DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 11/26/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pg. 9 of Remarks), filed 11/26/2025, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states “an optical axis of an original light source is defined as the Z-axis, with the positive X-axis directed inward relative to the screen plane and the Y-axis oriented vertically, as shown in FIG. 1A.” However, there appears to be no optical axis of an original light source present in FIG. 1A, which renders unclear any reference frame by which “the z-axis of a global coordinate system” can be ascertained. Thus, the limitation of each reflector being arranged ‘off the z-axis’ as recited in newly amended claim 1 is not sufficiently defined relative to any other claimed structure or reference frame such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed term. The specification also fails to elucidate the bounds of the z-axis, resulting in the positional relationships between each of the reflectors as not sufficiently defined. See 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). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the Examiner maintains that the metes and bounds of the claim remain unclear and indefinite.
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks), filed 11/26/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “the present application is an infinite conjugate optical system configured to form an image at infinity, which is used in the field of macroscopic optics, such as telescopic systems…the application technical field of Mann is essentially different from that of the present application (pg. 10)... the Mann's patent is used for projection lithography and not for imaging” (pg. 11). However, such arguments unaccompanied by evidentiary support are insufficient to rebut Examiner's factual findings. 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."). Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the technical field of the present application being directed to macroscopic optics such as telescopic systems, etc. is not disclosed anywhere in the as-filed specification. The Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding the Mann reference being nonanalogous art, and respectfully reminds Applicant that “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)”. See MPEP § 2141.01(a), Section I. In the present case, Mann discloses an optical system for imaging comprising a plurality of optical elements (underlined for emph.) (¶0006 of Mann: “the invention features an optical system that includes a plurality of elements arranged so that during operation the plurality of elements image radiation from an object plane to an image plane”; ¶0069: Embodiments of catoptric projection objectives can be used in lithography tools (e.g., lithography scanners; ¶0236: an embodiment of a projection objective 1200 includes six mirrors), and is therefore a reference that is from the same field of endeavor directed to optical systems for imaging, even if such an optical system may be utilized in application to address different problems. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the instant specification (filed 06/28/2023) discloses the invention as pertaining to the same field of endeavor in ¶0002: “The present invention relates to the field of optical technology, specifically to a symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional large field of view”, and in ¶0003: “An off-axis reflective optical system has been used in many fields”. Thus, the Examiner maintains with evidentiary findings that the Mann reference is indeed a reference in the analogous art to the claimed invention and Applicant’s arguments remains persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “the present application is directed to technical solutions at a fundamentally distinct scale level from Mann…the present application’s wavelength band is mid-wave infrared (3-5 µm)… Mann relies on micrometer or nanometer-scale features, whose wavelength is extreme ultraviolet at 13.nm” (pg. 10). However, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding a distinct scale level are directed to a wavelength range of light that may be applied to the optical system, and such a limitation is not stated anywhere in the claims. Applicant is respectfully reminded that 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). Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the present application employs structural elements at the centimeter-to-meter scale (e.g., as defined in claims 6 and 8)” (pg. 10), the Examiner notes that the Mann reference’s optical system also employs structural elements at the centimeter-to-meter scale (¶0010, 0041 of Mann: “during operation the optical system images a field at the image plane having a minimum radius of curvature of 300 mm or more”; ¶0058, ¶0209, ¶0182: second reflector’s dimensions corresponding to the aperture can vary and may be optimized to be “about 700mm or less, about 600 mm or less, about 500 mm or less, about 400 mm or less”). Thus, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and the Examiner maintains that the Mann reference renders obvious the claimed limitations at hand.
Applicant argues that “the present application consists of four mirrors, while the Mann's patent consists of six mirrors” (pg. 10 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be arguing features that are not claimed, namely the term ‘consisting of’, i.e., a transitional phrase denoting closed group. Rather, the present claim language utilizes the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, thereby allowing additional and unrecited elements in the optical system as within the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2111.03 Section I. Thus, the Mann reference’s mirrors 1220, 1230, 1240 and 1260, respectively (see FIG. 12) satisfy the arrangement of the instant four reflectors as claimed.
Applicant additionally argues that “in the present application, each of the reflective surfaces of the first to the fourth reflectors is a free-form surface, which employs a Zernike polynomial freeform type surface, as defined in claim 4. In comparison, the reflective surfaces of Mann are determined by XY polynomial and even-order aspheric surface” (pgs. 10-11). It appears that Applicant has misconstrued the disclosure of Mann, thereby leading Applicant to make erroneous arguments that Mann’s reflector surfaces are not free form surfaces as recited in claim 1. It is widely known in the art of optics that a free-form reflector surface (as recited in claim 1) is defined as a surface that lacks rotational or translational symmetry about the optical axis; in other words, the surface is a rotationally-asymmetric surface. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments directed to the aspheric features do not bear any relevancy to the issue at hand, since Mann clearly discloses in the embodiment corresponding to FIG. 12 that all four reflectors possess rotationally-asymmetric surfaces (see ¶0236 of Mann: Mirrors 1220, 1230, 1240, and 1260 are all rotationally-asymmetric mirrors; see also ¶0145). Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 4, the Examiner brings notice to the recitation of claim 4 (underlined for emph.) “the reflective surface…is a free-form surface, which employs a Zernike polynomial free-form type surface”. Mann discloses in ¶0144 an XY monomial coefficients, i.e., a power series in x and y in cartesian coordinates in the present case, to mathematically describe said free-form reflector surfaces (see equation reproduced ¶0144 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
88
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is known in the art of optics that XY monomials are frequently utilized to also represent free-form surfaces and these power series are commonly recognized as equivalent expressions whereby the coefficients can be converted to Zernike polynomials utilizing computation schemes. Since claim 4 only requires that the free form surfaces employs a Zernike type surface, Mann’s expression for the free form surfaces satisfies present claim language and Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to features that are not positively claimed, i.e., the present claim language does not require that the free form surface must be expressed only in terms of Zernike polynomials, but rather extends the scope of the term by addition of the work “type”. The as-filed specification similarly states “the reflective surface…is a free-form surface, which employs a Zernike polynomial free-form type surface” (¶0032). See also corresponding rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (detailed further below) and MPEP §2173.05(b) Section III, Part E, thereby rendering the claim scope also indefinite. Thus, Examiner maintains that the Mann reference reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (in light of the specification) of the present claim language of “a Zernike polynomial free-form type surface” along with the claimed conditions thereof.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and Claims 1-8 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A typo (underlined) in Claim 1 of incorrect antecedent basis: “…are arranged off the z-axis of a global coordinate system;…”.
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 1-8 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: “the first reflector, the second reflector, the third reflector, the fourth reflector and the imaging surface of the detector are arranged off the z-axis of a global coordinate system”. Applicant further states “an optical axis of an original light source is defined as the Z-axis, with the positive X-axis directed inward relative to the screen plane and the Y-axis oriented vertically, as shown in FIG. 1A” (see pg. 9 of Remarks). However, there appears to be no optical axis of an original light source present in FIG. 1A, which renders unclear any reference frame by which “the z-axis of a global coordinate system” can be ascertained. Thus, the limitation of each reflector being arranged ‘off the z-axis’ as recited in newly amended claim 1 is not sufficiently defined relative to any other claimed structure or reference frame such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed term. The specification also fails to elucidate the bounds of the z-axis, resulting in the positional relationships between each of the reflectors as not sufficiently defined. See 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). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are rendered unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
2. Claims 2-3 recite limitations directed to all negative rotational angles that are recited as “with respect to the x-axis”. However, the ‘zero point’ or baseline from which the negative angles are measured is unknown, thereby rendering unclear how one may ascertain the measurement of said negative angles. The newly-amended FIG. 1B fails to depict these rotational angles since the x-axis spans coming out of/into the page and the figure only shows YZ plane which is perpendicular to the x-axis. Furthermore, it is unclear which portion of the x-axis the angles are measured with respect to (-x or +x?) and whether said portion of the x-axis serves as zero angle baseline or as 90°, etc. Applicant’s arguments directed to the global coordinate system (pg. 9) are not germane to the issues at hand. For the purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as “…has a rotational angle of…”
