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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Shafer et al (US 5999310)
Regarding Claim 1,
Shafer et al discloses an imaging system, suitable for imaging in a broadband ultraviolet band ((column 2, lines 59-66) deep UV spectral band 0.2 to 0.4 microns) and comprising: a refractive-reflective lens group (ABSTRACT, the catadioptric objective plus zooming tube lens twhere reflective elements correct aberrations.); a lens barrel lens group (ABSTRACT); and an optical path folding reflective assembly; wherein the refractive-reflective lens group comprises a refractive-reflective assembly (ABSTRACT, the catadioptric objective plus zooming tube lens twhere reflective elements correct aberrations.), a field lens assembly and a focusing assembly ((column 3, lines 50-67) field lens group is used to correct secondary and higher order lateral color), the refractive-reflective assembly focuses light from an object onto the field lens assembly to correct chromatic aberration (ABSTRACT), and the light after correcting the chromatic aberration sequentially passes the focusing assembly, the lens barrel lens group and the optical path folding reflective assembly and is then imaged on an image surface; and wherein a magnification of the imaging system is M that satisfies M=F1/F2, where F1 denotes a focal length of the refractive-reflective lens group (Shafer et al implies that the zooming tube plus objective varying magnification with controlled aberrations is taught), and F2 denotes a focal length of the lens barrel lens group, the lens barrel lens group has a zoom range without changing high-order chromatic aberration ((column 6, lines 25-34), the higher order chromatic aberrations do not change during zoom) , and the optical path folding reflective assembly has an optical path distance variation range adapted to the zoom range of the lens barrel lens group.
Regarding Claim 2,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the imaging system is applied to imaging of light within a wavelength range of 250nm to 450nm which is 0.25 to 0.45 mu.m ((column 2, lines 59-66) deep UV spectral band 0.2 to 0.4 microns which are overlapping ranges).
Regarding Claim 3,
Shafer et al discloses wherein distortion of the imaging system is less than 0.1% (Shafer does not put a value on the distortion, but Shafers system is designed for high optical performance with high NA and corrected aberrations across UV wavelengths. This would mean that the minimal distortion is inherently required for high performance imaging).
Regarding Claim 4,
Shafer et al discloses the imaging system as described in wherein a Strehl ratio of the imaging system is greater than 0.9. (Shafer’s system focuses on high performance, broadband aberration correction and high NA objective implies high image quality metrics such as high Strehl ratio).
Regarding Claim 5,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the magnification of the imaging system is within a range from 50 to 250 (zooming tube lens group with continuously adjustable magnification is known in the art to have those magnification ranges)
Regarding Claim 6,
Shafer et al discloses wherein a magnification variation within a wavelength range of the imaging system is less than 0.1% (Shafer teaches a zoom tube lens who’s higher order chromatic aberrations do not change during zoom, implying stable imaging metrics across wavelengths, minimal magnification variation across wavelength is inherent.)
Regarding Claim 7,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the imaging system has a highest telecentricity of less than 1mrad. (Shafer mentions that the system is preferably telecentric for imaging accuracy, telecentric designs inherently seek very low telecentricity angles. (constant magnification which eliminates perspective distortion).
Regarding Claim 10,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the field lens assembly comprises a plurality of lenses made of at least two refractive materials with different chromatic dispersions, and the plurality of lenses is sequentially arranged from an object side to an image side (column 5, lines 65-67).
Regarding Claim 11,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the at least two refractive materials with different chromatic dispersions comprise fused silica and calcium fluoride (CAF2)(column 4, lines 30-40).
Regarding Claim 12,
Shafer et al discloses wherein the plurality of lenses is divided into a third lens that is made of the calcium fluoride and a fourth lens and a fifth lens that are made of the fused silica (CAF2)(column 4, lines 30-40).
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.
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer et al (US 5999310) in view of Cramer, Guy (WO 2019119108 A1)
Regarding Claim 8,
Shafer et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Shafer et al does not disclose wherein the refractive-reflective assembly comprises a first lens having a first reflective coating at an image-side surface of the refractive-reflective assembly and a second lens having a second reflective coating at an object-side surface of the refractive-reflective assembly, the second lens has a window for receiving light from an object, an opening is provided at a center of the first lens, the light received by the window is refracted to the first reflective coating after sequentially passing the second lens and the first lens and is then reflected by the first reflective coating, the light reflected by the first reflective coating is refracted to the second reflective coating after sequentially passing the first lens and the second lens and is then reflected by the second reflective coating, and the light reflected by the first reflective coating is refracted by the second lens and is then focused onto the field lens assembly.
Cramer, Guy discloses wherein the refractive-reflective assembly comprises a lenes having a first reflective coating at an image-side surface of the refractive-reflective assembly [00173].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shafer et al to include Cramer, Guy’s refractive-reflective assembly comprises a lenes having a first reflective coating at an image-side surface of the refractive-reflective assembly motivated by the desire to reflect the light elsewhere.
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Shafer et al and Cramer, Guy, Shafer et al discloses wherein the field lens assembly is at least partially arranged within the opening (117’ or 47).
Claim(s) 13,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafer et al (US 5999310) in view of (CN 114185161)
Regarding Claim 13,
Shafer et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Shafer et al does not disclose wherein the third lens is glued and fixed to an object side of the fourth lens, the fifth lens is arranged at an image side of the fourth lens and spaced from the fourth lens, and a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius.
(CN 114185161) discloses wherein the third lens is glued and fixed to an object side of the fourth lens, the fifth lens is arranged at an image side of the fourth lens and spaced from the fourth lens, and a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius (“…In one embodiment, the third lens and the fourth lens are glued, the optical system satisfies the relationship: -1.6 <r32/f345 <-0.9 or 1 <f5/r51 <2; wherein r32 is the curvature radius of the third lens image side surface at the optical axis; f345 is the combined effective focal length of the third lens to the fifth lens, f5 is the effective focal length of the fifth lens, r51 is the curvature radius of the fifth lens object side surface at the optical axis. the third lens and the fourth lens are cemented; it is good for correcting the aberration of the first lens group, at the same time...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shafer et al to include (CN 114185161)’s third lens is glued and fixed to an object side of the fourth lens, the fifth lens is arranged at an image side of the fourth lens and spaced from the fourth lens, and a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius motivated by the desire to motivated by the desire to improve image quality(“… obtaining higher relative brightness, so as to improve the imaging quality. By making the optical system satisfy the relational expression: -1.6 <r32/f345 < -0.9, the ratio is controlled in the reasonable range, which is good for the third lens and the fourth lens; the glued surface of the glued lens has a reasonable bending degree, it can ensure that the cemented lens has the characteristic of being able to be processing, so that the second lens group provides enough positive refracting power for the optical system, at the same time, it can effectively correct the aberration generated by the front and back lens, the whole reaches the difference balance, improving the system resolving power…”).
Regarding Claim 14,
Shafer et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Shafer et al does not disclose the fifth lens is glued to an object side of the third lens, the fourth lens is glued to an image side of the third lens, a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius, and a gluing surface of the fifth lens and a gluing surface of the third lens have a same curvature radius.
(CN 114185161) discloses the fifth lens is glued to an object side of the third lens, the fourth lens is glued to an image side of the third lens, a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius, and a gluing surface of the fifth lens and a gluing surface of the third lens have a same curvature radius. (“…In one embodiment, the third lens and the fourth lens are glued, the optical system satisfies the relationship: -1.6 <r32/f345 <-0.9 or 1 <f5/r51 <2; wherein r32 is the curvature radius of the third lens image side surface at the optical axis; f345 is the combined effective focal length of the third lens to the fifth lens, f5 is the effective focal length of the fifth lens, r51 is the curvature radius of the fifth lens object side surface at the optical axis. the third lens and the fourth lens are cemented; it is good for correcting the aberration of the first lens group, at the same time...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shafer et al to include (CN 114185161)’s fifth lens is glued to an object side of the third lens, the fourth lens is glued to an image side of the third lens, a gluing surface of the third lens and a gluing surface of the fourth lens have a same curvature radius, and a gluing surface of the fifth lens and a gluing surface of the third lens have a same curvature radius motivated by the desire to improve image quality (“… obtaining higher relative brightness, so as to improve the imaging quality. By making the optical system satisfy the relational expression: -1.6 <r32/f345 < -0.9, the ratio is controlled in the reasonable range, which is good for the third lens and the fourth lens; the glued surface of the glued lens has a reasonable bending degree, it can ensure that the cemented lens has the characteristic of being able to be processing, so that the second lens group provides enough positive refracting power for the optical system, at the same time, it can effectively correct the aberration generated by the front and back lens, the whole reaches the difference balance, improving the system resolving power…”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871