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 Amendments – Proper Form
The claim amendments filed February 12, 2024 fail to comply with the proper manner of making amendments according to MPEP § 714, Section II, Subsection C (citing Rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c)(2)). Specifically, the claim amendments repeatedly use strike-through to show the deletion of the single letter “s” in the word “claims”. As explained in MPEP § 714(II)(C), when strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., due to deletion of a single character or punctuation mark), double brackets must be used instead (i.e., claim[[s]] instead of claimclaim).
Future claim amendments which do not comply with proper form may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Applicant’s cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
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 15 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In each of the clauses starting with (i), (ii), and (iii), Claims 15 and 17 recite the phrase: “which portion”, which would appear to convey a determination step or conditional feature. However, it is believed that these clauses were intended to convey affirmative structural requirements, at least one of which is required. Thus, for examination, the phrases “which portion” will be ignored as being redundant of the already-recited “a portion” in each of the clauses starting with (i), (ii), and (iii).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyatake, JP 2002-131509 A (cited in the IDS of April 2, 2024; text citations below correspond to the English translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyatake discloses: A lens unit which is used for an infrared region that includes at least any one of wavelengths in a range of 7 µm to 14 µm (this preamble appears to relate to a desired purpose or intended use of the device rather than to a structural limitation, e.g., any lens unit is believed to be capable of having different wavelengths of light shown through it [e.g., ultraviolet, visible, or infrared], and doing so will not change the device in terms of structure or composition; see MPEP § 2111.02), said lens unit comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a first lens; and a second lens (adjacent lenses, such as first lens 11 and second lens 12; FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake);
wherein a circumferential edge part of at least one of the first lens and the second lens has a cutout part (V-shaped grooves at peripheral portions of adjacent lens; paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0049], [0056], [0094], [0103] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake); and
the first lens and the second lens are integrated by an adhesive that is introduced to the cutout part (V-shaped groove is filled with adhesive to fix the first and second lenses 11, 12; paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0049], [0056], [0094], [0103] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 3, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the cutout part is formed at a corner part of the circumferential edge part, and is a tilted surface that forms a given angle with respect to an optical axis (V-shaped groove is shown at a corner part of the lens at the lens periphery, and is a sloped surface which is tilted at an angle with respect to the optical axis of the lens set [i.e., a line extending through the centers of the lenses]; paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0049], [0056], [0094], [0103] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 4, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses: wherein the cutout part has a width of 1 mm to 5 mm in a lens radius direction (when the outer diameters of the two lens elements [11, 12] are both equal to or smaller than 20mm, the range of the adhesive to be filled is preferably 0.3mm to 2mm; paragraph [0055] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 5, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the cutout part is a groove part formed in the circumferential edge part (V-shaped grooves at peripheral portions of adjacent lens; paragraphs [0028], [0043], [0049], [0056], [0094], [0103] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 6, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein a volume of the adhesive that is introduced to the cutout part is not less than 10% and not more than 100% of a volume of the cutout part (Miyatke states that it is preferable that the adhesive is filled over the entire circumference [i.e., 100%] of the V-shaped groove as shown in the example of the figure, but is not limited thereto; paragraph [0056] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 7, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the adhesive is not introduced, except the cutout part, between respective surfaces of the first lens and the second lens which surfaces face each other in a direction of an optical axis (V-shaped groove is filled with the adhesive neither too much nor too little, and excess adhesive should be removed; paragraphs [0049], [0050] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake; the Office notes that this claim is being treated as reciting “surfaces of the first lens and second lens which face each other”, i.e., it is believed that the second instance of the word “surfaces” may have been a typographical error or may have been an artifact of machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein at least one of the first lens and the second lens has a coating film (antireflection films may be provided on effective regions of front and rear surfaces of the two lens elements; paragraph [0030] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 11, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: further comprising: a lens barrel; and a third lens, wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are accommodated and fixed in the lens barrel (the lenses may be accommodated and fixed within lens barrel 28, and wherein additional lenses beyond the adjoined pair may be provided; paragraphs [0061]-[0065] FIGS. 1, 5, 8 of Miyatake) an effective diameter of the first lens is larger than an effective diameter of the third lens; and an optical axis thickness of the third lens is greater than an optical axis thickness of each of the first lens and the second lens (in at least one configuration, a third lens 73 is provided, wherein a diameter of a first lens 71 is larger than a diameter of third lens 73, and an optical axis thickness of third lens 73 is greater than optical axis thicknesses of first and second lenses 71, 72, but see also lenses 81, 82, 83 which may be characterized as third lens, second lens, and first lens, respectively; paragraphs [0124], [0144] and FIGS. 10, 11, 13, 14 of Miyatake).
Regarding Claim 13, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses: wherein a first distance which is a distance on an optical axis between the first lens and the second lens is shorter than a second distance which is a distance on the optical axis between the second lens and the third lens (lenses 81, 82, 83 which may be characterized as third lens, second lens, and first lens, respectively, having a shorter optical axis distance between lenses 83 and 82 than the optical axis distance between lenses 82 and 81; paragraph [0144] and FIGS. 13, 14 of Miyatake).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Suzuki, US 2018/0275378 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to further disclose: wherein at least one of respective surfaces of the first lens and the second lens which surfaces face each other is a diffraction surface.
Suzuki is related to Miyatake with respect to imaging lens systems.
Suzuki teaches: wherein at least one of respective surfaces of the first lens and the second lens which surfaces face each other is a diffraction surface (in a pair of lenses having surfaces which face each other, one of these surfaces S4 may be a diffractive surface; paragraphs [0014], [0074], [0081] and FIGS. 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 of Suzuki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the diffractive surface of Suzuki for the inner lens surface of Miyatake because such diffractive surface enables correction of chromatic aberration [errors in focusing light of particular wavelength], as taught in paragraph [0074] of Suzuki.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Takahashi et al., US 2017/0192132 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses wherein the first lens has the coating film (antireflection films may be provided on effective regions of front and rear surfaces of the two lens elements; paragraph [0030] and FIGS. 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 of Miyatake). Miyatake does not appear to further disclose a specific material of the antireflection layer such that: the coating film contains a diamond-like carbon.
Takahashi is related to Miyatake with respect to imaging lens systems.
Takahashi teaches: wherein the first lens has the coating film, and the coating film contains a diamond-like carbon (an antireflection film in which a diamond-like carbon [DLC] film is provided on the top layer; paragraph [0007] of Takahashi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the diamond-like carbon of Takahashi for the antireflection films of Miyatake because such DLC serves as a protective layer for the antireflection film, as taught in paragraph [0007] of Takahashi.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Hall, U.S. Pat. No. 5,282,083.
Regarding Claim 10, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to further disclose: wherein the first lens is made of germanium.
Hall is related to Miyatake with respect to lens assemblies.
Hall teaches: wherein the first lens is made of germanium (preferred lens materials include Germanium and Zinc Selenide; column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 23 of Hall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the germanium lens material of Hall for the lens of Miyatake because such lens material provides high surface hardness and high mechanical strength, as taught in column 3, line 61 – column 4, line 23 of Hall.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake.
Regarding Claim 12, Miyatake appears to show an optical axis thickness of a third lens [lens 81; FIG. 13] which is approximately twice that of an optical axis distance between second and third lenses [lenses 82, 81; FIG. 13]. Miyatake does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of the relationship of these values such that: wherein the optical axis thickness of the third lens is 0.5 times to 2 times a second distance which is a distance on an optical axis between the second lens and the third lens.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Miyatake discloses the particular lens configuration enables a high degree of freedom for aberration correction, specifically with respect to the of independence of (i.e., choice of) lens surface parameters (see, e.g., paragraphs [0144], [0145] of Miyatake).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed ratio of lens thickness to lens spacing for the lens system of Miyatake in accordance with selection of lens surface parameters to achieve a workable or optimized correction of aberration, as evidenced by paragraphs [0144], [0145] of Miyatake.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Feng et al., US 2020/0158982 A1.
Regarding Claims 14-17, as best understood, Miyatake discloses the limitations of Claim 11 and further discloses larger and smaller diameter openings [holes] in the lens barrel to accommodate the lenses of varying diameter (see, e.g., paragraphs [0061]-[0065], [0124], [0144] and FIGS. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 of Miyatake). Miyatake further discloses that the antireflection films [coating films] are provided on effective regions [i.e., light transmission regions / central regions] of the lenses, i.e., not at peripheral regions [corresponding to retention ring locations] (see, e.g., paragraph [0030] of Miyatake). Miyatake does not appear to explicitly disclose ring parts and locking parts used in the lens barrel such that:
wherein: the lens barrel has a first hole, a second hole, and a third hole; the third lens is fitted in the third hole; the second hole is connected to the third hole, the second hole has a diameter larger than a diameter of the third hole, and the second lens and the first lens are fitted in the second hole in a state where a second ring part intervenes between the second lens and the third lens; and the first hole is connected to the second hole, the first hole has a diameter larger than the diameter of the second hole, and a first ring part that presses the first lens is fitted in the first hole;
wherein at least one of (i) a portion of the third lens which portion is in contact with the lens barrel and/or the second ring part, (ii) a portion of the second lens which portion is in contact with the second ring part, and (iii) a portion of the first lens which portion is in contact with the first ring part has a region in which a coating film is not attached;
wherein: the lens barrel has a first hole, a second hole, a third hole, and a fourth hole; the first hole and the third hole each have a locking part which locks a corresponding one of the circumferential edge part of the second lens and a circumferential edge part of the third lens; the fourth hole is connected to the third hole, the fourth hole has a diameter larger than a diameter of the third hole, and a second ring part that presses the third lens is fitted in the fourth hole; the fourth hole and the second hole are connected with the third hole therebetween, and the third lens is fitted in the third hole in a state where the third lens is locked by the locking part; the third hole and the first hole are connected with the second hole therebetween; and the first hole is connected to the second hole, the first hole has a diameter larger than a diameter of the second hole, and the second lens, the first lens, and a first ring part are fitted in the first hole in order from a second hole side;
wherein at least one of (i) a portion of the third lens which portion is in contact with the second ring part and/or the locking part, (ii) a portion of the second lens which portion is in contact with the locking part, and (iii) a portion of the first lens which portion is in contact with the first ring part has a region in which a coating film is not attached.
Feng is related to Miyatake with respect to multi-lens imaging systems.
Feng teaches the specific use and configurability of multiple rings and/or locking parts corresponding to several lens (spacers 51, 52, 53, having a ring shape and sandwiched between lenses within the lens barrel; paragraphs [0017], [0018] and FIG. 2 of Feng).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the rings and/or locking parts of Feng for the lens barrel of Miyatake because such components serve to shield against stray light [which would reduce image quality], as taught in paragraphs [0002], [0018] of Feng.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Komori, US 2018/0180780 A1.
Regarding Claims 18-20, Miyatake does not appear to disclose: wherein the third lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 µm, wherein the chalcogenide glass contains 20% to 80% of Te by mol%, wherein the second lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 µm.
Komori is related to Miyatake with respect to optical imaging system.
Komori teaches: wherein the third lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 µm, wherein the chalcogenide glass contains 20% to 80% of Te by mol%, wherein the second lens is made of chalcogenide glass which has a refractive index of 2.5 to 4.0 at a wavelength of 10 µm (chalcogenide glass between 58 mol % and 80 mol % of any one of S, Se and Te [tellurium], refractive index 2.50 to 3.00 at 10 μm; paragraphs [0003], [0077], [0114], [0136], [0140], [0141] of Komori).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the chalcogenide glass and tellurium content of Komori for the lenses of Miyatake because such composition enables suitable thermal properties (e.g., minimal thermal expansion) and optical properties (e.g., suppression of diffraction flare), as taught in paragraphs [0061], [0068], [0069], [0081], [0119] of Komori.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872