3. Claim 4 recites the limitation: “a Zernike polynomial free-form type surface”. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See MPEP §2173.05(b) Section III, Part E. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
Claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (US 2012/0188525 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Mann discloses: A symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system (FIG. 12) having a two-dimensional field of view (¶0012), comprising
A. a first reflector (FIG. 12: 1220), a second reflector (1230), a third reflector (1240), a fourth reflector (1260) and a imaging plane of a detector which are arranged along the direction of a light path in sequence (¶0240: image plane 102), and
B. further comprising an aperture stop (¶0058, 0209, ¶0236);
C. a reflective surface of the first reflector and a reflective surface of the second reflector are arranged to be opposite to each other, a reflective surface of the third reflector and a reflective surface of the fourth reflector are arranged to be opposite to each other, and the fourth reflector is arranged to be opposite to the imaging surface of the detector (see FIG. 12 showing first reflector 1220 and the second reflector 1230 are arranged to be opposite to each other, third reflector 1240 and the fourth reflector 1260 are arranged to be opposite to each other, the fourth reflector 1260 is arranged to be opposite to the imaging surface of the detector 102); the first reflector, the second reflector, the third reflector, the fourth reflector and the imaging surface of the detector are arranged off the z-axis of a global coordinate system (see FIG. 12; ¶0206: Each mirror is then decentered from the optical axis);
D. the first reflector has a negative refractive power (¶0240: mirror 1220 has negative optical power), each of the second reflector, the third reflector and the fourth reflector has a positive refractive power (¶0240: mirror 1230, mirror 1240 and mirror 1260 have positive optical power),
E. each of the reflective surface of the first reflector, the reflective surface of the second reflector, the reflective surface of the third reflector and the reflective surface of the fourth reflector is a free-form surface (¶0236: Mirrors 1220, 1230, 1240, and 1260 are all rotationally-asymmetric mirrors), such that a light beam is allowed to be reflected by the first reflector to the second reflector, after reflected by the second reflector then is injected to the third reflector, after reflected by the third reflector then is injected to the fourth reflector, after reflected by the fourth reflector then is injected to the imaging surface of the detector for imaging (see FIG. 12).
Mann does not appear to explicitly disclose (within the embodiment corresponding to FIG. 12): wherein a position wherein the aperture stop is located at is overlapped with a position wherein the second reflector is located at.
Although Mann discloses a stop may be positioned anywhere between the object and image plane, and specifically discloses that the stop may be positioned to overlap the position of the second reflector (¶0058: The system can include an aperture stop position between the object plane and the image plane. The plurality of elements can include three elements and the aperture stop is positioned between the second and third elements in the path of the radiation from the object plane to the image plane; ¶0209; ¶0225, 0236: projection objective has an aperture stop positioned at mirror 1120/1220), Mann does not appear to explicitly disclose within the embodiment corresponding to FIG. 12: wherein a position wherein the aperture stop is located at is overlapped with a position wherein the second reflector is located at.
However, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the court upheld that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly rearrange Mann’s stop to satisfy the claimed condition as taught (in ¶0058, 0209, 0225, 0236) by Mann, since such a stop “is used to define the size of the projection objective's aperture”, as taught in ¶0165 of Mann, and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, as best understood, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claims 1 and 2, respectively. Mann does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first reflector has a rotational angle of -10° to -15° with respect to the x-axis; the second reflector has a rotational angle of -52° to -60° with respect to the x-axis; the third reflector has a rotational angle of -100° to -105° with respect to the x-axis; the fourth reflector has a rotational angle of -60° to -66° with respect to the x-axis; the imaging surface of the detector has a rotational angle of -50° to -55° with respect to the x-axis, in the global coordinate system (claim 2); wherein the first reflector has a rotational angle of -12.5° with respect to the x-axis; the second reflector has a rotational angle of -56.1°with respect to the x-axis; the third reflector has a rotational angle of -102.1° with respect to the x-axis; the fourth reflector has a rotational angle of -63° with respect to the x-axis; the imaging surface of the detector has a rotational angle of -53.18° with respect to the x-axis (claim 3).
However, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section I, citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227, 783 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In the present case, Mann discloses that the imaging surface of the detector can be rotated fifty degrees or more (¶0125). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are also disclosed in the prior art because Mann teaches that the four reflectors can be rotated from a minimum angle of 10 degrees or less, to a maximum value of 75 degrees (¶0172), and that the rotational angle may further vary in order to optimize the projection objective design for specified optical performance criteria (¶0147-48, ¶0205), thereby being advantageous in detection optical systems (¶0198) and providing the beneficial results of constant or nearly constant image magnification over a range of image-side working distances (¶0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the optical system of Mann to satisfy the claimed angle conditions of the reflectors and the imaging surface, because the values are so mathematically close to each other that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and further being motivated as Mann discloses the general conditions of the claim in teaching a workable range for the reflector angles that results in an optimized projection objective design, thereby being advantageous in detection optical systems and providing the beneficial results of constant or nearly constant image magnification over a range of image-side working distances, as taught in paragraphs ¶0125, ¶0172, ¶0147-48, ¶0205, ¶0198, ¶0062 of Mann.
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claim 1, as above. Mann further discloses: wherein each of the reflective surface of the first reflector, the reflective surface of the second reflector, the reflective surface of the third reflector and the reflective surface of the fourth reflector is a free-form surface, which employs a Zernike polynomial free-form type surface (¶0144, 0236, 0247), and the general expression of the Zernike polynomial free-form surface is as follow:
PNG
media_image2.png
339
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claim 1, as above. Mann further discloses: wherein the second reflector has a rectangular aperture, so that when the four reflectors are arranged off-axis, a light path blocking is avoided and an arrangement space required for the four reflectors is reduced (¶0209, 0238).
Regarding Claim 6, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claim 5, as above. Mann does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second reflector has a rectangular aperture, and the rectangular aperture has a size of 684mm x 480mm.
However, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations or changes in shape of an element are prima facie obvious and recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape/size is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section IV, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), wherein the court upheld that "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.); see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the court upheld that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
In the present case, Mann discloses that the second reflector’s dimensions corresponding to the aperture (¶0058, ¶0209) can vary and be optimized from “about 700mm or less, about 600 mm or less, about 500 mm or less, about 400 mm or less” (¶0182). Furthermore, such aperture dimensions can be trivially scaled to meet the claimed condition, i.e., the entire system can be scaled to a percentage of its size without unexpected results (e.g., scaling aperture length by M scales the area by M2). In essence, the limitation of Claim 6 is nothing more than multiplying the physical parameter by a factor, thereby placing the aperture size inside the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify Mann’s optical system to satisfy the claimed aperture size condition, given that Mann explicitly recognizes that the dimensions of the second mirror corresponding to the aperture can vary and be optimized within a range of 400 to 700 mm (¶0182), such that the rectangular aperture “is used to define the size of the projection objective's aperture” (¶0165), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held that a mere length scalability of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in size is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding Claim 7, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claim 1, as above. Mann further discloses: wherein the imaging plane of the detector is a curved surface for reducing an image quality attenuation effect caused by field curvature (¶0011, 0041, 0135).
Regarding Claim 8, Mann discloses the symmetric imaging plane free-form surface optical system having a two-dimensional field of view according to Claim 7, as above. Mann does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the imaging plane of the detector is a curved surface having a radius of curvature of 1381mm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are also disclosed in the prior art because Mann teaches that “during operation the optical system images a field at the image plane having a minimum radius of curvature of 300 mm or more” (¶0010, 0041), thereby providing the beneficial results of a high numerical aperture and low image distortion, low wavefront error, and telecentricity at the image plane over a relatively large image field (¶0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the optical system of Mann to satisfy the claimed imaging surface condition, as Mann discloses the general conditions of the claim in teaching a workable range for the surface radius of curvature that results in an optimized projection objective design and providing the beneficial results of high numerical aperture and low image distortion, low wavefront error, and telecentricity at the image plane over a relatively large image field, as taught in paragraphs ¶0065, ¶0010, ¶0041 of Mann.
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