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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on August 31, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it was not established that there is “no disclosed relationship between the species” and that there is no serious burden to examine all species together. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent or distinct because the species have mutually exclusive characteristics including the configuration of the lenses in each species. Further, the species would require a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1, 4-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112578535, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses an optical imaging system (denoted “periscope optical system”, see e.g. page 11, first paragraph after “Embodiment 1”), comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a first lens group L1, comprising one or more lenses L1, having positive refractive power (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 11, second paragraph after “Embodiment 1”);
a second lens group (i.e. including 2 or more of L2-L6, see e.g. Figure 1 and page 11, first paragraph after “Embodiment 1”) comprising a plurality of lenses (i.e. at least 2 of L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, see e.g. Figure 1 and page 11, first paragraph after “Embodiment 1”); and
a reflective member F1 (denoted “first reflecting member”, see e.g. Figure 1 and first paragraph after “Embodiment 1”), disposed between the first lens group L1 and the second lens group (i.e. including 2 or more of L2-L6), comprising an incident surface S3, a reflective surface S4, and an emitting surface S5 (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 6, last full paragraph).
Zhang et al. fails to disclose
wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied,
where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied, where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied,
where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member.
Selecting the effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens and the length of the incident surface of an adjacent reflective member to have an optimized valued would allow the most efficient use of the incident light which would create a higher quality image.
In regard to claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
Optimizing a ratio of the focal length of the optical system and a length of a side of the prism to have a desired focal length while maintaining as small of footprint as possible for the device and would be within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 0.6 < IMG HT/BFL < 0.8 is satisfied, where IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 0.6 < IMG HT/BFL < 0.8 is satisfied, where IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
Selecting a ratio of the image height and back focal length to be optimized would result in an optimized field of view of the lens system.
In regard to claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein 0.2 < |R10/f|< 0.5 is satisfied (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0102] of original document for f = 16.49, and R10=-7.476, which results in |R10/f| ~ 0.45, which falls within applicant’s claimed range),
where R10 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0102] of original document and note that L6 is used for calculation), and f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0102] of original document).
In regard to claim 7, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane.
Selecting the separation distance and image height to be optimized to achieve a desired light throughput and focal length of the system would be within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein 4.0 < fG1/f < 8.0 is satisfied, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system (see e.g. Table in in paragraph [0102] of original document for fG1 = 80, f =16.49, giving fG1/f ~ 4.85, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein |(R1-R2)/(R1+R2)|< 0.4 is satisfied, where R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the first lens, and R2 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (see e.g. Table in in paragraph [0102] of original document for R1= 11.417, R2= 15.000, thus |(R1-R2)/(R1+R2)|~ 0.13, which falls within applicant’s claimed range) .
In regard to claim 10, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
Selecting the back focal length and effective diameter of the lenses would allow a desired magnification to be achieved.
In regard to claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 0.9 < CT5/ET5 < 1.8 is satisfied, where CT5 is a thickness on an optical axis of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, ET5 is a thickness on an end of an effective diameter of the lens disposed closest to the imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Zhang et al. with wherein 0.9 < CT5/ET5 < 1.8 is satisfied, where CT5 is a thickness on an optical axis of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, ET5 is a thickness on an end of an effective diameter of the lens disposed closest to the imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group
Selecting the thickness of the lens profile would allow a desired focal length to be achieved.
In regard to claim 15, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a lens L2 disposed closest to the reflective member F1 (see e.g. Figure 1), among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group L2-L6, has positive refractive power (see e.g. Table in in paragraph [0102] of original document).
In regard to claim 16, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group L1 comprises the first lens L1, and the object-side surface of the first lens is convex and an image-side surface of the first lens is concave (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 11, second paragraph under “Embodiment 1”).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112578535) in view of Shabtay et al. (US 2019/0155002 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other.
However, Shabtay et al. discloses
wherein the reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other (see e.g. paragraph [0056]).
Given the teachings of Shabtay 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 reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other.
Providing rotation to the prism would allow the position of the field of view to be moved (see e.g. paragraph [0056] of Shabtay et al.).
In regard to claim 3, Zhang et al., in view of Shabtay et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group, 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., in view of Shabtay et al., with wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group.
Selecting the axis about which to rotate the reflecting element would provide a desired path of light through the system and would have predictable results.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20234/0141883 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Huang et al. discloses an optical imaging system (see e.g. paragraph [0215]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 13a-b):
a first lens group E1, comprising one or more lenses, having positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0216] and Figures 13a-b);
a second lens group E2-E5 comprising a plurality of lenses E2, E3, E4, E5 (see e.g. Figures 13a-b and paragraph [0215]); and
a reflective member E7, disposed between the first lens group E1 and the second lens group E2-E5, comprising an incident surface, a reflective surface, and an emitting surface (see e.g. paragraph [0215] and Figures 13a-b).
Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied,
where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied, where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 1.3 < SD1/SDP < 1.7 is satisfied,
where SD1 is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens disposed closest to an object side among the one or more lenses of the first lens group, and SDP is a minor-axis length of the incident surface of the reflective member.
Selecting the effective diameter of an object-side surface of a first lens and the length of the incident surface of an adjacent reflective member to have an optimized valued would allow the most efficient use of the incident light which would create a higher quality image.
In regard to claim 4, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
Optimizing a ratio of the focal length of the optical system and a length of a side of the prism to have a desired focal length while maintaining as small of footprint as possible for the device and would be within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 5, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 0.6 < IMG HT/BFL < 0.8 is satisfied, where IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 2.1 < f/SDP < 2.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 0.6 < IMG HT/BFL < 0.8 is satisfied, where IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
Selecting a ratio of the image height and back focal length to be optimized would result in an optimized field of view of the lens system.
In regard to claim 7, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 1.0 < Lf/IMG HT < 1.5 is satisfied, where Lf is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the reflective surface of the reflective member, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging plane.
Selecting the separation distance and image height to be optimized to achieve a desired light throughput and focal length of the system would be within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 9, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein |(R1-R2)/(R1+R2)|< 0.4 is satisfied, where R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the first lens, and R2 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (see e.g. Table 7a for R1 = -1.3468, R2 = -1.6825 which gives |(R1-R2)/(R1+R2)| ~ 0.11, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 10, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane.
Selecting the back focal length and effective diameter of the lenses would allow a desired magnification to be achieved.
In regard to claim 11, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 0.9 < CT5/ET5 < 1.8 is satisfied, where CT5 is a thickness on an optical axis of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, ET5 is a thickness on an end of an effective diameter of the lens disposed closest to the imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 1.2 < SD1/BFL < 1.9 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, to the imaging plane, 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 to modify the device of Huang et al. with wherein 0.9 < CT5/ET5 < 1.8 is satisfied, where CT5 is a thickness on an optical axis of a lens disposed closest to an imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, ET5 is a thickness on an end of an effective diameter of the lens disposed closest to the imaging plane among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group
Selecting the thickness of the lens profile would allow a desired focal length to be achieved.
In regard to claim 12, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is greater than an Abbe number of the reflective member (see e.g. Table 7a where the Abbe number of the first lens is 56.1 and the Abbe number of the prism is 17.9).
In regard to claim 13, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the second lens group has positive refractive power, and wherein a focal length of the second lens group is smaller than a focal length of the first lens group (see e.g. Table 7a for a focal lengths and note the focal length of the second group was calculated based on values in Table 7a to be ~ 2.58, which is less than the focal length of Lens 1, 64.33).
In regard to claim 14, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein 4 < fG1/fG2 < 8 is satisfied, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and fG2 is a focal length of the second lens group.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein 4 < fG1/fG2 < 8 is satisfied, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and fG2 is a focal length of the second lens group, 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 Huang et al. with wherein 4 < fG1/fG2 < 8 is satisfied, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and fG2 is a focal length of the second lens group.
Selecting the ratio of the focal lengths of the first group and second group would allow a desired magnification to be achieved at the image plane.
In regard to claim 15, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a lens E2 disposed closest to the reflective member E7, among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group E2-E6, has positive refractive power (see e.g. Table 7a and paragraph [0217]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20234/0141883 A1) in view of Shabtay et al. (US 2019/0155002 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Huang et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other.
However, Shabtay et al. discloses
wherein the reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other (see e.g. paragraph [0056]).
Given the teachings of Shabtay 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 Huang et al. with wherein the reflective member and the first lens group are configured to rotate together with respect to two axes perpendicular to each other.
Providing rotation to the prism would allow the position of the field of view to be moved (see e.g. paragraph [0056] of Shabtay et al.).
In regard to claim 3, Huang et al., in view of Shabtay et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group, 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 Huang et al., in view of Shabtay et al., with wherein the two axes are perpendicular to an optical axis of the second lens group.
Selecting the axis about which to rotate the reflecting element would provide a desired path of light through the system and would have predictable results.
Conclusion
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