DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 22 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear whether the phrase inside the parentheses (v1 ≠ v2) is part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear whether the phrase inside the parentheses (5) is part of the claim or not.
Regarding claim 38, it is unclear whether the phrase inside the parentheses (4, 5) is part of the claim or not.
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 21-34, 36, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2014/0285905) in view of Dynaoptics (WO 2015/110916).
Regarding claim 21, Zhou (figure 3) discloses a wavefront manipulator comprising a first optical component 101, and a second optical component 102 arranged in succession along a reference axis 107, wherein the first optical component and the second optical component are arranged so as to be movable relative to one another in a plane perpendicular to the reference axis (see the indicated spring elements and all four lens elements), wherein the first optical component and the second optical component each comprise a first optical element (left-hand element of the lenses 101 and 102) having at least one free-form surface, a refractive index n1, and an Abbe number v1, and a second optical element (right-hand element of the lenses 101 and 102) having at least one free-form surface, a refractive index n2, and an Abbe number v2, wherein the first and second optical elements are arranged in succession along the reference axis. Zhou discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the Abbe numbers v1 and v2 differing from one another. Within the same field of endeavor, Dynaoptics discloses the teaching that in analogous arrangement (figure 20) the chromatic aberration can be reduced by using different materials with different Abbe numbers and different refractive index curves for the elements of the individual Alvarez lenses (figure 22, [0118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an arrangement with different materials with different Abbe numbers for the purpose of reducing the chromatic aberration.
Regarding claims 22-24, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the absolute value of the difference between the quotient of the refractive index n1 reduced by 1 and the Abbe number v1 of the first optical element and the quotient of the refractive index n2 reduced by 1 and the Abbe number v2 of the second optical element is less than a specified limit value G:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
G, wherein the limit value G is not more than 0.01 or 0.005. However it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art, without inventive concept, to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials used in order to obtain a desired chromatic aberration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials for the purpose of to obtaining a desired chromatic aberration.
Regarding claims 25-26, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the absolute value of the difference between the Abbe number of the first optical element vi and the Abbe number of the second optical element v2 does not drop below a specified limit value V, |v1-v2|≥V, wherein the limit value of the absolute value of the difference of the Abbe numbers V is at least 5. However it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art, without inventive concept, to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials used in order to obtain a desired chromatic aberration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials for the purpose of to obtaining a desired chromatic aberration.
Regarding claims 27-28, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the absolute value of the difference between the refractive indices of the first optical element n1 and the second optical element n2 does not exceed a specified limit value N, |n1-n2|≤ N, wherein the limit value of the absolute value of the difference of the refractive indices N is not more than 0.05. However it is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art, without inventive concept, to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials used in order to obtain a desired chromatic aberration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the refractive indices and Abbe numbers of the materials for the purpose of to obtaining a desired chromatic aberration.
Regarding claim 29, Zhou further discloses wherein the first optical element and the second optical element have a common contact face in the form of a free-form surface ([0053]).
Regarding claim 30, Zhou further wherein the free-form surface is configured to create a wavefront change ΔW(x,y) at a fundamental wavelength by virtue of the free-form profile function z(x,y) being proportional to the anti-derivative of ΔW(x,y) in the direction of the movement of the elements with respect to one another, and configured to be proportional to the function ΔW(x,y) itself perpendicular to the movement direction, where x, y, and z are coordinates of a Cartesian coordinate system and a z-axis thereof runs parallel to the reference axis ([0053]).
Regarding claim 31, Zhou (figure 3, [0079]) further discloses wherein the first and second optical components have the same structural design in relation to their optical features.
Regarding claim 32, Zhou (figure 3) further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second optical components has at least one flat outer surface which extends perpendicular to the reference axis.
Regarding claim 33, Zhou (figure 3, [0079]) further discloses wherein the first and second optical components are arranged so as to be movable relative to one another by translation in at least one direction perpendicular to the optical axis and/or by rotation about an axis running parallel to the reference axis.
Regarding claim 34, Dynaoptics ([0086]-[0090]) further discloses at least one sensor for detecting a position and/or a movement of the first and second optical components relative to one another.
Regarding claim 36, Zhou (figure 3) in view of Dynaoptics (figure 20) further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second optical components comprises at least two optical elements which have a relative partial dispersion that differ by less than a specified limit value T.
Regarding claim 39, Zhou (title) further discloses an optical device, comprising the wavefront manipulator of claim 21
Regarding claim 40, Zhou (figure 3; whole document) further discloses a method of using at least one wavefront manipulator, comprising bringing about an adjustable change of a wavefront and/or causing at least one from the group of the following corrections or reductions: coma, astigmatism, dichromatic correction, trichromatic correction, reduction of the secondary spectrum, reduction of the tertiary spectrum and/or causing focusing and/or a position-dependent correction of at least one wavefront error in a zoom objective or a microscope, for an arrangement for a fast Z-scan or for a three- dimensional image stabilization via at least one wavefront manipulator according to claim 21.
Claims 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2014/0285905) in view of Dynaoptics (WO 2015/110916), as applied in claim 21, and further in view of Zou et al. (attached in IDS 2/26/25).
Regarding claim 35, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the first optical element and the second optical element comprise a solid, optically transparent material. Within the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses the teaching of optical elements made of solid transparent material, glass, or optical polymer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a solid, optically transparent material, glass, or optical polymer for the purpose of forming an optical element.
Regarding claim 37, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein at least one of the first and second optical components comprises at least one optical element which has an anomalous relative partial dispersion. Within the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses the teaching of an optical element which has an anomalous relative partial dispersion (figure 1a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement an optical element which has an anomalous relative partial dispersion for the design purpose.
Regarding claim 38, Zhou in view of Dynaoptics discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein at least one optical element of at least one of the first and second optical components comprises glass or an optical polymer or plastic or a monomer or a curing material. Within the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses the teaching of optical elements made of solid transparent material, glass, or optical polymer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a solid, optically transparent material, glass, or optical polymer for the purpose of forming an optical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, 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 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/9/26