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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed July 30, 2026. Claims 1-30 and 33 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 31, 32, and 34-50 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 31, applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-18 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 31, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify the device of the Zhang reference to use a configuration in which “wherein the first depth of field and the second depth of field are both smaller than a distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens”. Applicant further argues that the Zhang reference fails to disclose “wherein the distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens ranges from 40 μm to 60 μm.”
As set, forth below and in the previous office action, it was noted that the Zhang et al. reference discloses all of the limitations including the claimed structural components of claim 31, but fails to disclose “wherein the first depth of field and the second depth of field are both smaller than a distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens, wherein the distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens ranges from 40 μm to 60 μm.” It is noted that that the cited limitations were considered to be obvious, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Applicant further asserts the Zhang et al. reference is based on an “appropriate defocus” while the current invention is designed with “a depth of focus”. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a particular sample placement in the optical system based on what part of the sample is being imaged, as well as dimensions of the sample and other physical constraints. Further, it is known that providing the first and second depths of field to be smaller than the distance between the first and second surfaces under observation would allow for an improved image quality while allowing simultaneous measurements from both surfaces.
Applicant further provides arguments regarding the depth of focus and depth of field and how the operation of the device is different from the Zhang et al. reference. However, it is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Zhang et al. is capable of having the sample adjusted to meet the limitations of the claim.
Therefore, claims 31-37, 39-41, 43-45, and 50 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 31-36, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. “Double-layer focal plan microscopy for high throughput DNA sequencing”, Optics Express, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp 18496-18504, May 23, 2022, provided by applicant in IDS of March 26, 2025.
In regard to claim 31, Zhang et al. discloses an imaging system (denoted “double-layer focal plane microscopy”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) for simultaneously imaging a first surface (“denoted lower focal plane”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) and a second surface (“denoted upper focal plane”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) of a sample of interest (denoted “DNA sequencing chip, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption), comprising (see e.g. Figure 5):
an objective lens (denoted “microobjective”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption);
image sensors (denoted “camera 1-4”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption), comprising a first set of image sensors (i.e. camera 1 and camera 3) and a second set of image sensors (i.e. camera 2 and camera4),
wherein a first set of tube lenses (denoted “Tube Lens 1” and “Tube Lens 3”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) are arranged between the objective lens (denoted “microobjective”) and the first set of image sensors (i.e. camera 1 and camera 3) and are configured for enabling the imaging system to have a first depth of field when imaging the first surface (see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption); and
a second set of tube lenses (denoted “Tube Lens 2” and “Tube lens 4”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) are arranged between the objective lens (denoted “microobjective”) and the second set of image sensors (i.e. camera 2 and camera 4) and are configured for enabling the imaging system to have a second depth of field when imaging the second surface (see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption).
Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the first depth of field and the second depth of field are both smaller than a distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens,
wherein the distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens ranges from 40 μm to 60 μm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first depth of field and the second depth of field are both smaller than a distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens ranges from 40 μm to 60 μm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the first depth of field and the second depth of field are both smaller than a distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens, wherein the distance of displacement from the first surface to the second surface along the optical axis of the objective lens ranges from 40 μm to 60 μm.
Providing the first and second depths of field to be smaller than the distance between the first and second surfaces under observation would allow for an improved image quality while allowing simultaneous measurements from both surfaces.
PNG
media_image1.png
923
1041
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 32, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm, and the second depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm, and the second depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the first depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm, and the second depth of field ranges from 1.5 μm to 1.8 μm.
Providing the first and second depths of field to be smaller than the distance between the first and second surfaces under observation would allow for an improved image quality while allowing simultaneous measurements from both surfaces.
In regard to claim 34, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture greater than 0.6 and a field of view greater than 1.2 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture greater than 0.6 and a field of view greater than 1.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture greater than 0.6 and a field of view greater than 1.2 mm.
Selecting a higher numerical aperture would result in a better resolution and brighter images, while selecting a field of view that is adequate for the object under examination.
In regard to claim 35, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 34 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.5.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.5, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.5.
Selecting the lens to have a minimal distortion would result in a more accurate image of the object/material under observation.
In regard to claim 36, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 34 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.2.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.2, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the combination of the objective lens and the first set of tube lenses has a distortion of less than 0.2.
Selecting the lens to have a minimal distortion would result in a more accurate image of the object/material under observation.
In regard to claim 45, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 31 above, and
wherein a beamsplitter assembly (denoted “beamsplitter”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) is arranged between the objective lens (denoted “microobjective”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) and the image sensors (denoted “camera 1-4”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption); and
the beamsplitter assembly (denoted “beamsplitter”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption) is configured for splitting optical signals acquired by the objective lens (denoted “microobjective”, see e.g. Figure 5 and its caption), so as to simultaneously deliver a first optical signal generated by the first surface to the first set of image sensors (i.e. camera 1 and camera 3) and a second optical signal generated by the second surface to the second set of image sensors (i.e. camera 2 and camera 4).
In regard to claim 50, Zhang et al. discloses a sequencing system, comprising the imaging system of claim 31 (see e.g. abstract for DNA sequencing).
Claims 37, 39, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. “Double-layer focal plan microscopy for high throughput DNA sequencing”, Optics Express, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp 18496-18504, May 23, 2022, in view of Wartman et al. (US 2005/0117214 A1).
In regard to claim 37, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 35 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first set of tube lenses comprises, in sequence:
a first optical lens, having a negative refractive power;
a second optical lens, having a positive refractive power;
a third optical lens, having a positive refractive power;
a fourth optical lens, having a positive refractive power; and
a fifth optical lens, having a negative refractive power;
wherein the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first optical lens, the second optical lens, the third optical lens, the fourth optical lens, and the fifth optical lens are all spherical surfaces, and
the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other.
However, Wartmann et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the first set of tube lenses L1-L5 comprises, in sequence:
a first optical lens L1, having a negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
a second optical lens L2, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
a third optical lens L3, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
a fourth optical lens L4, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]); and
a fifth optical lens L5, having a negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
wherein the object-side surfaces (i.e. left side in Figure) and the image-side surfaces (i.e. right side in Figure) of the first optical lens L1, the second optical lens L2, the third optical lens L3, the fourth optical lens L4, and the fifth optical lens L5 are all spherical surfaces, and
the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the faces of lenses L1-L5 face neighboring lenses).
Given the teachings of Wartmann et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the first set of tube lenses comprises, in sequence: a first optical lens, having a negative refractive power; a second optical lens, having a positive refractive power; a third optical lens, having a positive refractive power; a fourth optical lens, having a positive refractive power; and a fifth optical lens, having a negative refractive power; wherein the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first optical lens, the second optical lens, the third optical lens, the fourth optical lens, and the fifth optical lens are all spherical surfaces, and the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other.
Doing so would provide a compact lens system that has an flat image field and a working distance that is on the order of magnitude of the focal length of the system (see e.g. paragraph [0009] of Wartmann et al.).
In regard to claim 39, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 27, and
wherein the first optical lens L1 has a thickness of 2 mm to 5 mm at the optical axis of the first optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 4 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range);
the second optical lens L2 has a thickness of 9 mm to 13 mm at the optical axis of the second optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 10.86 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range); and
the fifth optical lens L5 has a thickness of 3 mm to 7 mm at the optical axis of the fifth optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 4 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range).
Zhang et al. fails to disclose
the third optical lens has a thickness of 6 mm to 10 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens;
the fourth optical lens has a thickness of 9 mm to 14 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens.
However, Zhang et al. does disclose
the third optical lens L3 has a thickness of 13.02 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness);
the fourth optical lens L4 has a thickness of 17.03 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness). These thicknesses are close to applicant’s claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with the third optical lens has a thickness of 6 mm to 10 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens; the fourth optical lens has a thickness of 9 mm to 14 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens.
Modifying the thickness of the lenses has a predictable result on the focal length when the refractive index of the material is known and may be varied to optimize the focal length of the lens system.
In regard to claim 41, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 36 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second set of tube lenses comprises, in sequence:
a sixth optical lens, having a negative refractive power;
a seventh optical lens, having a positive refractive power;
an eighth optical lens, having a positive refractive power;
a ninth optical lens, having a positive refractive power; and
a tenth optical lens, having a negative refractive power;
wherein the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the sixth optical lens, the seventh optical lens, the eighth optical lens, the ninth optical lens, and the tenth optical lens are all spherical surfaces, and
the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other.
However, Wartmann et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the first set of tube lenses L1-L5 comprises, in sequence:
a sixth optical lens L1, having a negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
a seventh optical lens L2, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
an eighth optical lens L3, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
a ninth optical lens L4, having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]); and
a tenth optical lens L5, having a negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0015]);
wherein the object-side surfaces (i.e. left side in Figure) and the image-side surfaces (i.e. right side in Figure) of the sixth optical lens L1, the seventh optical lens L2, the eighth optical lens L3, the ninth optical lens L4, and the tenth optical lens L5 are all spherical surfaces, and
the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the faces of lenses L1-L5 face neighboring lenses).
Given the teachings of Wartmann et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein the second set of tube lenses comprises, in sequence: a sixth optical lens, having a negative refractive power; a seventh optical lens, having a positive refractive power; an eighth optical lens, having a positive refractive power; a ninth optical lens, having a positive refractive power; and a tenth optical lens, having a negative refractive power; wherein the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the sixth optical lens, the seventh optical lens, the eighth optical lens, the ninth optical lens, and the tenth optical lens are all spherical surfaces, and the object-side surface of one optical lens and the image-side surface of the other optical lens in each pair of adjacent optical lenses are arranged towards each other.
Doing so would provide a compact lens system that has an flat image field and a working distance that is on the order of magnitude of the focal length of the system (see e.g. paragraph [0009] of Wartmann et al.).
In regard to claim 43, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 41 above, and
wherein the sixth optical lens L1 has a thickness of 3 mm to 7 mm at the optical axis of the sixth optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 4 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range);
the seventh optical lens L2 has a thickness of 9 mm to 13 mm at the optical axis of the seventh optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 10.86 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range);
the tenth optical lens L5 has a thickness of 4 mm to 7 mm at the optical axis of the tenth optical lens(see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness of 4 mm, which fall within applicant’s claimed range).
Zhang et al. fails to disclose
the eighth optical lens has a thickness of 7 mm to 10 mm at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens;
the ninth optical lens has a thickness of 10 mm to 15 mm at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens.
However, Zhang et al. does disclose
the eighth optical lens L3 has a thickness of 13.02 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness);
the ninth optical lens L4 has a thickness of 17.03 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens (see e.g. Table in claim 4 for thickness). These thicknesses are close to applicant’s claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al. with the eighth optical lens has a thickness of 7 mm to 10 mm at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens; the ninth optical lens has a thickness of 10 mm to 15 mm at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens.
Modifying the thickness of the lenses has a predictable result on the focal length when the refractive index of the material is known and may be varied to optimize the focal length of the lens system.
Claims 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. “Double-layer focal plan microscopy for high throughput DNA sequencing”, Optics Express, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp 18496-18504, May 23, 2022, in view of Wartman et al. (US 2005/0117214 A1) and further in view of Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems”, page 377, 2007.
In regard to claim 40, Zhang et al., in view of Wartmann et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 39 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first optical lens and the second optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set; and
the fourth optical lens and the fifth optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set.
However, Gross et al. discloses cementing adjacent lenses together in order to prevent aberration (see e.g. page 377, item number 4).
Given the teachings of Gross et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al., in view of Wartmann et al. with wherein the first optical lens and the second optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set; and the fourth optical lens and the fifth optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set.
Forming a cemented component may correct or reduce aberrations in the system.
In regard to claim 44, Zhang et al., in view of Wartmann et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 43 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sixth optical lens and the seventh optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set; and
the ninth optical lens and the tenth optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set.
However, Gross et al. discloses cementing adjacent lenses together in order to prevent aberration (see e.g. page 377, item number 4).
Given the teachings of Gross et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zhang et al., in view of Wartmann et al. with wherein the sixth optical lens and the seventh optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set; and the ninth optical lens and the tenth optical lens are cemented to form an optical lens set.
Forming a cemented component may correct or reduce aberrations in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38, 42, and 46-49 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to claim 38, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the object-side surface of the first optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the first optical lens, and the image-side surface of the first optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the first optical lens; the object-side surface of the first optical lens has a curvature radius of 160 mm to 190 mm at the optical axis of the first optical lens; the image-side surface of the first optical lens has a curvature radius of 60 mm to 90 mm at the optical axis of the first optical lens; the object-side surface of the second optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the second optical lens and the image-side surface of the second optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the second optical lens; the object-side surface of the second optical lens has a curvature radius of 60 mm to 90 mm at the optical axis of the second optical lens; the image-side surface of the second optical lens has a curvature radius of -170 mm to -140 mm at the optical axis of the second optical lens; the object-side surface of the third optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the third optical lens, and the image-side surface of the third optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the third optical lens; the object-side surface of the third optical lens has a curvature radius of 40 mm to 70 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens; the image-side surface of the third optical lens has a curvature radius of 110 mm to 140 mm at the optical axis of the third optical lens; the object-side surface of the fourth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the fourth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens; the object-side surface of the fourth optical lens has a curvature radius of 30 mm to 50 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens; the image-side surface of the fourth optical lens has a curvature radius of -700 mm to -650 mm at the optical axis of the fourth optical lens; the object-side surface of the fifth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the fifth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the fifth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the fifth optical lens; the object-side surface of the fifth optical lens has a curvature radius of -700 mm to -650 mm at the optical axis of the fifth optical lens; and the image-side surface of the fifth optical lens has a curvature radius of 20 mm to 40 mm at the optical axis of the fifth optical lens.”
In regard to claim 42, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the object-side surface of the sixth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the sixth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the sixth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the sixth optical lens; the object-side surface of the sixth optical lens has a curvature radius of 110 mm to 130 mm at the optical axis of the sixth optical lens; the image-side surface of the sixth optical lens has a curvature radius of 40 mm to 70 mm at the optical axis of the sixth optical lens； the object-side surface of the seventh optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the seventh optical lens, and the image-side surface of the seventh optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the seventh optical lens; the object-side surface of the seventh optical lens has a curvature radius of 40 mm to 70 mm at the optical axis of the seventh optical lens; the image-side surface of the seventh optical lens has a curvature radius of -350 mm to -300 mm at the optical axis of the seventh optical lens; the object-side surface of the eighth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the eighth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens; the object-side surface of the eighth optical lens has a curvature radius of 50 mm to 70 mm at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens; the image-side surface of the eighth optical lens has a curvature radius of 180 mm to 220 mm at the optical axis of the eighth optical lens; the object-side surface of the ninth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the ninth optical lens is convex at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens; the object-side surface of the ninth optical lens has a curvature radius of 40 mm to 60 mm at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens; the image-side surface of the ninth optical lens has a curvature radius of -150 mm to -110 mm at the optical axis of the ninth optical lens; the object-side surface of the tenth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the tenth optical lens, and the image-side surface of the tenth optical lens is concave at the optical axis of the tenth optical lens; the object-side surface of the tenth optical lens has a curvature radius of -150 mm to -110 mm at the optical axis of the tenth optical lens; and the image-side surface of the tenth optical lens has a curvature radius of 20 mm to 50 mm at the optical axis of the tenth optical lens.”
In regard to claims 46-49, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the first set of image sensors at least comprise a first image sensor and a second image sensor; the first set of tube lenses at least comprise a first tube lens and a second tube lens that are identical; and the beamsplitter assembly is configured for splitting the first optical signal into a light beam with a first wavelength and a light beam with a second wavelength, and simultaneously delivering the light beam with the first wavelength to the first image sensor through the first tube lens and the light beam with the second wavelength to the second image sensor through the second tube lens.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights