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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the terms “
P
λ
F
”, “
P
λ
C
”, and “
P
λ
d
” that the specification and claims fail to explicitly and adequately define. The terms appear to be mathematical functions. However, applicant has failed to objectively define the functional relationship between
P
λ
and λ. For example, optical path difference Dispersion functions are recited in Numerical Examples 1 and 2 as:
P
λ
=
12.24651
∙
λ
10
-
119.47404
∙
λ
9
+
698.9340
∙
λ
8
-
2720.50548
∙
λ
7
+
7400.16189
∙
λ
6
-
14357.25933
∙
λ
5
+
19873.45822
∙
λ
4
-
19240.96797
∙
λ
3
+
19240.96797
∙
λ
2
-
4807.97026
∙
λ
+
847.47010
P
λ
=
13.87546
∙
λ
10
-
153.995668
∙
λ
9
+
1009.95630
∙
λ
8
-
4356.52716
∙
λ
7
+
13006.44877
∙
λ
6
-
27470.79737
∙
λ
5
+
41106.88437
∙
λ
4
-
42762.08537
∙
λ
3
+
29486.82651
∙
λ
2
-
12144.39247
∙
λ
+
2266.41068
Respectively. However, there is no indication or explanation of how applicant has arrived at these functions, what the values are based on, or provide any rules and relationships that would define the value of
P
λ
.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the terms “
P
λ
F
”, “
P
λ
C
”, and “
P
λ
d
” these are indefinite in that the specification and the claims fail to explicitly define what these functions are. It is therefore not possible to objectively evaluate the values of these terms. As such the value of the Abbe numbers which the claims require to be defined by these expressions disclosed in claims 1 and 14 can not be defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of:
“
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
=
λ
F
P
λ
F
-
λ
C
P
λ
C
λ
d
P
λ
d
” has been interpreted as
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)a being anticipated by Kobayashi (US Pub. 20180120582) with reference made to Zhang (Aizhong Zhang, "Multifocal diffractive lens design in ophthalmology," Appl. Opt. 59, 9807-9823 (2020)) to show an inherent feature.
As per claim 1, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) an optical system comprising, in order from an object side to an image side: a diffractive optical element (first lens group L1) having positive refractive power (focal length equal to 268.4, see paragraph 159), and a diffractive surface (diffraction grating section 14/214) with a controlled wavelength dispersion characteristic (partial dispersion ratio
θ
g
F
=
0
.
.
605
); and a lens (second lens group L2) having negative refractive power (focal length equal to -272.3, see paragraph 159), wherein where ν0 (
v
d
= 34.7, see paragraph 116) is an Abbe number of the diffractive surface (paragraph 85 and 116), a reference wavelength is d-line, primary dispersion is F-line and C-line (paragraph 85), and the following inequality is satisfied: -0.2 < 1/ν0 < 0.2 (1/34.7 = 0.2881) wherein ψ(λd), ψ(λF), and ψ(λC) are optical path difference functions for the d-line, the F-line, and the C-line, respectively and the following equation is satisfied:
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
(Kobayashi teaches refractive indices for each of the d-line, F-line, and C-line and an Abbe number for the diffractive surface in paragraph 85, and as shown below Eguchi teaches that
1
V
o
≡
(
λ
F
-
λ
C
)
λ
d
).
While Kobayashi does not explicitly that
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
wherein ψ(λd),ψ(λF), and ψ(λC) are optical path difference functions for the d-line, the F-line, and the C-line, Zhang teaches (page 4 equation 21) that the Abbe number
v
for a diffractive lens is defined as
ϕ
m
(
λ
i
)
ϕ
m
λ
s
-
ϕ
m
(
λ
l
)
which when rearranged yields 1/
v
=
ϕ
m
λ
s
-
ϕ
m
(
λ
l
)
ϕ
m
(
λ
i
)
.
As per claim 2, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the diffractive optical element (first lens group L1) has a convex refractive surface (surface of first lens 212 facing away from diffraction grating section 14) on the object side (see figures and paragraph 111).
As per claim 3, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the diffractive surface (diffraction grating section 14/214) is disposed on the image side of the diffractive optical element (first lens group L1) (see figure 7).
As per claim 4, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3 < f1/f < 0.8 where f1 (268.4, see paragraph 159) is a focal length of the diffractive optical element, and f (780, see paragraph 159) is a focal length of the optical system (268.4/780=.344).
As per claim 6, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.6 < TL/f < 0.9 where TL (486.05, see paragraph 159) is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object of the optical system to an image plane, and f (780, see paragraph 159) is a focal length of the optical system (486.05/780= 0.60006).
As per claim 7, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that a first optical element serves (first lens group L1) as the diffractive optical element and is disposed closest to an object, and a second optical element (second lens group L2) serves as the lens.
As per claim 9, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that a third optical element (third lens group L3) as a lens disposed on the image side of and adjacent to the second optical element (second lens group L2), wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.15 < D23/TL < 0.50 where D23 (116.59, see paragraph 159) is an air gap on an optical axis between the second optical element and the third optical element, and TL (486.05, see paragraph 159) is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object of the optical system to an image plane (116.59/486.05=.2399).
As per claim 10, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 < L02/TL < 0.45 where L02 is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object of the optical system to a lens surface closest to the object of the second optical element (L1-L8 equal to 190.41 see paragraph 159), and TL is a distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the object of the optical system to an image plane (486.05, see paragraph 159) (190.41/486.05=.3917).
As per claim 14, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) an optical system comprising, in order from an object side to an image side: a metalens (first lens group L1) having positive refractive power (focal length equal to 268.4, see paragraph 159), and a metasurface (diffraction grating section 14/214) with a controlled wavelength dispersion characteristic (partial dispersion ratio
θ
g
F
=
0
.
.
605
); and a lens (second lens group L2) having negative refractive power (focal length equal to -272.3, see paragraph 159), wherein where ν0 (
v
d
= 34.7, see paragraph 116) is an Abbe number of the metasurface (paragraph 85 and 116), a reference wavelength is d-line, primary dispersion is F-line and C-line (paragraph 85), and the following inequality is satisfied: -0.2 < 1/ν0 < 0.2 (1/34.7 = 0.2881) wherein ψ(λd), ψ(λF), and ψ(λC) are optical path difference functions for the d-line, the F-line, and the C-line, respectively and the following equation is satisfied:
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
(Kobayashi teaches refractive indices for each of the d-line, F-line, and C-line and an Abbe number for the diffractive surface in paragraph 85, and as shown below Eguchi teaches that
1
V
o
≡
(
λ
F
-
λ
C
)
λ
d
).
While Kobayashi does not explicitly that
1
V
o
≡
ψ
λ
F
-
ψ
λ
C
ψ
λ
d
wherein ψ(λd),ψ(λF), and ψ(λC) are optical path difference functions for the d-line, the F-line, and the C-line, Zhang teaches (page 4 equation 21) that the Abbe number
v
for a diffractive lens is defined as
ϕ
m
(
λ
i
)
ϕ
m
λ
s
-
ϕ
m
(
λ
l
)
which when rearranged yields 1/
v
=
ϕ
m
λ
s
-
ϕ
m
(
λ
l
)
ϕ
m
(
λ
i
)
.
As per claim 15, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the metalens (first lens group L1) has a convex refractive surface (surface of first lens 212 facing away from diffraction grating section 14) on the object side (see figure 7).
As per claim 16, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B and 7) that the metasurface (diffraction grating section 14/214) is disposed on the image side of the metalens (first lens group L1) (see figure 7).
As per claim 17, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B, 7, and 19) an image pickup apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and an image sensor (image sensor 603) configured to capture an object image through the optical system (see paragraph 164).
As per claim 18, Kobayashi teaches (in figures 1A-1B, 7, and 19) an image pickup apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above); and an image sensor (image sensor 603) configured to capture an object image through the optical system (see paragraph 164).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights