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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/399,800 filed on December 29, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on September 22, 2023 (China CN 202311238168.1).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on January 25, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The parameters and relational expressions in Table 4 are not consistent with the numerical design data in Tables 1-3. The examiner has utilized a matrix calculator that encodes the Full Lensmaker’s Equation to calculate the focal lengths of each of the lenses, the combined focal length f12 and the combined focal length f678.
For table 1 the only inconsistency is in the value of f12 which the examiner calculates to be -27.87, whereas table 4 lists f12 as 507.914 which is closer to the value of f678. The calculations for table 2 are below:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
342
84
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
168
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Comparing the focal lengths to Table 4, the values of f12, f1, f2, f4, f5, f6, f7 and f8 are not consistent.
The calculations for Table 3 are below:
PNG
media_image5.png
486
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
342
82
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
160
882
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Comparing the focal lengths to Table 4, the values of f12, f1, f2, f4, f5, f6, f7 and f8 are not consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “and” should appear before “following relational expressions” in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a microscope objective with the claimed features and consisting of nine lenses arranged sequentially with powers NPPNPPNPP (N=negative P=positive), does not reasonably provide enablement for all microscope objectives having any number of lenses greater than or equal to nine with an unconstrained power structure. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case, (A) the breadth of the claims includes all microscope objectives with nine or more lenses with any arrangement of the order of powers. This includes structures that do not have the relatively alternating structure that helps to maintain chromatic aberration corrections, such as with nine all positive lenses, nine all negative lenses, or arrangements with all the negative lenses adjacent to one another. This breadth also includes microscope objectives with much larger numbers of lenses, where 15-20 lenses is not uncommon in the field.
(B) It appears that the nature of the invention is drawn to a compact structure, of generally alternating powers of a small number of lenses with relatively low focal length ratios.
(C) The prior art includes thousands of different lens arrangements for microscope objectives, however, does not disclose how to utilize the claimed features in these diverse systems.
(D) The level of ordinary skill in the art is at least a master’s degree level with strong familiarity with available optical design tools. However, given only 3 starting points, all with the same power structure, would not enable an ordinary skilled artisan to design microscope objectives within the full breadth of the current claims.
(E) The level of predictability in the art with regard to the existence of working lens designs that are disparate from their starting power structures is highly unpredictable.
(F/G) The inventor only provides three working examples as direction, all with the same power structure, and thus not commensurate with the breadth of the claims.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention based on the content of the disclosure greatly exceeds the amount of experimentation usually performed in the field, where small changes can be performed with a reasonable expectation of success, but substantial changes are likely to lead to stalled optimization and/or excessively long computing times.
Therefor the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The examiner recommends that specifying the microscope objective contains only nine lenses with non-zero refracting power, and claiming the positive or negative refracting powers of each of the lenses would overcome this scope of enablement issue.
Although claims 2-12 provide individual further constraints on the claimed system, the presence of additional constraints to one lens at a time is insufficient to overcome this scope of enablement issue.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for eighth lenses that are biconvex and have 1.9 ≤ f8/f ≤ 2.36, does not reasonably provide enablement for an eighth lens that is biconvex and has -9.96 ≤ f8 ≤ 0. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case a lens made of a material with a refractive index higher than 1.0 with both surfaces convex can only be a lens with positive refractive power, and thus cannot take values of -9.96 ≤ f8 ≤ 0. Simultaneously meeting these two conditions is an impossibility for solid lenses and an ordinary skilled artisan would not reasonably include air lenses as corresponding the claimed eighth lens.
Thus (A) the breadth of the claim includes values of f8/f that are not physically possible for a biconvex solid lens as claimed (B) the nature of the invention appears to be directed to values of f8/f close to 1.9 ≤ f8/f ≤ 2.36 which correspond to the values calculated based on the data in Tables 1-3 above (C) the prior art does not disclose any biconvex solid lenses with negative focal lengths (D) the level of skill in the art is high, but cannot overcome this impossibility (E) the predictability of a biconvex lens always having a positive focal length is high, and thus that the claim includes impossible scope (F/G) the inventor only provides 3 examples each of which have a positive, biconvex eighth lens and thus do not provide any direction or examples of f8/f less than zero (H) an undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The examiner recommends changing the claimed range to one that can be supported by the disclosed data of the eighth lens and its corresponding value of f8/f to overcome this scope of enablement issue.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. US 2016/0266370 A1 (hereafter Uchida).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches (example 2, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0571] and [0594]) “A microscope objective lens (paragraphs [0619]-[0622] microscope with the optical system of the examples as the optical system 7), comprising from an object side to an image side (from left to right in Fig. 2A and from surface 1 to the image plane in paragraph [0571], where L3-L11 are ordered from an object side to the image side. Note that additional lenses before and after the enumerated lenses are not currently precluded by the claim): a first lens (L3), a second lens (L4), a third lens (L5), a fourth lens (L6), a fifth lens (L7), a sixth lens (L8), a seventh lens (L9), an eighth lens (L10) and a ninth lens (L11);
wherein a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an observed object is WD (paragraph [0197] “WD denotes a distance on the optical axis from the object up to the object-side surface of the first object-side lens” paragraph [0594] WD of example 2 is 60.0), a total optical length from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane of the camera optical lens along an optic axis of the microscope objective lens is TTL (paragraph [0404] “LTL denotes a distance on the optical axis from the object-side surface of the first object-side lens up to the image” paragraph [0594] LTL of example 2 is 180.0), an object numerical aperture of the microscope objective lens is NA (paragraph [0198] “NA denotes a numerical aperture on the object side of the optical system” and paragraph [0594] NA of example 2 is 0.09), a focal length of the microscope objective lens is f (paragraph [0146] “f denotes a focal length of the overall optical system” and paragraph [0594] f of example 2 is 44.3), an equivalent focal length of the sixth lens, the seventh lens and the eighth lens is f678 (the combined focal length of L8, L9 and L10 identified above as the sixth, seventh and eighth claimed lenses can be calculated from the data of surfaces 15-19 in paragraph [0571] using a matrix calculator to be about 553.9), a focal length of the ninth lens is f9 (the focal length of L11, identified above as the ninth lens can be calculated from the data of surfaces 20-21 in paragraph [0571] using a matrix calculator to be about 55.9), a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the ninth lens is R17 (paragraph [0571] R17=R20=26.957), a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the ninth lens is R18 (paragraph [0571] R18=R21=74.146),
and following relational expressions are satisfied:
0.19 ≤ WD/TTL ≤ 0.36 (given the values above WD/TTL=60.0/180.0=0.33 which is in the claimed range);
… NAxf ≤ 8.00 (given the values above NAxf=0.09x44.3=3.987);
7.00 ≤ f678/f9 ≤ 16.00 (given the values above f678/f9=553.9/55.9=9.9 which is in the claimed range); and
-10.00 ≤ (R17+R18)/(R17-R18) ≤ -1.50 (given the values above (R17+R18)/(R17-R18)=(26.957+74.146)/(26.957-74.146)=-2.14 which is in the claimed range).”
However, Uchida example 2 fails to teach 4.00 ≤ NAxf ≤ 8.00, instead teaching a value of 3.987 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Uchida example 1 teaches a microscope objective of very similar structure to Uchida example 2 including WD/TTL=0.33 (see paragraph [0594] WD=60.0 LTL=180.0) (R17+R18)/(R17-R18)=-2.3 (see radii of surfaces 20 and 21 in paragraph [0540]) and NA=0.09 (paragraph [0594]).
Uchida example 1 further teaches f=44.8 (paragraph [0594]) and thus “4.00 ≤ NAxf ≤ 8.00 (0.09x44.8=4.032 which is in the claimed range).”
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Uchida example 2 value of 3.987 for NAxf is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 4.00 ≤ NAxf ≤ 8.00 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 3.987 and the endpoint of 4.00 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.3% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated NAxf value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of 4.00 ≤ NAxf ≤ 8.00.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 3.987 for NAxf, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 4.00 ≤ NAxf ≤ 8.00 to render it obvious because the difference between 3.987 and the endpoint of 4.00 is insubstantial, a value of 3.987 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for NAxf, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Uchida example 1 teaches a value of NAxf=4.03 which is in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Uchida teaches “The microscope objective lens as described in claim 1, wherein an object-side surface of the eighth lens (L10 surfaces 18-19 was identified as the eighth lens in claim 1 above) is convex in a paraxial region (paragraph [0571] the radius of surface 18 is positive and thus convex on the object side), and an image-side surface of the eighth lens is convex in the paraxial region (paragraph [0571] the radius of surface 19 is negative and thus convex on the image side); and
a focal length of the eighth lens is f8 (the focal length of L10 can be calculated from the data of surfaces 18-19 in paragraph [0571] using a matrix calculator to be about 63.78), a central curvature radius of the object-side surface of the eighth lens is R15 (paragraph [0571] the radius of surface 18 is 46.444), a central curvature radius of the image-side surface of the eighth lens is R16 (paragraph [0571] the radius of surface 19 is -95.376), an on-axis thickness of the eighth lens is d15 (paragraph [0571] the thickness of surface 18 is 6.28), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
-9.96 ≤ f8/f ≤ 2.36 (given the values above f8/f=1.44 which is in the claimed range);
-0.55 ≤ (R15+R16)/(R15-R16) ≤ -0.31 (given the values above (R15+R16)/(R15-R16)=-0.345 which is in the claimed range); and
0.02 ≤d15/TTL ≤0.07 (given the values above d15/TTL=0.035 which is in the claimed range).”
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. US 2016/0266370 A1 (hereafter Uchida) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMullen et al. US 2012/0293863 A1 (hereafter McMullen).
Regarding claim 13, Uchida teaches “The microscope objective lens as described in claim 1,” however, Uchida does not explicitly teach “wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, the seventh lens, the eighth lens and the ninth lens are all made of glass.”
McMullen teaches a microscope objective wherein all of the lenses are made of glass (paragraph [0016]): “All lenses were made of stock glasses and were selected to minimize fabrication cost.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose glass as the material for each of the nine enumerated lenses as taught by McMullen in the microscope objective of Uchida since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. One would further have been motivated to choose amongst glass materials as the material for the lenses in Uchida as glass is known to provide higher optical performance characteristics than plastic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein a refractive index of the second lens is n2, and a following relational expression is satisfied: n2≥ 2.00”. In particular the highest refractive index employed by Uchida is 1.91082 which is significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein a focal length of the third lens is f3, and a following relational expression is satisfied: 3.00 ≤ f3/f ≤ 6.00.” In particular the maximum focal length of individual lenses L3 to L5 in Uchida is 51.2 which would have a focal length ratio of only 51.2/44.3=1.15 which is significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the first lens is R1, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the first lens is R2, an on-axis thickness of the first lens is d1, and following relational expressions are satisfied:…
-0.42 ≤ (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) ≤ -0.16; and 0.01 ≤ d1/TTL ≤ 0.02.” In particular, example 2 of Uchida teaches a third lens with “a negative refractive power (see negative focal length of surfaces 5-6 below), the object-side surface of the first lens is concave in a paraxial region (see negative radius of surface 5), and an image-side surface of the first lens is concave in the paraxial region (see positive radius of surface 6); and a focal length of the first lens is f1 (the focal length of L3 can be calculated from the data of surfaces 5-6 in paragraph [0571] using a matrix calculator to be about -37.29)… and following relational expressions are satisfied: -2.20 ≤ f1/f5 ≤ -0.70 (given the values above f1/f=-37.29/44.3=-0.84 which is in the claimed range).” however, L3 has (R1+R2)/(R1-R2)=-0.027 and d1/TTL=0.0083 both of which are significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein … a focal length of the second lens is f2, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the second lens is R3, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the second lens is R4, an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3, and following relational expressions are satisfied: 1.58:≤ f2/f ≤ 11.25;
-1.85 ≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤ -0.49;”
In particular, Uchida teaches “the second lens (L4) has a positive refractive power (L4 is biconvex and thus has a positive refractive power), and an object-side surface of the second lens is convex in a paraxial region (the radius of surface 7 in paragraph [0571] is positive).” However, L4 has a focal length of 51.2 and a focal length ratio of 1.15 and (R3+R4)/(R3-R4)=-0.13 both of which are significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the third lens has … n on-axis thickness of the third lens is d5, and 0.15 ≤ d5/TTL ≤ 0.17.” In particular, amongst the positive lenses L4 and L5, the maximum thickness is 9.99 which corresponds to d/TTL=9.99/180=0.0555 which is significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a focal length of the fourth lens is f4, and an on-axis thickness of the fourth lens is d7, and following relational expressions are satisfied: -54.00 ≤ f4/f ≤ -2.68; and 0.02 ≤ d7/TTL ≤ 0.15.” In particular L6 of Uchida example 2 which is negative and could correspond to the fourth lens has a focal length of -28.11 for a focal length ratio of -0.63, and a thickness of 1.5 for d/TTL=0.0083 both of which are significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “a focal length of the fifth lens is f5 … an on-axis thickness of the fifth tens is d9, and following relational expressions are satisfied: 1.80 ≤ f5/f ≤ 9.03; … and 0.05 ≤ d9/TTL ≤ 0.07.” In particular L7 of Uchida example 2 which is positive and could correspond to the fifth lens has a focal length of 28.4 for a focal length ratio of 0.64, and a thickness of 6.56 for d/TTL=0.036 both of which are significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the sixth lens has a positive refractive power… a focal length of the sixth lens is f6 … and following relational expressions are satisfied: 2.07 ≤ f6/f ≤ 8.00.” In particular L8 of Uchida example 2 which was identified as corresponding to the sixth lens for the purposes of calculating f678 in claim 1 above, is a negative lens. Even if one were to reverse the orientation of the cemented pair of L8 and L9, the focal length of L9 is 50.172 for a focal length ratio of 1.13 which is significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the seventh lens has a negative refractive power… a focal length of the seventh lens is f7… and following relational expressions are satisfied: -2.09 ≤ f7/f ≤ -1.09.” In particular L9 of Uchida example 2 which was identified as corresponding to the seventh lens for the purposes of calculating f678 in claim 1 above, is a positive lens. Even if one were to reverse the orientation of the cemented pair of L8 and L9, the focal length of L8 is -26.76 with a focal length ratio of -0.60 which is significantly outside the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “following relational expressions are satisfied: 1.77 ≤ f9/f ≤ 2.31; and 0.06 ≤ d17/TTL ≤ 0.13.” In particular, Uchida example 2 teaches “wherein the ninth lens (L11 surfaces 20-21 in paragraph [0571]) has a positive refractive power (the focal length of L11 can be calculated from the data of surfaces 20-21 in paragraph [0571] using a matrix calculator to be about 55.9, thus L11 has a positive refractive power), the object-side surface of the ninth lens is convex in a paraxial region (the radius of surface 20 is positive and thus convex on the object side), and the image-side surface of the ninth tens is concave in the paraxial region (the radius of surface 21 is positive and thus concave on the image side); an on-axis thickness of the ninth lens is d17 (the thickness of surface 20 in paragraph [0571] is 5.94).” However, given the above values the focal length ratio is 1.26 and d/TTL=0.033 both of which are significantly outside the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872