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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (JP 2008089659 A, See Espacenet Machine Translation), in view of Kitoaka (JP 2002169088 A, See Espacenet Machine Translation) and Otake (JP 2008209712 A, See Espacenet Machine Tranlsation).
Re Claim 1, Koizumi teaches, on Fig. 1, an optical communication optical system disposed on an optical path of signal light emitted from a light emitting element (light beam) [Par 3] and transmitted or signal light incident on a light receiving element and received, the optical communication optical system comprising: a first group (lens group 10), a second group (lens group 20), a third group (lens group 30), and a fourth group (prism P) arranged in this order from a side opposite to the light emitting element or the light receiving element, wherein the first group (group 10) changes a beam diameter of the signal light so as to be smaller at an end on the second group side in an optical axis direction (lens group 10 is positive which is converging and thus the beam diameter is smaller)[Par 20], wherein the second group (Group 20) changes a beam diameter of the signal light so as to be smaller at an end on the third group side in the optical axis direction (lens group 10 is positive which is converging and thus the beam diameter is smaller)[Par 20].
But Koizumi does not explicitly disclose wherein, wherein the third group includes two wedge prism pairs, and the wedge prism pairs include two wedge prisms that rotate in opposite directions and at the same rotation angle, wherein the fourth group changes a beam diameter of the signal so as to be smaller at an end on the light emitting element side or the light receiving element side in the optical axis direction, and wherein Formulae (1) and (2) below are satisfied:
3.89 <Ff/Bf<14.
0.09<R/a<6.565
(in Formula (1), Ff represents a focal length (mm) of the first group and Bf represents a focal length (mm) of the second group, and in Formula (2), R represents a rotation angle of the wedge prism in one or the other wedge prism pair and a represents an apex angle of the wedge prism in one or the other wedge prism pair).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kitoaka teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include wherein the third group (Group 3) includes a prism (Prism TP)[Par 15], wherein the fourth group (Group 4) [Par 14] changes a beam diameter of the signal so as to be smaller at an end on the light emitting element side or the light receiving element side in the optical axis direction (Group 4 is positive and thus inherently converges light)[Par 14],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi with Kitoaka in order to control and bend the optical path of light, as taught by Kitoaka [Par 14-15].
But Koizumi does not explicitly disclose wherein, wherein the third group includes two wedge prism pairs, and the wedge prism pairs include two wedge prisms that rotate in opposite directions and at the same rotation angle, wherein Formulae (1) and (2) below are satisfied:
3.89 <Ff/Bf<14.
0.09<R/a<6.565
However, within the same field of endeavor, Otake teaches, on Fig. 4, 6, and 7, that it is desirable in optical systems to include wedge prism pairs (wedge prism pair 35 and 36, and lone wedge prism 34)[Par 28-31], and the wedge prism pair includes wedge prisms that rotate (wedge prisms 35 and 36 rotate) [Par 28-31]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi in view of Kitoaka with Otake, in order to counteract shaking, as taught by Otake [Par 26-31.
But Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake does not explicitly disclose, wherein the third group includes two wedge prism pairs that rotate in opposite directions and at the same rotation angle, wherein Formulae (1) and (2) below are satisfied:
3.89 <Ff/Bf<14.
0.09<R/a<6.565
However, Otake does teach, on Fig. 6-7, three wedge prisms (prisms 34-36) [Par 27-31] of different angles and arrangements [Par 27-31. Thus, Otake teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to explicitly control the amount, arrangement, and rotation angle of wedge prisms in an optical system (according to the detected vibration for correction) [Par 31]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply changing the arrangement of the prisms such that, the third group includes two wedge prism pairs that rotate in opposite directions and at the same rotation angle. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide vibration correction, as taught by Otake [Par 27-31].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, such that, the third group includes two wedge prism pairs that rotate in opposite directions and at the same rotation angle, in order to provide vibration correction, as taught by Otake [Par 27-31].
But Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, still does not teach or obviate:
3.89 <Ff/Bf<14.
0.09<R/a<6.565
However, optimizing Ff/Bf is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Koizumi teaches on Fig. 1 and in expressions (1) and (2), Ff (f1 in Koizumi) and Bf (f2 in Koizumi) [Par 09] as controllable variables which achieves a recognized result, suppression of spherical aberration [Par 09]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting Ff/Bf as a whole, and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, Ff/Bf such that 3.89 <Ff/Bf<14, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
But modified Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, still does not teach or obviate: 0.09<R/a<6.565.
However, Otake does teach, on Fig. 4-5 and 8, wedge prisms (apex prisms 35-36) that have an intentionally optimized apex angle (see Fig. 4-5) [Par 18-20], and an actively modulated rotation angle (See Fig. 8, where rotation is attenuated based on vibration) [Par 39-42]. Thus Otake teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to explicitly control wedge prism rotation angle R and wedge prism apex angle a. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply changing optimizing the ratio R/a such that, 0.09<R/a<6.565. Note that the Court has 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; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to, to better optimize vibration compensation [Par 30-43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, such that 0.09<R/a<6.565 is satisfied, in order to optimize vibration compensation [Par 30-43].
Re Claim 6, Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake obviates, the optical communication optical system according to claim 1, and Nitoaka further teaches, an optical communication apparatus (Nitoaka teaches a zoom lens for transmitting optical image information to a video sensor or receiver which would thus constitute optical communication ) [Par 02-05],
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20140092377 A1)
Re Claim 3, Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake obviates, the optical communication optical system according to claim 1.
But Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, wherein Formula (4) is satisfied:
1.4<n<1.674
(In Formula (4), n represents a refractive index of light having a wavelength of 1550 nm in a material of the wedge prism).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches, that it is desirable in prisms to include, wherein 1.4 CN 112711171 A <n<1.674 (n=1.6) [Par 49].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake with, Liu, in order to provide waveguide coupling [Par 49].
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wang (CN 112711171 A, See Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re claim 4, Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake obviate, the optical communication optical system according to claim 1.
But Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second group and the fourth group change a beam diameter of the signal light so that the signal light between both groups becomes collimated light.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include, wherein the second group and the fourth group change a beam diameter of the signal light so that the signal light between both groups becomes collimated light (second 21 and fourth group 41 are both are collimating lenses) [Par 26-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake with Wang in order to provide, reduced beam size and thus reduced stray light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Koizumi in view of Kitoaka and Otake and the prior are as a whole fail to teach wherein: |C1-C2|≤14.715
C1 represents a movement amount (μm) of a focal position of the signal light having a wavelength of 1530 nm with reference to a focal position of the signal light having a wavelength of 1550 nm, and C2 represents a movement amount (μm) of a focal position of the signal light having a wavelength of 1565 nm with reference to a focal position of the signal light having a wavelength of 1550 nm).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sannohe (US 5795047 A) teaches an optical system with rotating wedge prisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights