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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed July 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 12-20 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regard to independent claim 1, newly cited references to Nagata et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except “a reflectance in a thermal radiation wavelength band of over 90%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a reflectance in a thermal radiation wavelength band of over 90%, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-11 are rejected, as set forth below.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
In regard to claim 8, the limitation, “infrared wavelengths of interest” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is not clear what portion of the infrared band are “of interest”. For examination purposes, it is presumed that any portion of the infrared band satisfies the claim.
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, 2, 4, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (US 2018/0131879 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Nagata et al. discloses an apparatus 100 (denoted “infrared camera”, see e.g. paragraph [0048]) comprising a lens assembly comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a front region (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below) comprising an entrance window of the lens assembly (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below), and a window structure (i.e. including the parts of the lens barrel 2 creating the opening) at the entrance window (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below);
a back region (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below);
a lens 1 (see e.g. paragraph [0031]) between the window structure and the back region (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below); and
a heater 4 (see e.g. paragraph [0039]) coupled to heat the window structure (see e.g. Figure 2);
wherein the lens assembly comprises a reflective surface 80 (denoted “light-blocking member” made of metal, see e.g. paragraph [0040]),
wherein the front region is on a first side of the reflective surface 80 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below), the back region is on a second side of the reflective surface 80 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below), and
the reflective surface 80 is configured to reflect thermal radiation generated by the heater 4, the reflected thermal radiation being reflected towards the first side (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below).
Nagata et al. fails to disclose
a reflectance in a thermal radiation wavelength band of over 90%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a reflectance in a thermal radiation wavelength band of over 90%, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagata et al. with a reflectance in a thermal radiation wavelength band of over 90%.
Selecting the reflectance to be higher would prevent unwanted radiation from being incident on the sensor in the system.
In regard to claim 2, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflective surface 80 is configured to direct at least some of the reflected thermal radiation towards the window structure (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 and note that the limitation is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the structure of Nagata et al. may direct thermal radiation forward).
In regard to claim 4, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflective surface 80 is a surface of an integral member (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0040]).
In regard to claim 7, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflective surface 80 comprises an aperture stop defining an entrance pupil of the lens assembly (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 11, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an imaging sensor 5 at the back region (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 and paragraph [0017]).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (US 2018/0131879 A1) in view of Tonar et al. (US 2012/0243093 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the window structure comprises a wavelength filter for thermal imaging and is configured to pass thermal infrared wavelengths of interest and block visible wavelengths.
However, Tonar et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 8a-b)
wherein the window structure comprises a wavelength filter for thermal imaging and is configured to pass thermal infrared wavelengths of interest and block visible wavelengths (see e.g. paragraph [0084] for lens cover 20a paragraph [0089] where it is noted that lens cover may comprise filters for visible light).
Given the teachings of Tonar et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura with wherein the window structure comprises a wavelength filter for thermal imaging and is configured to pass thermal infrared wavelengths of interest and block visible wavelengths.
Providing a visible light filter forward of the image sensor would prevent unwanted degradation of the thermal imaging.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (US 2018/0131879 A1) in view of Nakamura (WO 2019/181122).
In regard to claim 9, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the heater comprises a resistive heater.
However, Nakamura discloses
wherein the heater 12d comprises a resistive heater (see e.g. page 4, third full paragraph for nickel-chrome wire heater).
Given the teachings of Nakamura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagata et al. with wherein the heater comprises a resistive heater.
Resistive heaters have the advantage of having a high efficiency and higher temperature capability.
In regard to claim 10, Nagata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
a barrel housing 7 that houses the lens 1 and the heater 4 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Nagata et al. fails to disclose
a cable inside the barrel housing, the cable extending from the heater towards the back region, for providing electric power to the heater.
However, Nakamura discloses
a cable 12c (denoted “extending portion”, see e.g. page 4, first full paragraph and Figure 3) inside the barrel housing 1a, the cable 12c extending from the heater 12d towards the back region (see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above), for providing electric power to the heater (see e.g. page 4, fourth full paragraph for electrical connection to substrate 41, and providing a voltage from the substrate to the heater).
Given the teachings of Nakamura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nagata et al. with a cable inside the barrel housing, the cable extending from the heater towards the back region, for providing electric power to the heater.
Using a cable inside the housing for connection of the heater would provide a method of powering the heater while hiding the cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to claim 3, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the lens is disposed on the second side of the reflective surface.”
In regard to claim 5, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the reflective surface is integrated with the lens as a layer deposited on a flange of the lens.”
In regard to claim 6, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the lens assembly comprises a housing barrel comprising a flange between the window structure and the lens, the flange comprising the reflective surface.”
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 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights