical system, and spectral characteristic measurement device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki JP 2017126041 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1) which comprises a first lens (first lens; [0011] and [0024], L1 as seen in fig. 1), a second lens (second lens; [0011], L2 as seen in fig. 1), and a third lens (third lens; [0011], L3 as seen in fig. 1) that are disposed in order (in order from an object side; [0011]) and which is used for an infrared region (infrared imaging lens; [0011]) that includes at least any one of wavelengths in a range of 7 μm to 14 μm (wavelength of 8 μm or more and 13 μm or less; [0011]), wherein
an effective diameter (fig. 1) of the first lens (first lens; [0011] and [0024], L1 as seen in fig. 1) is larger than an effective diameter (effective diameter of L1 is larger than effective diameter of L3 as seen in fig. 1) of the third lens (third lens; [0011], L3 as seen in fig. 1), and
an optical axis (optical axis Z1; [0024]; fig. 1) thickness (center thickness of third lens L3 is center distance of S6 and S7; [0045]; table 1) of the third lens (third lens; [0011], L3 as seen in fig. 1) is greater than (S6 + S7 = 4. 6 > S1 + S2 (of L1) = 4.4, S6 + S7 = 4. 6 > S4 + S5 (of L2) = 3.95; table 1) an optical axis thickness (center thickness of L3 greater than center thickness of L1, L2; as seen in fig. 1) of any one of the first lens (first lens; [0011] and [0024], L1 as seen in fig. 1) and the second lens (second lens; [0011], L2 as seen in fig. 1).
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 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki JP 2017126041 A (see machine translation) in view of Ueda JP H11174318 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 23, Suzuki discloses the lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1; i.e., the first lens unit) recited in claim 1.
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): an optical system comprising: a second lens unit which is also the lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1) recited in claim 1; and a phase shifter which is disposed between the first lens unit and the second lens unit, wherein the first lens unit and the second lens unit are disposed symmetrically with respect to the phase shifter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ueda teaches an optical pickup device (1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1) comprising a first lens unit (objective lens unit 15; [0051]), a second lens unit (condenser lens 16 and a multi-lens 17 comprised within optical system 10; [0044]), and a phase shifter (polarizing beam splitter 13 and/or quarter-wave plate 14; [0043]) disposed between (fig. 1) the first lens unit (objective lens unit 15; [0051]) and the second lens unit (condenser lens 16 and a multi-lens 17 comprised within optical system 10; [0044]), wherein the first lens unit (objective lens unit 15; [0051]) and the second lens unit (condenser lens 16 and a multi-lens 17 comprised within optical system 10; [0044]) are disposed symmetrically (fig. 1) with respect to the phase shifter (polarizing beam splitter 13 and/or quarter-wave plate 14; [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the infrared lens unit of Suzuki, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the duplicated lens unit configuration of Suzuki, to combine the technical feature of disposing a plurality of lens units symmetrically with respect to phase shifting element(s), for the purpose of distributing lens power, reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]).
With respect to Claim 24, Suzuki in view of Ueda teaches the optical system (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1; i.e., the first lens unit of Suzuki in view of optical pickup device 1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1; of Ueda) as set forth in claim 23.
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the phase shifter is of a transmission type or a reflection type.
However, Ueda further teaches the optical pickup device (1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1) comprising the phase shifter (polarizing beam splitter 13 and/or quarter-wave plate 14; [0043]), wherein the phase shifter (polarizing beam splitter 13 and/or quarter-wave plate 14; [0043]) transmits laser light emitted from a light source and reflects the laser light reflected
from an optical disk (5; [0043]) and/or converts linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light ([0043]).
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 modify the duplicated lens unit configuration of Suzuki, to combine the technical feature of disposing a plurality of lens units symmetrically with respect to phase shifting element(s) that transmit and/or reflect light, for the purpose of distributing lens power, reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]).
With respect to Claim 25, Suzuki in view of Ueda teaches the optical system (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1; i.e., the first lens unit of Suzuki in view of optical pickup device 1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1; of Ueda) as set forth in claim 23, wherein a modulation transfer function (tangential MTF, symbol T and radial MTF, symbol R; [0067]; fig. 6) in a wavelength range of 7 μm to 14 μm (wavelength of 8 μm or more and 13 μm or less; [0011]) and at a spatial frequency (spatial frequency; [0067]; fig. 6) of 41.7 cycles/mm (± 40 cycles/mm; fig. 6) satisfies not less than 0.35 in an image circle (0.40+ within range of image height ≈ 0.0 mm to 2.88 mm, infrared imaging lens 10 used for image sensor 11 with a pitch of 12 μm; [0066-67]; fig. 6; Suzuki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the infrared lens unit of Suzuki, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the duplicated lens unit configuration of Suzuki, to combine the technical feature of disposing a plurality of lens units symmetrically with respect to phase shifting element(s), for the purpose of distributing lens power, reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]).
With respect to Claim 26, Suzuki in view of Ueda teaches an optical system (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1; i.e., the first lens unit of Suzuki in view of optical pickup device 1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1; of Ueda) recited in claim 23.
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a spectral characteristic measurement device.
However, Ueda further teaches the optical pickup device (1; [0001], [0041]; fig. 1) comprising a spectral characteristic measurement device (optical system 10; [0044]) that includes the objective lens unit (15; [0043]), the condenser lens (16; [0044]), the multi-lens (17; [0044]), the polarizing beam splitter (13; [0043-44]), the quarter-wave plate (14; [0043]), and a photodetector (18; [0044]) that receives the laser light reflected from a signal recording surface of the optical disc (5; [0043-44]).
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 modify the duplicated lens unit configuration of Suzuki, to combine the technical features of an optical pickup device comprising a plurality of lens units, phase shifting element(s), and a photodetector receiving laser light reflected from a signal recording surface of an optical disc, for the purpose of distributing lens power, reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hamano US 20030175021 A1 discloses a zoom lens, and camera incorporating such zoom lens substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Ellithey et al. discloses compact high resolution wide field of view IR objective operating in (8 – 12 μm) spectral band for different observation applications similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 16 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872