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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the title and abstract of the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed 11/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to Claims 4, 8 in the preliminary amendment filed 11/20/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 11/20/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a temperature’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the central axis" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a central axis’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a circumferential direction’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a side’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘another end’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a radial direction’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a direction’.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the same direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a same direction’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the height" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a height’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘another end’.
Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 2, and hence inherits the deficiencies of Claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the width" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a width’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a material’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a temperature’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the amount of movement" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘an amount of movement’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the position" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a position’.
Claim 9 is dependent on Claim 8, and hence inherits the deficiencies of Claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the calibration steps" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘calibration steps’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a temperature’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the step size" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a step size’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lowest temperature" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a lowest temperature’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the highest temperature" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a highest temperature’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the optimal focal plane position situation" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘an optimal focal plane position situation’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a structure as generally set forth in Claim 1, the structure including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 1, a thermal ring, a thermal insulation pad, a secondary lens mount outer frame, and a primary lens support, which are coaxially arranged in sequence; an outer side face of the thermal ring is provided with a temperature control device and a temperature measuring device for controlling a temperature of the thermal ring; one end of the secondary lens mount outer frame is rigidly connected to the primary lens support, another end is rigidly connected to the thermal ring through the thermal insulation pad, and the other end of the secondary lens mount outer frame is driven to radially expand or contract by thermal expansion and contraction of the thermal ring along a radial direction, so that the secondary lens mount spokes drive the secondary lens piece to move along the axis thereof. Claims 2-9 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence are allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 1 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 104898252 A to Liu et al.- Mirror support structure for Cassegrain aviation camera, including a main mirror and a secondary mirror with mount spokes.
U.S. Patent No. 4525745 to Ghaem-Maghami et al.- Temperature compensating lens assembly for a projection television system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0187640 A1 to Baudat- Optically correcting reflector telescope system, which combines auto-focus and auto-guidance in a single device.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2021/0325648 A1 to Choi- Catadioptric telescope system operable in both visible and infrared wavelengths, and includes a main and secondary mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights