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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 18th, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2021/0247497).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an optical filter system (Figs. 1-5, 308) comprising:
a first optical diffractive element (400A) configured to receive an input beam of light that has an input light wavefront (406) and to diffract said input light wavefront into a first light wavefront ([0067], “Each diffraction grating is configured to produce at least one diffraction order”);
a second optical diffractive element (400B) disposed to receive the first light wavefront (as shown in Fig. 4D, 400B is downstream of 400A) and to diffract said first light wavefront into a second light wavefront ([0067], “At each diffraction grating, the beam is incrementally angularly dispersed”); and
a third optical diffractive element (400C) positioned to receive the second light wavefront (400C is downstream of 400B) and to diffract said second light wavefront into a third light wavefront ([0067], “At each diffraction grating, the beam is incrementally angularly dispersed”);
wherein the optical filter system is configured such that, when the input beam of light is a substantially collimated polychromatic beam of light containing first light at a first wavelength (λ.sub.A) and second light at a second wavelength (λ.sub.B, as shown in Fig. 4D, the beam 406 has at least two wavelengths), the third light wavefront is also a substantially planar wavefront having a first portion containing the first light and a second portion containing the second light (as shown in Fig. 4D, 412A and 412B are collimated planar wavefronts).
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses a method of optically imaging an object ([0055], “at least part of the outgoing light may be reflected (represented in solid arrows), e.g. scattered, by the object or reflecting surface back to the beam director 103 and received at the light detector 104”), the method comprising:
receiving an input beam of light from the object at the optical filter system (as shown in Fig. 4D, light returns from an object, the environment);
sequentially transmitting light from the input beam of light through each of constituent diffractive optical elements of the optical filter system (as shown in Fig. 4D, light returns from environment through diffractive elements 400A through 400C), wherein each of the constituent diffractive optical elements is axially separated from another of the constituent diffractive optical elements (as shown in Fig. 4D, 400A, 400B, and 400C are axially separated); and
forming an optical image of the object at an optical detector through a back lens element (318) positioned between the optical filter system and the optical detector (as shown in Figs. 3A-3B, and 4D, light exiting from 400A will enter 318 before being directed to detector 104).
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 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0247497) in view of Nabors (WO 0196933 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first and second portions of the third light wavefront substantially spatially overlap in a first plane transverse to a direction of propagation of the third light wavefront and in a second plane substantially parallel to and separated from the first plane, wherein the third light wavefront represents an output beam of light that is substantially collimated.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the first and second portions of the third light wavefront substantially spatially overlap in a first plane transverse to a direction of propagation of the third light wavefront (as shown in Fig. 4, as shown in Fig. 4, R2 and R3 overlap in a transverse plane of R1) and in a second plane substantially parallel to and separated from the first plane (a second plane parallel to the transverse plane of R1 would have R2 and R3 also overlapping), wherein the third light wavefront represents an output beam of light that is substantially collimated (Pg. 10, lines 16-18, “When autocollimation has been achieved in the manner described above, the cross pattern is located on the element 29 at exactly the position corresponding to the design angle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the first and second portions of the third light wavefront substantially spatially overlap in a first plane transverse to a direction of propagation of the third light wavefront and in a second plane substantially parallel to and separated from the first plane, wherein the third light wavefront represents an output beam of light that is substantially collimated as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first light wavefront is a light wavefront spatially diverging upon propagation from the first optical diffractive element while the second light wavefront is a light wavefront that is spatially converging upon propagation from the second optical diffractive element.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the first light wavefront is a light wavefront spatially diverging upon propagation from the first optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 diffracts and diverges incident light into first wavefront R3) while the second light wavefront is a light wavefront that is spatially converging upon propagation from the second optical diffractive element (Pg. 1, lines 6-8, “Holographic diffraction elements are designed so as to deflect light rays that pass therethrough or that are reflected therefrom. As such, these elements can have focusing power in the manner of a conventional lens”, examiner interprets the focusing of the diffractive element to correspond to converging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the first light wavefront is a light wavefront spatially diverging upon propagation from the first optical diffractive element while the second light wavefront is a light wavefront that is spatially converging upon propagation from the second optical diffractive element as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the second optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the first light wavefront from the first optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the first and second optical diffractive elements and wherein the third optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the second optical wavefront from the second optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the second and third optical diffractive elements.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the second optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the first light wavefront from the first optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the first and second optical diffractive elements (as shown in Fig. 4, first and second diffractive elements 31 and 30 are adjacent to one another) and wherein the third optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the second optical wavefront from the second optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the second and third optical diffractive elements (as shown in Fig. 4, second and third diffractive elements 30 and 29 are adjacent to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the second optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the first light wavefront from the first optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the first and second optical diffractive elements and wherein the third optical diffractive element is disposed to receive the second optical wavefront from the second optical diffractive element directly without any optical device or component between the second and third optical diffractive elements as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a first spectral bandwidth of the first optical diffractive element is broader than a second bandwidth of the second optical diffractive element, and a third spectral bandwidth of the third optical diffractive element is broader than the second bandwidth.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein a first spectral bandwidth of the first optical diffractive element is broader than a second bandwidth of the second optical diffractive element (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the first bandwidth to be red which is broader than blue), and a third spectral bandwidth of the third optical diffractive element is broader than the second bandwidth (examiner interprets the third bandwidth to be green which is broader than blue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein a first spectral bandwidth of the first optical diffractive element is broader than a second bandwidth of the second optical diffractive element, and a third spectral bandwidth of the third optical diffractive element is broader than the second bandwidth as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic diffractive grating, the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic diffractive grating, and the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffractive grating, and wherein at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: (6A) periods of said first and second holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6B) spectral bandwidths of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6C) thicknesses of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime)”), the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”), and the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffractive grating (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”), and wherein at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: (6A) periods of said first and second holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6B) spectral bandwidths of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6C) thicknesses of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime)”, examiner interprets this to meant that the thin phase holograms are substantially the same thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li in view of Nabors with the wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic diffractive grating, the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic diffractive grating, and the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffractive grating, and wherein at least one of the following conditions is satisfied: (6A) periods of said first and second holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6B) spectral bandwidths of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal; (6C) thicknesses of said first and third holographic diffractive gratings are substantially equal as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a first spatial frequency, the second optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a second spatial frequency, and the third optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a third spatial frequency, and wherein the third spatial frequency is substantially different from the second spatial frequency.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the first optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a first spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the first frequency to be red), the second optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a second spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the second frequency to be blue), and the third optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a third spatial frequency, and wherein the third spatial frequency is substantially different from the second spatial frequency (Pg. 11, lines 16-18, “assembly 28 is composed of elements which are adapted to act on respective different wavelengths (for example in the red, green and blue regions of the visible spectrum)”, examiner interprets the third frequency to be green, which is different from the frequency of blue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the first optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a first spatial frequency, the second optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a second spatial frequency, and the third optical diffractive element contains a diffraction grating characterized by a third spatial frequency, and wherein the third spatial frequency is substantially different from the second spatial frequency as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at wavelengths present in the input beam of light, and/or the second optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at said wavelengths.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the first optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at wavelengths present in the input beam of light, and/or the second optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at said wavelengths (Pg. 8, lines 25-28, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms that have been pre-recorded into a medium. These can be thin phase holograms (that is, holograms which conform to the Raman Nath regime) or they can be volume holograms also known as thick or Bragg holograms”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the first optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at wavelengths present in the input beam of light, and/or the second optical diffraction element is configured to operate near a boundary between the Bragg regime of diffraction and the Raman-Nath regime of diffraction at said wavelengths as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose configured such that each of the first and third diffractive optical elements is inclined with respect to an axis along which the input beam of light is made to propagate, and wherein absolute values of first and second angles at which the first and third optical diffractive elements are inclined with respect to the axis are substantially equal.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches configured such that each of the first (31) and third (29) diffractive optical elements is inclined with respect to an axis along which the input beam of light is made to propagate (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 and 29 are inclined against beam 26 by 90 degrees, Pg. 8, lines 3-6, “The mounting 32 is in turn carried by a mounting stage 33 which can be translated along three orthogonal axes whilst also being rotatable about three orthogonal axes, thereby enabling the assembly 28 to have six degrees of freedom in its overall movement”), and wherein absolute values of first and second angles at which the first and third optical diffractive elements are inclined with respect to the axis are substantially equal (as shown in Fig. 4, 29 and 31 are parallel to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the configured such that each of the first and third diffractive optical elements is inclined with respect to an axis along which the input beam of light is made to propagate, and wherein absolute values of first and second angles at which the first and third optical diffractive elements are inclined with respect to the axis are substantially equal as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0247497) in view of Nabors (WO 0196933 A1), further in view of Nakai (US 2002/0080492).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic grating having a first thickness, the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic gratings having a second thickness, the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffraction grating having a third thickness.
However Nabors, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging system, teaches wherein the first optical diffractive element (Pg. 8, lines 25-27, “The holographic diffraction elements 29, 30 and 31 are essentially holograms”) is configured as a first holographic grating having a first thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 31 has a first thickness), the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic gratings having a second thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 30 has a second thickness), the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffraction grating having a third thickness (as shown in Fig. 4, 29 has a third thickness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the first optical diffractive element is configured as a first holographic grating having a first thickness, the second optical diffractive element is configured as a second holographic gratings having a second thickness, the third optical diffractive element is configured as a third holographic diffraction grating having a third thickness as taught by Nabors, for the purpose of aligning multiple holographic elements (Pg. 3, lines 3-5).
Modified Li does not specifically disclose wherein the third thickness is smaller than the second thickness.
However Nakai, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein the third thickness (Fig. 8, d3 thickness of element 3c) is smaller than the second thickness (d2 thickness of element 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li in view of Nabors with the wherein the third thickness is smaller than the second thickness as taught by Nakai, for the purpose of easily molding the diffraction elements ([0088]).
Claims 11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0247497) in view of Kobayashi (US 2011/0122305).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element (Fig. 4A, element 10) that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element (9, as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 and 9 are substantially identical) and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements (as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 is between second DOE 9 and Third DOE 11) to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 4A, 10 is arranged in a flipped position of what 9 is and thus diffracts at an angle opposite that of 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the further comprising a fourth optical diffractive element that is substantially structurally identical to the second optical diffractive element and is configured between the second and third diffractive optical elements to diffract light incident thereon at an angle that is opposite to an angle of diffraction characterizing the second optical diffractive element as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses an optical imaging system (300) comprising:
the optical filter system (308);
an optical detector (104) positioned to receive light transmitted through said optical filter system ([0062], “the other output port re-directs the light to the light detector 104”) and to generate an output signal representing a distribution of irradiance of light across the optical detector ([0055], “The processing unit 105 is also operatively coupled to the light detector 104 for determining the distance to the reflecting surface, by determining the round-trip time for the reflected light to return to the beam director 103”); and
a combination of at least a first optical element (312) and a second optical element (318), each of the at least the first optical element and the second optical element dimensioned to change a degree of divergence of light incident thereon ([0065], “pigtailed collimator 312 … a focussing element 318”, a collimator and focusing element will change a divergence degree),
wherein the first optical element (312) of the combination is disposed to transmit the light incident thereon towards the first optical diffractive element (as shown in Fig. 3B, light emitted from 312 is directed towards the first DOE as light 306).
Li does not specifically disclose wherein the second optical element from the combination is disposed to receive the third light wavefront directly from the third optical diffraction element and to relay it to the optical detector.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging system, teaches wherein the second optical element (Fig. 24A, lens element to the right of element 1) from the combination (lenses to the right and left of element 1) is disposed to receive the third light wavefront directly from the third optical diffraction element (7) and to relay it to the optical detector (103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein the second optical element from the combination is disposed to receive the third light wavefront directly from the third optical diffraction element and to relay it to the optical detector as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the combination of the at least the first optical element (312) and the second optical element (318) is configured as a telescope (as shown in Fig. 3B, 312 and 318 together form a telescope).
Regarding claim 14, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 12 rejection above and Li further discloses wherein the at least the first optical element (312) and the second optical element (318) are not disposed co-axially with one another (as shown in Fig. 3B, 132 and 138 are not axially aligned).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the sequentially transmitting is devoid of transmitting said light through an optical element that is not a diffractive grating.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging system, teaches wherein the sequentially transmitting is devoid of transmitting said light through an optical element that is not a diffractive grating (as shown in Figs. 22 and 24A, the three diffractive elements are adjacent to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li in view of Kobayashi with the wherein the sequentially transmitting is devoid of transmitting said light through an optical element that is not a diffractive grating as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li teaches as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein said forming an optical image of the object includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light through a front lens element positioned between the object and the optical filter system.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging system, teaches wherein said forming an optical image of the object includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light (examiner interprets the beams entering from the left to be light from an object) through a front lens element (lens element on the object-most side of 101) positioned between the object (examiner interprets the object to be left of the optical system 101) and the optical filter system (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li in view of Kobayashi with the wherein said forming an optical image of the object includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light through a front lens element positioned between the object and the optical filter system as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Regarding claim 19, Li further discloses wherein said forming an optical image of the object ([0055], “at least part of the outgoing light may be reflected (represented in solid arrows) includes transmitting said light from the input beam of light through an optical telescope that includes said back lens element (examiner interprets 304 and 308 to constitute the telescope in Fig. 3A).
Li does not specifically disclose the back lens element being axially separated from a front lens element of the telescope by the optical filter system.
However Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an imaging system, teaches the back lens element (Fig. 24A, lens element to the right of element 1) being axially separated from a front lens element (Fig. 24A, lens element to the left of element 1) of the telescope by the optical filter system (examiner interprets element 1, which comprises the three diffractive elements, to be the telescope).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the back lens element being axially separated from a front lens element of the telescope by the optical filter system as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of minimizing influence on undesirable light ([0063]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0247497) in view of Nakai (US 2002/0080492).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element having a first thickness towards a second constituent diffractive optical element having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness.
However Nakai, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light (Figs. 2 and 8, as shown the light diverges as it passes through) while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element (3a) having a first thickness (d1) towards a second constituent diffractive optical element (3b) having a second thickness (d2) that is greater than the first thickness (as shown in Figs. 2 and 8, d2 is greater than d1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the wherein said sequentially transmitting includes spatially diverging said light while propagating said light between a first constituent diffractive optical element having a first thickness towards a second constituent diffractive optical element having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness as taught by Nakai, for the purpose of increasing diffraction efficiency ([0019]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2021/0247497) in view of Coleman (US 8,619,363).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses as is set forth in claim 15 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light, propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer.
However Coleman, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a filter system, teaches further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light (Col. 6, 54-58, “the light diffracted by the grating into a first plane can be visibly chromatically dispersed such that different wavelengths (or colors, or deviations from white for example) can be seen when viewing the element from different angles in that plane”), propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer (Col. 6, lines 12-13, “total output angular color shift is less than 0.01 over an angular range”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the filter system of Li with the further comprising: when the input beam of light is a polychromatic beam of light, propagating said light from the input beam of light from the optical filter system towards the optical detector with chromatic dispersion not exceeding 1.9e−4 degree per nanometer as taught by Coleman, for the purpose of improving color luminance and reducing wavelength dispersion (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights