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 .
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims “…less than about 1,000 µrad…”, which is unclear. Applicant’s use of “less” with “about” renders the claim unclear since “about” 1,000 could be interpreted to be 1,100 or 900 but “less than” 1,000 can be no larger than 999.999… Therefore, the definition of the range is not distinctly claimed.
Claims 3-4 and 9-11 have the same issue.
Additionally, applicant claims an extinction ratio but does not define the variables. Extinction ratios may be the ratio of two optical power levels in a signal or the ratio of powers of perpendicular polarizations. However, the applicant has not claimed any optical signals nor have they claimed any polarizers in their claim. Therefore, it is not clear how the extinction ratio is being measured, what exactly is being measured or how the limitation should be applied to the prior art. Applicant’s specification discusses measuring the extinction ratio with polarizers and intensity detectors ([00107]). However, these polarizers are not claimed.
For the purposes of this rejection the office will interpret claims 1, 3-4 and 9-11 such that “about” is stricken from the claim. Further, the extinction ratio will be understood to mean the optical system includes polarizers.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (USPAT 5570237) in view of Silverstein et al. (PGPUB 20040263806).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sato discloses an optical assembly comprising:
a first lens comprising a first lens optical axis (Fig. 1, 1 or 2);
a second lens comprising a second lens optical axis (Fig. 1, 1 or 2),
the first lens optical axis being aligned with the second lens optical axis such that an angle of deviation between the first lens optical axis and the second lens optical axis is less than about 1,000 µrad (Col. 3 lines 34-64 where < 1.5 arcminutes = 436.3 µrad or less); and
a liquid positioned between the first lens and the second lens during alignment of the first lens optical axis and the second lens optical axis so as to provide a reduced stress profile within the optical assembly (4).
Sato does not disclose wherein an extinction ratio of the optical assembly is greater than or equal to 1000:1.
However, Silverstein teaches an optical system comprising doublet lenses (Fig. 1, 70) wherein the measured extinction ratio is nominally 2000:1 ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sato and Silverstein such that the extinction ratio was greater than 1000:1 motivated by improving image quality ([0012]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sato discloses wherein:
the first lens comprises a concave coupling surface, the second lens comprises a convex coupling surface, and the concave coupling surface of the first lens is bonded to the convex coupling surface of the second lens (Figs. 1A-1C where the surface of lens 1 is concave and the bonded surface of lens 2 is convex).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Sato discloses wherein the angle of deviation between the first lens optical axis and the second lens optical axis is less than about 1 µrad (Col. 3 lines 34-64 where < 1.5 arcminutes = 436.3 µrad or less).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sato discloses wherein the liquid is an optical adhesive (Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 5 line 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Sato discloses wherein the optical adhesive is in an un-cured state and a cured state (Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 5 line 3 before and after curing).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Sato discloses wherein the extinction ratio of the optical assembly is greater than or equal to 1400:1 and 1600:1 ([0012] of Silverstein).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sato discloses wherein:
the first lens comprises a concave coupling surface, the second lens comprises a convex coupling surface, the liquid is an optical adhesive, and the concave coupling surface of the first lens is bonded to the convex coupling surface of the second lens with the optical adhesive (Figs. 1A-1C where the surface of lens 1 is concave and the bonded surface of lens 2 is convex and they are adhered using the adhesive 4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Silverstein and further in view of Cheng et al. (PGPUB 20160377844).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sato does not disclose wherein the first lens is molecularly bonded to the second lens.
However, Cheng teaches that an optical system having cemented lenses that are molecularly bonded ([0045] lenses L5 and L6 and molecular bonding is mentioned in [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Sato and Cheng such that the adhesive provided a molecular bond motivated by improving stability.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Silverstein and further in view of Takamatsu et al. (USPAT 5381187).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Sato does not disclose wherein the liquid comprises an uncured viscosity within the range of 10 cps to 500 cps.
However, Takamatsu teaches an adhesive used in an optical apparatus having a viscosity of 200-300 CPS (Col. 9 lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Sato and Takamatsu such that the adhesive used had a viscosity in the range of 10 cps to 500 cps motivated by improving the ease of manufacture.
Regarding claim 11, modified Sato does not disclose wherein the liquid comprises a thickness between about 10 microns and 15 microns.
However, Takamatsu teaches an adhesive used in an optical apparatus having an adhesive thickness between 10 microns and 15 microns (Col. 9 lines 18-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Sato and Takamatsu such that the adhesive used had thickness of 10-15 microns motivated by reducing manufacture cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872