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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 05 June 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant's argument that " In rejecting the claims, it is stated that Suzuki discloses a lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10) as the claimed…with respect to a phase shifter nor does Suzuki disclose or suggest any need for such an arrangement," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the application that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner further reminds the applicant that 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.
In response to applicant's argument (e.g., “Moreover, there is nothing in either of the references that would suggest to modify the arrangement of Suzuki to have an additional lens unit and then add a phase shifter and subsequently arrange two lens unit with the phase shifter as claimed. Thus, it appears the Examiner is relying on the improper use of hindsight to reconstruct Applicants claims.”) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner further reminds the applicant that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “In many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.
In response to applicant's argument that "Applicants further submit that modifying the device of Suzuki to that of an optical recording device would render the device of Suzuki useless for its intended purpose," a recitation of the intended use 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.
Counsel's assertion that "modifying the device of Suzuki to that of an optical recording device would render the device of Suzuki useless for its intended purpose," is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. 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.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c).
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicants request the rejoinder of the withdrawn claims upon allowance of the elected claims," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that “In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder.” See MPEP § 821.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The applicant' s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki JP 2017126041 A (see machine translation) in view of Tsuda et al. JP 2019152707 A (see machine translation; herein after “Tsuda”).
With respect to Claim 23, Suzuki discloses an optical system comprising:
a first lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1) which is a lens unit (infrared imaging lens 10; [0011], [0024]; fig. 1) which includes 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 transmits infrared rays (via infrared imaging lens; [0011]) having a wavelength in a range of 7 um to 14 um (wavelength of 8 μm or more and 13 μm or less; [0011]), an effective diameter (fig. 1) of the first lens (first lens; [0011] and [0024], L1 as seen in fig. 1) being 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), 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) being 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).
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a second lens unit; 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, and the phase shifter is an element which causes a first light beam and a second light beam to interfere with each other and causes an image to be formed on an image plane so that an interference image is formed, each of the first light beam and a second light beam being a part of a light beam entering the phase shifter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsuda teaches an optical scanning system (1; [0023]) comprising a phase shifter (LCOS-SLM 105; [0034]) disposed a first lens unit (optical system 16; [0034]) and a second lens unit (optical system 17; [0034]), wherein the first lens unit (optical system 16; [0034]) and second lens unit (optical system 17; [0034]) are disposed symmetrically (as seen in fig. 3) with respect to the phase shifter (LCOS-SLM 105; [0034]), and a light beam (laser light emitted from semiconductor laser 103, light ray (beam) is incident on surface of LCOS-SLM 105 along optical axis; [0035-37]) that enters the phase shifter (LCOS-SLM 105; [0034]; fig. 3) comprises a first light beam (ray L11; [0037]; fig. 4a) and a second light beam (ray L12; [0037]; fig. 4a) that interfere to form an interference image ([0023], [0037]; as seen in figs. 3-4b).
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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because modifying 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) would achieve reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]). 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 optical system of Suzuki to include the technical feature of incorporating an LCOS-SLM, for the purpose of controlling the voltage of pixels, controlling the propagation direction of reflected light, and achieving high spatial resolution and wide-angle scanning, as taught by Tsuda ([0036-40]).
With respect to Claim 25, Suzuki in view of Tsuda teaches the optical system 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 each of a tangential direction (tangential MTF; [0067]) and a sagittal direction (radial MTF; [0067]) in an entire region of 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because modifying 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) would achieve reducing curvature, increasing numerical aperture, and providing aberration correction means to reduce manufacturing costs, as taught by Suzuki ([0005-10]). 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 optical system of Suzuki to include the technical feature of incorporating an LCOS-SLM, for the purpose of controlling the voltage of pixels, controlling the propagation direction of reflected light, and achieving high spatial resolution and wide-angle scanning, as taught by Tsuda ([0036-40]).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki JP 2017126041 A (see machine translation) in view of Tsuda et al. JP 2019152707 A (see machine translation; herein after “Tsuda”) and Kuiseko JP 2013011472 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 24, Suzuki in view of Tsuda teaches the optical system as set forth in claim 23, wherein the phase shifter (LCOS-SLM 105; [0034]; Tsuda) is a reflection type phase shifter (incident light ray is reflected from surface of LCOS-SLM 105; [0037]).
Suzuki in view of Tsuda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the phase shifter has a fixed mirror section that reflects the first light beam and a movable mirror section that reflects the second light beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuiseko teaches a Michelson interferometer (2; [0027]) and spectrometer (1; [0027]) equipped with the interferometer ([0001]), wherein each beam is reflected by a moving mirror and a reflecting mirror to fold back an optical path, and then re-entered into a beam splitter to be combined and interfered with ([0002]). Kuiseko further teaches that, when the position of the moving mirror changes, a path difference occurs between the light beam reflected by the moving mirror and the light beam reflected by the fixed mirror, causing interference of light of a specific wavelength from the incident light ([0002]).
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 LCOS-SLM of Suzuki in view of Tsuda to include the technical features of a Michelson interferometer, for the purpose of detecting intensity of each wavelength and enabling spectroscopic analysis of incident light, as taught by Kuiseko ([0002]).
With respect to Claim 26, Suzuki in view of Tsuda teaches an optical system recited in claim 23.
Suzuki in view of Tsuda does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a spectral characteristic measurement device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuiseko teaches a Michelson interferometer (2; [0027]) and spectrometer (1; [0027]) equipped with the interferometer ([0001]), wherein each beam is reflected by a moving mirror and a reflecting mirror to fold back an optical path, and then re-entered into a beam splitter to be combined and interfered with ([0002]). The spectrometer comprises the interferometer and a spectrum generation unit that generates a spectrum showing the intensity of light for each wavelength based on a detection signal of the interference light output from the interferometer ([0022]). Kuiseko further teaches the interferometer satisfying 350 < F・νd < 600 ... (2) where νd is the Abbe number of a constituent material of a hemispherical lens ([0017]).
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 optical system of Suzuki in view of Tsuda to include the technical features of a spectrometer, for the purpose of suppressing chromatic aberration of off-axis luminous flux, ensuring measurement accuracy of the spectrometer, and suppressing an increase in the cost of the device, as taught by Kuiseko ([0019]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Stein et al. CN 108627247 A discloses a Fourier transform spectrometer and a method of operating Fourier transform spectrometer substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Jansen US 20070019203 A1 discloses a phase shift interferometer substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 22 August 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights