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 § 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 (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.
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.
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2015/0331222).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses, an F-theta objective, which has precisely four lenses made of a material with a refractive index of less than 2.0 (Fig. 1), the four lenses being:
a first (L1) with a first focal length, which is configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power (Para. 0009),
a second lens (L2) with a second focal length, which is configured as a biconcave lens with a negative refractive power (Para. 0009),
a third lens (L3) with a third focal length, which configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power (Para. 0009), and
a fourth lens (L4) with a fourth focal length having a positive refractive power (Para. 0009),
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are arranged one behind the other in a beam path and form a lens assembly (see Fig. 1), and
wherein the fourth lens is arranged downstream of the lens assembly in the beam path (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses, a ratio of the first focal length fl to a total focal length f of the F-theta objective, a ratio of the second focal length f2 to the total focal length f, a ratio of the third focal length f3 to the total focal length f, and a ratio of the fourth focal length to the total focal length f satisfy following conditions: 0.6 < fl / f< 0.7,-0.30 < f2 / f < -0.35,f3/f< 0.65, and 1.6<f4/f< 1.8 (see “Table 1”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2015/0331222).
Regarding claim 15, Yang discloses, an F-theta objective, which has precisely four lenses made of a material with a refractive index of less than 2.0 (Fig. 1), the four lenses being:
a first (L1) with a first focal length, which is configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power (Para. 0009),
a second lens (L2) with a second focal length, which is configured as a biconcave lens with a negative refractive power (Para. 0009),
a third lens (L3) with a third focal length, which configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power (Para. 0009), and
a fourth lens (L4) with a fourth focal length having a positive refractive power (Para. 0009),
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are arranged one behind the other in a beam path and form a lens assembly (see Fig. 1).
Yang does not explicitly disclose the fourth lens is arranged upstream of the lens assembly in the beam path. However, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts would not have modified the operation of the device and would have been an obvious design choice, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 9 (dependent upon 15), Yang discloses, a ratio of the first focal length fl to a total focal length f of the F-theta objective, a ratio of the second focal length f2 to the total focal length f, a ratio of the third focal length f3 to the total focal length f, and a ratio of the fourth focal length to the total focal length f satisfy following conditions: 0.6<f4/f<0.8, 1.6 < fl / f < 1.8, -0.4 <f2/f< -0.35, and 0.7<f3/f<0.8 (see “Table 1”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-5 and 11-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Claims 1, 4-5 and 11-14 are deemed allowable for the reasons set forth on the pages numbered 7 and 9 of the remarks filed 06/24/2026 by the applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 8 and 10 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: none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Regarding claim 8, in the Examiner’s opinion it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make fl/f= 0.63, f2 / f= -0.32, f3 / f= 0.59, and f4/f= 1.65 in an objective so as to provide an objective with enhanced image quality.
Regarding claim 10e, in the Examiner’s opinion it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make f4/f= 0.70, fl/f= 1.73, f2 / f= -0.37, and f3/f= 0.73 in an objective so as to provide an objective with enhanced image quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishikawa et al. (US 2015/0144812) and Ishikawa et al. (US 2014/0353512) discloses an objective which has precisely four lenses, the four lenses being: a first lens with a first focal length, which is configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power, a second lens with a second focal length, which is configured as a biconcave lens with a negative refractive power, a third lens with a third focal length, which configured as a meniscus lens with a positive refractive power, and a fourth lens with a fourth focal length having a positive refractive power,
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are arranged one behind the other in a beam path and form a lens assembly.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights