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 statements (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2025, December 5, 2025 and May 25, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The extensive drawings have 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 drawings.
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 Objections
Claims 1-19 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities. Regarding claims 1-19 and 22, while they have a period in the middle of the claims they do not end in a period. MPEP 608.01 (m) states: “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). The examiner suggests replacing the periods before conditional expressions with a colon and appending a period to the end of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is further objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical error. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination changing the lower case “s” in the equation to an upper case “S” TL(L)/TL(S). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21 (dependent of 1) it is unclear what the further limitation is. The claim renames the optical system of claim 1 to an “optical apparatus.” The preamble is not a limitation and there is no further limitation to “breathe life” into the new name. It has been held that the determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application "to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), see MPEP 2111.02. Further, using the plain meaning, “optical system” and “optical apparatus” are synonymous terms. Applicant could obviate this rejection by adding structural and/or functional limitations, e.g. instant application page 47 paragraph [0329] notes a first and second imaging units. For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret that any element reading on claim 1 inherently reads on claim 21, since all required elements are present.
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.
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 1-4, 6-13, 15, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercado US Patent 11,143,847, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Mercado discloses an optical system (title e.g. figures 25B-25D optical system 2500B) comprising: a first optical system (e.g. figure 25D NIR light imaging system) including, in order from an object side, a front lens group (e.g. front lens group), an optical path splitter (e.g. beam splitter) with a splitting plane that transmits a first part of incident light and that reflects at least a second part of the incident light different from the first part (see figure 25B), and a first rear lens group on which one of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. NIR light lens group); and a second optical system (e.g. figure 25C visible light imaging system) including, in order from the object side, the front lens group (e.g. front lens group), the optical path splitter (e.g. beam splitter), and a second rear lens group on which the other of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. visible light lens group), the optical system satisfying the following conditional expression: 0.50<T(gr1)/(-f(gr1))<4.50 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A T(gr1)/(-f(gr1))=0.98); and alternatively, Mercado also discloses another optical system (title e.g. figures 27B-27D optical system 2700B) comprising: a first optical system (e.g. 27C visible light imaging system) including, in order from an object side, a front lens group (e.g. front lens group), an optical path splitter (e.g. beam splitter) with a splitting plane that transmits a first part of incident light and that reflects at least a second part of the incident light different from the first part (see figure 25B), and a first rear lens group on which one of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. visible light lens group); and a second optical system (e.g. figure 27D NIR light imaging system) including, in order from the object side, the front lens group (e.g. front lens group), the optical path splitter (e.g. beam splitter), and a second rear lens group on which the other of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. NIR light lens group), the optical system satisfying the following conditional expression: 0.50<T(gr1)/(-f(gr1))<4.50 (e.g. using the values in Table 14A T(gr1)/(-f(gr1))=0.80).
Regarding claim 2 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.80<T(gr1)/(-f(gr1n))<4.60 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A T(gr1)/(-f(gr1n))=1.26).
Regarding claim 3 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.00<TL(L)/TL(S)<3.50 (using the values column 31 line 51 & column 33 line 45 TL(L)/TL(S)=1.01).
Regarding claim 8 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.40<T(gr1)/f(S)<6.90 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A & column 31 line 51 T(gr1)/f(S)=1.74).
Regarding claim 9 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.00<T(gr1)/f(L)<9.80 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A & column 33 line 45 T(gr1)/f(L)=1.74).
Regarding claim 10 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.80<-f(gr1n)/f(L)<4.30 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A & column 33 line 45 -f(gr1n)/f(L)=1.38).
Regarding claim 11 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.50<-f(gr1n)/f(S)<4.40 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A & column 31 line 51 -f(gr1n)/f(S)=1.38).
Regarding claim 12 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the second rear lens group includes an aperture stop (e.g. aperture stop), and the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.50<f(gr2S)/(-f(gr1))<3.40 (e.g. using the values in Table 10A f(gr2S)/(-f(gr1))=0.86).
Regarding claim 13 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the first rear lens group includes an aperture stop (e.g. aperture stop), and the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.40<f(gr2L)/(-f(gr1))<4.20 (e.g. using the values in Table 11A f(gr2L)/(-f(gr1))=0.90).
Regarding claim 15 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.50<f(IL)/(-f(gr1n))<7.70 (e.g. using the values in Table 11A f(IL)/(-f(gr1n))=4.33).
Regarding claim 19 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.01<-f(grln)/f(gr1p)<0.21 (e.g. using the values in Tables 10A -f(grln)/f(gr1p)=0.16).
Regarding claim 21 Mercado further discloses an optical apparatus (e.g. figure 25B optical system 2500B) comprising the optical system according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 22 Mercado discloses a method for manufacturing (inter alia column 5 lines 14-17) an optical system according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 4 Mercado an optical system (title e.g. figures 19D-19H optical system 1900B) comprising: a first optical system (e.g. see figure 19H NIR light imaging system) including, in order from an object side, a front lens group (e.g. front lens group), a prism (e.g. beam splitter inter alia column 6 lines 33-34 “beam splitter may include one or more glass prisms”) with a splitting plane that transmits a first part of incident light and that reflects at least a second part of the incident light different from the first part (e.g. see figure 19F), and a first rear lens group on which one of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. NIR light lens group); and a second optical system (e.g. see figure 19G visible light imaging system) including, in order from the object side, the front lens group (e.g. front lens group), the prism (e.g. beam splitter), and a second rear lens group on which the other of the transmitted light and the reflected light is incident (e.g. visible light lens group), the first optical system having a greater total optical length than the second optical system (using the values in column 20 line 10 & column 22 line 1 16.43mm>15.53mm), the optical system satisfying the following conditional expressions.1.10<T(gr1)/f(fL)<5.20 (using the values in Tables 2A, 3A, column 20 line 10 & column 22 line 1 T(gr1)/f(fL)=1.93), 1.00<T(pfL)/f(fL)< 11.50 (using the values in Tables 2A, 3A, column 20 line 10 & column 22 line 1 T(pfL)/f(fL)=2.46).
Regarding claim 6 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 4, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.20<T(pS)/f(S)<6.40 (using the values in Table 2A & column 20 line 10 T(pfL)/f(fL)=2.46).
Regarding claim 7 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 4, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 2.40<T(pL)/f(L)<20.50 (using the values in Tables 11A & column 22 line 1 T(pS)/f(S)=2.52).
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 3, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercado US Patent 11,143,847, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Wikipedia webpage “Doublet (lens)” as of 2023 and Miles US Patent 2,894,431.
Regarding claim 3 Mercado discloses the optical systems 2500B and 2700B according to claim 1 and optical system 2500B according to claim 3, as set forth above. Regarding optical system 2700B – Mercado further discloses TL(L)/TL(S)=1.00 (using the values column 39 line 17 & column 41 line 4). Mercado optical system 2700B does not disclose wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.00<TL(L)/TL(S)<3.50. However, 1.00 is just outside of the claimed range of “1.00<”. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144. Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the optical system of Mercado the additional feature of having the TL(L)/TL(S) value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Mercado.
Regarding claim 14 Mercado optical system 2700B discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.70<f(IS)/(-f(gr1n))<5 .90 (e.g. using the values in Table 15A f(IS)/(-f(gr1n))=5.82).
Regarding claim 16 Mercado optical system 2700B discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the second rear lens group includes an aperture stop, and the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.60<f(gr2S)/f(S)<5.60 (e.g. using the values in Table 15A & column 41 line 4 -f(gr2S)/f(S)=1.78).
Regarding claim 17 Mercado optical system 2500B discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the first rear lens group includes an aperture stop (e.g. aperture stop), and f(gr2L)/(f(L))=1.60 (using the values in Table 11A & column 33 line 45).
Mercado does not disclose the following conditional expression is satisfied: 2.30<f(gr2L)/f(L)<8.80. However, Mercado further teaches the aperture stop in the exemplar embodiments may be located between the beam splitter and the rear lens groups or elsewhere in the rear lens group (column 13 lines 55-67) for the purpose of providing tailoring the F-numbers for the two lens groups (column 6 line 66-column 7 line 9). For example, placing the aperture stop between the third and fourth lens in the first rear lens group in the optical system 2500B results in f(gr2L)/(f(L))=5.96. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the aperture stop in the first rear lens group in the optical system 2500B disclosed by Mercado to be between the third and fourth lens in the first rear lens group for the purpose of providing tailoring the F-numbers for the first rear lens group as further taught by Mercado, thereby satisfying the conditional expression 2.30<f(gr2L)/f(L)<8.80.
Regarding claim 18 Mercado optical system 2700B discloses the optical system according to claim 3, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0.23<f(IS)/f(IL)<1.50 (e.g. using the values in Tables 14A & 15A f(IS)/f(IL)=1.06).
Regarding claim 20 Mercado optical systems 2500B discloses the optical system according to claim 1, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses wherein of the transmitted light and the reflected light, one is visible light and the other is near-infrared light (abstract “beam splitter that splits the visible light and the NIR light onto two paths” e.g. see figure 25B); of the first and second optical systems, an optical system using the visible light from the splitting plane to the image plane (e.g. see figures 25B-25C) and an optical system using the near-infrared light from the splitting plane to the image plane consists of only single lenses (e.g. see figures 25B & 25D).
Mercado does not disclose the visible light system includes a cemented lens. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art to replace a single lens element with a cemented doublet lens in optical systems for the purpose of correcting aberration (as evidenced by Miles column 1 lines 28-31 and Wikipedia first two paragraphs). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system as disclosed by Mercado to have the visible light system includes a cemented lens used for the purpose of correcting aberration which is well-known in the art as evidenced by Miles and Wikipedia.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercado US Patent 11,143,847, of record, in view of Arai et al. international patent document WO2014162991.
Regarding claim 5 Mercado discloses the optical system according to claim 4, as set forth above. Mercado further discloses a cube prism, i.e. (pL)/T(pS)=1.00 (using values in Tables 10A & 11A).
Mercado does not disclose the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.10<T(pL)/T(pS)<5.50.
Arai discloses a similar optical system (title e.g. figure 1) including a front lens group (e.g. objective optical system 5) a prism beamsplitter (e.g. dichroic prism 13) transmits (see figure 1) a first part of incident light through a rear lens group (e.g. focusing lens 6) and that reflects (see figure 1) at least a second part of the incident light different from the first part (e.g. toward light-receiving element/photodetector 14); and further teaches the prism has different optical axis lengths (see figure 1) for the purpose of reducing the size while maintain appropriate optical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the prism beamsplitter in the optical system as disclosed by Mercado to have different optical axis lengths as taught by Aria for the purpose of reducing the size while maintain appropriate optical properties.
Arai does not disclose 1.10<T(pL)/T(pS)<5.50, however, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Mercado as modified by Aria has optical system including a front lens group a prism beamsplitter splitting light into two paths with different paths with length optical axis in the prism and the two subsequent portions of light each going to different rear lens groups, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the size of the prism beamsplitter for the purpose of reducing the size while maintain appropriate optical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical system disclosed by the combination of Mercado as modified by Aria to have 1.10<T(pL)/T(pS)<5.50 for the purpose of reducing the size while maintain appropriate optical properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bryant US Patent Application Publication 2005/0200946; in regards to a similar optical system (e.g. figures 1-30) including a front lens group (e.g. 13) a prism beam splitter (e.g. 15) breaking light into two portions (see figure 1) each passing through a rear lens group (e.g. figure 1 & 2 lenses 17, 19 & 21 versus figure 1 & 3 elements 152 & 23) where the length on the optical axis of the prism (e.g. 15) is different for the two portions (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights