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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is 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.
The phrase “non-Fresnel-like region” recited in claim 10 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to objective define “non-Fresnel-like”.
Proper clarification and correction are required.
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on November 1, 2024, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 4, 8 and 10.
Claims 1-11 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Ceglio et al (PN. 5,257,132) in view of the US patent application publication by Peterson (US 2006/0132379A1).
Ceglio et al teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a Fresnel element serves as the diffractive optical lens that is comprised of a center region shaped as a convex lens, (please see Figure 9), an intermediate region laterally surrounding the central region and composed of multiple concentric zones (31 and/or 32, Figure 3) and an outer region laterally surrounding the intermediate region, (please see 33).
Ceglio et al teaches that the respective outer radius, rn, of each of the concentric zone in the intermediate region is defined by the equation rn2 = nl0f +n2l02/4, with n being an integer, f being the focal length and l0 being the wavelength, (please see column 7). By rearranging the equation, it also can be expressed as rn2 = (f +nl0/2)2-f2, which may be rewrite as rm2 = (f +ml0)2-f2, m being an integer.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. As shown in Figure 9, the concentric zones in the intermediate region includes a continuous annular trough. Peterson in the same field of endeavor also teaches a Fresnel lens with multiple concentric rings wherein the region may comprise continuous annual trough, (please see Figure 3). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Peterson to make the regions of the annular rings to comprise art well known annular through design.
With regard to claim 2, both Ceglio et al and Peterson teach that the zone of the intermediate region includes a respective continuous annular trough, (please see Figure 9 of Ceglio et al and Figure 3 of Peterson).
With regard to claim 3, both Ceglio et al and Peterson teach that each respective continuous annular troughs is located at a respective radial position and has a respective depth. It is either implicitly true or obvious by one skilled in the art to make the depth of the trough increases the diffraction efficiency of the diffractive optical lens.
With regard to claim 4, Peterson teaches that each particular one of the zones in the intermediate region includes at least one annular indentation in the same surface as the continuous trough in the zone, (please see Figure 3).
With regard to claim 5, Peterson teaches that the at least one annular indentation includes a plurality of indentations in a staircase configuration, (please see Figure 3).
With regard to claim 10, Peterson teaches that the peripheral region may comprise region that is non-Fresnel region.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Ceglio et al (PN. 5,257,132) in view of the US patent issued to Tomlinson et al (PN. 3,577,094).
Ceglio et al teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a Fresnel element serves as the diffractive optical lens that is comprised of a center region shaped as a convex lens, (please see Figure 9), an intermediate region laterally surrounding the central region and composed of multiple concentric zones (31 and/or 32, Figure 3) and an outer region laterally surrounding the intermediate region, (please see 33).
Ceglio et al teaches that the respective outer radius, rn, of each of the concentric zone in the intermediate region is defined by the equation rn2 = nl0f +n2l02/4, with n being an integer, f being the focal length and l0 being the wavelength, (please see column 7). By rearranging the equation, it also can be expressed as rn2 = (f +nl0/2)2-f2, which may be rewrite as rm2 = (f +ml0)2-f2, m being an integer.
Ceglio et al teaches in a different embodiment that the at least one of the zones in the intermediate region includes a plurality of isolated holes, (please see Figure 6). Tomlinson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a Fresnel zone plate comprises of a plurality of concentric rings wherein the at least one of the zones includes a plurality of holes (27 or 28, or 29, Figures 3 and 4) that collectively encircle the central region, (please see Figure 3). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tomlinson et al to explicitly make the Fresnel lens comprises a plurality of isolated holes collectively encircle the central region as an alternative design.
With regard to claim 6, both Ceglio et al and Tomlinson et al teaches the Fresnel zone plate comprises of a plurality of concentric rings wherein the at least one of the zones includes a plurality of holes (Figure 6 of Ceglio et al or 27 or 28, or 29, Figures 3 and 4 of Tomlinson et al) that collectively encircle the central region, (please see Figure 3)
With regard to claim 7, Tomlinson et al teaches that the plurality of isolated holes in each respective particular one of the intermediate zones is located at a radial position such that the holes in the respective intermediate zone would implicitly collectively increase optical efficiency of the diffractive optical lens since it has the identical structure as the claim.
With regard to claim 8, both Ceglio et al and Tomlinson et al teaches that each particular one of the zones in the intermediate region further includes at least one annular indentation in the same surface as the plurality of the isolated holes in the zone.
With regard to claim 10, Tomlinson et al teaches that the peripheral region may comprise region that is non-Fresnel region.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ceglio et al and Tomlinson et al as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Swanson et al (PN. 5,161,059). The apparatus that comprises a diffractive optical lens as taught by Ceglio et al in combination with the teachings of Tomlinson et al as described in claims 1 and 6 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, these references do not teach explicitly that the at least one annular indentation includes a plurality of indentations in a staircase configuration. Swanson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a Fresnel lens that comprises a plurality of isolated holes each includes a plurality of annular indentations in a staircase configuration, (please see Figure 1C). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Swanson et al to modify the Fresnel lens structure of the diffractive optical lens to include art well-known design.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Wang et al (US 2020/0217713 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Ceglio et al (PN. 5,257,132) and US patent application publication by Peterson (US 2006/0132379 A1).
Wang et al teaches a sensor assembly serves as the apparatus that is comprised of an optical sensor (35, Figure 5) an aperture (provided by the housing 31) and a Fresnel lens (51) serves as the diffractive optical lens wherein the Fresnel lens is disposed between the sensor and the aperture.
Wang et al teaches that the diffractive optical lens or the Fresnel lens comprises a central region shaped with a convex shaped. It however does not teach explicitly to include multiple concentric zones.
Ceglio et al teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a Fresnel element serves as the diffractive optical lens that is comprised of a center region shaped as a convex lens, (please see Figure 9), an intermediate region laterally surrounding the central region and composed of multiple concentric zones (31 and/or 32, Figure 3) and an outer region laterally surrounding the intermediate region, (please see 33).
Ceglio et al teaches that the respective outer radius, rn, of each of the concentric zone in the intermediate region is defined by the equation rn2 = nl0f +n2l02/4, with n being an integer, f being the focal length and l0 being the wavelength, (please see column 7). By rearranging the equation, it also can be expressed as rn2 = (f +nl0/2)2-f2, which may be rewrite as rm2 = (f +ml0)2-f2, m being an integer.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. As shown in Figure 9, of Ceglio et al the concentric zones in the intermediate region includes a continuous annular trough. Peterson in the same field of endeavor also teaches a Fresnel lens with multiple concentric rings wherein the region may comprise continuous annual trough, (please see Figure 3). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Peterson to make the regions of the annular rings to comprise art well known annular through design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights