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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on February 24, 2025 has been considered.
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 6-7, 9-11, and 13-15 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.
Regarding claims 6-7, 11, and 13-15, claims 6-7, 11, 13, and 15 recite the limitation “the diffraction element.” It is unclear which diffraction element these claims refer to. Claim 1, from which claims 6-7, 11, 13, and 15 depend, recites “one or more diffraction elements,” “first diffraction element,” and “second diffraction element.” Thus it is unclear if “the diffraction element” means either the first or the second diffraction elements, the first and the second diffraction elements, only the first diffraction element, or only the second diffraction element have to satisfy the limitations of claims 6-7, 11, 13, and 15. Therefore the claims are rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the diffraction element” as referring either the first or the second diffraction or an combination thereof.
Claim 14 inherits indefiniteness from claim 13.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the diffraction element is providing on a surface of an optical element” It is unclear which diffraction element these claims refer to. Claim 1, from which claims 9 and 10 depend, recites “one or more diffraction elements,” “first diffraction element,” and “second diffraction element.” Furthermore, it is unclear how the second diffraction element is supposed to satisfy the positioning limitations of claims 9 and 10 (“lenses having a refractive power are disposed are disposed on both of an object side and image side of the optical element” and “a lens having a refractive power is disposed adjacent to the optical element on at least one of an object side or an image side of the optical element”) since claim 1 recites “an element having a refractive power is not disposed between a display surface of the display element and the second diffraction element.” Therefore the claims are rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the diffraction element” in claims 9 and 10 as “the first diffraction element.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8, 12, and 16-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior arts are Mukai et al. (Japanese Patent H1144840 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Mukai”) in view of Saitoh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0041610 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as Saitoh.
Mukai teaches a finder optical system ([0004] viewfinder) comprising:
a display element (Figure 2 plane 0); and
an ocular optical system disposed on an eyepoint side with respect to the display element (Figure 2, [0033])
wherein one or more diffraction elements (Figure 2 diffractive surface DOE, [0012])are disposed in the finder optical system,
at least one of the diffraction elements is a first diffraction element (Figure 2 diffractive surface DOE on lens G4, [0014]),
at least one of the diffraction elements is a second diffraction element (Figure 2 diffractive surface DOE on lens G1, [0014]),
an element having a refractive power is not disposed between a display surface of the display element and the second diffraction element (Figure 2 no element having refractive power is between DOE on lens G1 and plane 0), and
in a case where a distance on an optical axis from the display surface to a surface of the finder optical system closest to the eyepoint side is denoted by TL,
a distance on the optical axis from the display surface to an optical surface of the first diffraction element is denoted by X1, and
a distance on the optical axis from the display surface to an optical surface of the second diffraction element is denoted by X2, Conditional Expressions (1) and (4) are satisfied, which are represented by
0.05 ≤ X1/TL ≤ 1 (1) (Table 1 TL calculated to be 93.5024 mm, X1 calculated to be 89.7024 mm, X1/TL = 0.96).
Mukai fails to teach the first and second diffraction elements are a liquid crystal diffraction element. However, Saitoh is related to Mukai regarding diffraction elements in optical systems. Saitoh teaches a liquid crystal diffraction element (Figure 5). Saitoh further teaches liquid crystal diffraction elements are beneficial reducing the size and weight of optical devices ([0050]).
Therefore, 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 viewer taught by Mukai by using the liquid crystal diffraction elements taught by Saitoh in order to reduce the size and weight of the optical device (Saitoh [0050]).
The other closest prior art is Miyagishima (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0258074 – cited by Applicant) in view of Saitoh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0041610).
Miyagishima teaches a finder optical system (Figure 1) comprising:
a display element (Figure 1 display element 1); and
an ocular optical system disposed on an eyepoint side with respect to the display element (Figure 2 optical system 10)
wherein one or more diffraction elements (Figure 1 diffractive optical element 2, [0043])are disposed in the finder optical system,
at least one of the diffraction elements is a first diffraction element (Figures 1 and 2 layer 23, [0043]),
at least one of the diffraction elements is a second diffraction element (Figures 1 and 2 layer 22, [0043]),
an element having a refractive power is not disposed between a display surface of the display element and the second diffraction element (Figure 1 no element having refractive power is between layer 22 and display element 1), and
in a case where a distance on an optical axis from the display surface to a surface of the finder optical system closest to the eyepoint side is denoted by TL,
a distance on the optical axis from the display surface to an optical surface of the first diffraction element is denoted by X1, and
a distance on the optical axis from the display surface to an optical surface of the second diffraction element is denoted by X2, Conditional Expressions (1) and (4) are satisfied, which are represented by
0.05 ≤ X1/TL ≤ 1 (1) (Table 1 TL calculated to be 32.7207 mm, X1 calculated to be 6.004 mm, X1/TL = 0.18).
Miyagishima fails to teach the first and second diffraction elements are a liquid crystal diffraction element. However, Saitoh is related to Miyagishima regarding diffraction elements in optical systems. Saitoh teaches a liquid crystal diffraction element (Figure 5). Saitoh further teaches liquid crystal diffraction elements are beneficial reducing the size and weight of optical devices ([0050]).
Therefore, 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 viewer taught by Miyagishima by using the liquid crystal diffraction elements taught by Saitoh in order to reduce the size and weight of the optical device (Saitoh [0050]).
Mukai, Miyagishima, and Saitoh fail to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination, “0 ≤ X2/TL < 0.05”, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 (Mukai teaches X2/TL = 0.46 and Miyagishima teaches X2/TL = 0.18). Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 1, specifically the limitation: “0 ≤ X2/TL < 0.05”
Claims 2-5, 8, 12, and 16-18 depend from claim 1.
Claims 6-7, 9-11, and 13-15 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: Claims 6-7, 9-11, and 13-15 depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayahi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0122305) teaches a viewer with four lenses and two diffractive element but with a different arrangement of elements from the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights