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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on July 23, 2025 and December 5, 2025 have been considered.
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, 2, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riot et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0267722 – hereinafter referred to as “Riot”).
Regarding claim 1, Riot teaches an optical system (Figure 2), comprising:
a monolithic mirror assembly (Figure 2 rear optics piece 130, [0026] rear optics piece 130 is structured to include at least two concave reflector surfaces) that integrates a primary mirror (Figure 2 reflector 230) and a tertiary mirror (Figure 2 reflector 240) in static alignment ([0026] reflectors 230 and 240 are structured together in rear optics piece 130); and
a secondary mirror (Figure 2 front optics piece 110) displaced away from the monolithic mirror assembly (Figure 2 front optics piece 110 is displace away from rear optics piece 130) and having a reflective mirror surface ([0026] front optics piece 110 includes reflector) positioned to (i) direct light received from the primary mirror onto the tertiary mirror (Figure 2 front optics piece 110 directs light from reflector 230 to reflector 240, [0026]-[0027]), and (ii) direct light received from the tertiary mirror onto a detector (Figure 2 front optics piece 110 directs light received from reflector 240 onto image sensor 150), through one or more lenses or mirror elements providing field correction (Figurer 2 light passes through field flattening lens).
Regarding claim 2, Riot teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Riot further teaches the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is an aspheric surface ([0027] surfaces 210 and 220 may have aspheric profiles).
Regarding claim 7, Riot teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Riot further teaches the monolithic mirror assembly comprises the detector and integrates the detector in static alignment with the primary mirror and the tertiary mirror ([0020] rear optics piece 130 is fixed to the image sensor 150).
Regarding claim 17, Riot teaches a method of manufacturing an optical system (Figure 2), the method comprising positioning a secondary mirror (Figure 2 front optics piece 110) at a distance away from a monolithic substrate (Figure 2 rear optics piece 130; front optics piece 110 is displaced away from rear optics piece 130) that fixes a primary mirror (Figure 2 reflector 230) and a tertiary mirror (Figure 2 reflector 240) in alignment ([0026] reflectors 230 and 240 are structured together in rear optics piece 130), the secondary mirror positioned to direct light received from the primary mirror onto the tertiary mirror (Figure 2 front optics piece 110 directs light from reflector 230 to reflector 240, [0026]-[0027]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Draganov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493 – hereinafter referred to as “Draganov”).
Regarding claim 17, Draganov teaches a method of manufacturing an optical system (Figure 2), the method comprising positioning a secondary mirror (Figure 2 folding mirror 204, [0022]) at a distance away from a monolithic substrate (Figure 2 reflecting surface 202, [0017]; Figure 2 folding mirror 204 is displaced away from reflecting surface 202) that fixes a primary mirror (Figure 2 mirror 206, [0018]) and a tertiary mirror (Figure 2 mirror 208, [0018]) in alignment ([0020] mirrors 206, 208 form the integral first reflecting surface 202), the secondary mirror positioned to direct light received from the primary mirror onto the tertiary mirror (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 directs light reflected from mirror 206 to mirror 208, [0022]).
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, 6-7, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005).
Regarding claim 1, Draganov teaches an optical system (Figure 2), comprising:
a monolithic mirror assembly (Figure 2 reflecting surface 202, [0017]) that integrates a primary mirror (Figure 2 mirror 206, [0018]) and a tertiary mirror (Figure 2 mirror 208, [0018]) in static alignment ([0020] mirrors 206, 208 form the integral first reflecting surface 202); and a secondary mirror (Figure 2 folding mirror 204, [0022]) displaced away from the monolithic mirror assembly (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 is displaced away from reflecting surface 202) and having a reflective mirror surface positioned to (i) direct light received from the primary mirror onto the tertiary mirror (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 directs light reflected from mirror 206 to mirror 208, [0022]), and (ii) direct light received from the tertiary mirror onto a focal plane (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 directs light from mirror 208 to focal plane 214, [0022]).
Draganov fails to teach a detector and one or more lenses or mirror elements providing field correction. However, Cappiello is related to Draganov with respect to teaching a telescope (Figure 1) and teaches a detector (Figure 1 detector array 118) and one or more lenses or mirror elements providing field correction (Figure 1 field corrector 106, [0056] field corrector 106 is composed of one or more lenses). Cappiello further teaches using a field corrector to correct for optical aberration from the mirrors ([0056]).
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 optical system taught by Draganov by adding a detector and field correction lenses as taught by Cappiello in order to be able to record images, which is well-known in the art, and correct for optical aberration from the mirrors (Cappiello [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov further teaches the secondary mirror is coupled to a mechanical assembly allowing tilting of the secondary mirror relative to the monolithic mirror assembly ([0023] the folding mirror comprises a steering mirror).
Regarding claim 7, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov further teaches a fixed focal plane (Figure 2 focal plane 214, [0022]) but fails to teach the monolithic mirror assembly comprises the detector and integrates the detector in static alignment with the primary mirror and the tertiary mirror. However, Cappiello teaches a primary mirror (Figure 1 mirror 102) with a detector (Figure 1 detector array 118) in static alignment with the primary mirror.
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 optical system taught by Draganov by adding a detector as taught by Cappiello in order to be able to record images which is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Although Draganov fails to explicitly teach an aperture size associated with the optical system is greater than 50 centimeters, Draganov does teach the compact telescope is fully scalable to the desired size and/or magnification ([0029]). Furthermore, using a similar mirror configuration of mirrors, Cappiello teaches desirable input apertures of the primary mirror ranging from 100 mm to 5m. It is well-known in the art that a larger mirror collects more light and increases angular resolution.
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 optical system taught by Draganov to have an aperture size greater than 50 cm as taught by Cappiello in order to collect more light and increase the angular resolution of the telescope.
Regarding claim 20, Draganov teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Although Draganov fails to explicitly teach an aperture size associated with the optical system and defined by an outer diameter of the primary mirror of the monolithic substrate is greater than fifty centimeters, Draganov does teach the compact telescope is fully scalable to the desired size and/or magnification ([0029]). Furthermore, using a similar mirror configuration of mirrors, Cappiello teaches desirable input apertures of the primary mirror ranging from 100 mm to 5m. It is well-known in the art that a larger mirror collects more light and increases angular resolution.
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 optical system taught by Draganov to have an aperture size greater than 50 cm as taught by Cappiello in order to collect more light and increase the angular resolution of the telescope.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN 110543006 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Dong”).
Regarding claim 2, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is an aspheric surface. However, Dong is related to Draganov with respect to teaching a telescope optical system (Figure 3) and teaches the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is an aspheric surface (Figure 3 Schmidt correction plate 1, [0040] Schimdt correction plate 1 has an aspheric surface). Dong further teaches using an aspheric surface to correct spherical aberration ([0049]).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by having the folding mirror of Draganov have an aspheric surface as taught by Dong in order to correct spherical aberration (Dong [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is characterized by a fourth-order polynomial that limits spherical and off-axes aberrations in the light directed onto the detector. However, Dong is related to Draganov with respect to teaching a telescope optical system (Figure 3) and teaches the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is characterized by a fourth-order polynomial that limits spherical and off-axes aberrations in the light directed onto the detector (Figure 3 Schmidt correction plate 1, [0040] 4th order coefficient is 3.112 x 10-12 for Schimdt correction plate). Dong further teaches using an aspheric surface to correct spherical aberration ([0049]).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by having the folding mirror of Draganov be characterized by a fourth-order polynomial as taught by Dong in order to correct spherical aberration (Dong [0049]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Basu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088734).
Regarding claim 4, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach the secondary mirror is displaced away from the monolithic mirror assembly via one or more struts or an optical tube assembly that is coupled to the monolithic mirror assembly. However, Basu is related to Draganov with respect to a multi-mirror telescope (Figure 1) and teaches the secondary mirror (Figure 1 mirror 24, [0039]) is displaced away from the primary mirror assembly (Figure 1 mirror 22, [0039]) via one or more struts (Figure 1 support connector 32) or an optical tube assembly that is coupled to the primary mirror assembly ([0039] support connector 32 is coupled to primary mirror).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by using struts as taught by Basu to displace the secondary mirror from the monolithic mirror assembly in order to support and fix the position of the secondary mirror and struts are well-known in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005) and Basu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088734) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Thomas (U.S. Patent No. 10,582,113).
Regarding claim 5, Draganov, Cappiello, and Basu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Draganov, Cappiello, and Basu fail to teach the one or more struts are coupled to the monolithic mirror assembly via a groove interface that comprises a ridged or grooved surface on the one or more struts that corresponds to a grooved or ridged surface on the monolithic mirror assembly. However, Thomas is related to Draganov with respect to an optical system (Figure 2) and teaches a mounting system for optical components that uses a groove interface that comprises a ridged or grooved surface on the one or more struts (Figure 9 strut has fingers 910, Col. 8 lines 55-60) and a grooved or ridged surface on the housing (Figure 9 threads 915 on housing, Col. 8 lines 55-60). Thomas further teaches using a ridged or grooved interface in order to provide a snap fit to attach components together (Col. 8 lines 55-60).
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 optical system taught by Draganov, Cappiello, and Basu by using the ridged or grooved surfaces taught by Thomas to attach the struts taught by Basu to the monolithic mirror of Draganov in order to provide a snap fit to attach components together (Thomas Col. 8 lines 55-60).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ackermann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,297 – hereinafter referred to as “Ackermann”).
Regarding claim 8, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach the tertiary mirror is defined by a spherical reflective surface that receives the light directed by the secondary mirror. However, Ackermann is related to Draganov with respect to a Gregorian optical system and teaches a spherical secondary mirror (Col. 3 line 55 secondary mirror can be spherical; the secondary mirror of Ackermann is equivalent to the tertiary mirror of the instant application). Ackermann further teaches the proper combination of shapes for the primary and secondary mirrors (analogous to the primary and tertiary mirrors of the instant application) can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Col. 3 lines 55-62). Furthermore, there are only four general shapes the tertiary mirror can have – spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello to have a spherical tertiary mirror as taught by Ackermann since there is only four possible shapes for the tertiary mirror and the proper combination of shapes for the mirrors can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Ackermann Col. 3 lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 9, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach the primary mirror is defined by a hyperbolic reflective surface. However, Ackermann teaches the primary mirror can have a hyperbolic shape (Col. 8 lines 55-57). Ackermann further teaches the proper combination of shapes for the primary and secondary mirrors (analogous to the primary and tertiary mirrors of the instant application) can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Col. 3 lines 55-62). Furthermore, there are only four general shapes the primary mirror can have – spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello to have a hyperbolic primary mirror since there is only four possible general shapes for the primary mirror and the proper combination of shapes for the mirrors can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Ackermann Col. 3 lines 55-62).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0325648), and in further view of Ackermann (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,297).
Regarding claim 10, Draganov and Cappiello teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Draganov further teaches an aspheric reflective surface defining the primary mirror ([0018] mirror 206 may have elliptical, parabolic, or other curvature). Draganov and Cappiello fail to teach monolithic mirror assembly is a fused silica glass substrate. However, Choi is related to Draganov with respect to a telescope and teaches using fused silica for mirrors since fused silica has a zero coefficient of thermal expansion ([0107]). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). 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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by making the monolithic mirror assembly from a fused silica glass substrate as taught by Choi since fused silica glass as a zero coefficient of thermal expansion (Choi [0107])
Draganov, Cappiello, and Choi fail to teach a spherical reflective surface defining the tertiary mirror. However, Ackermann is related to Draganov with respect to a Gregorian optical system and teaches a spherical secondary mirror (Col. 3 line 55 secondary mirror can be spherical; the secondary mirror of Ackermann is equivalent to the tertiary mirror of the instant application). Ackermann further teaches the proper combination of shapes for the primary and secondary mirrors (analogous to the primary and tertiary mirrors of the instant application) can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Col. 3 lines 55-62). Furthermore, there are only four general shapes the tertiary mirror can have – spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 optical system taught by Draganov, Cappiello, and Choi to have a spherical tertiary mirror as taught by Ackermann since there is only four possible shapes for the tertiary mirror and the proper combination of shapes for the mirrors can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Ackermann Col. 3 lines 55-62).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Dong (Chinese Patent Publication CN 110543006), and in further view of Ackermann (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,297).
Regarding claim 12, Draganov teaches an optical system (Figure 2) comprising:
a first aspheric reflective surface (Figure 2 mirror 206, [0018] mirror 206 may have elliptical, parabolic, or other curvature) for receiving input light;
a second aspheric reflective surface (Figure 2 folding mirror 204, [0022]); and a third spherical reflective surface (Figure 2 mirror 208, [0018]),
wherein the second reflective surface (Figure 2 folding mirror 204, [0022]) is positioned to (i) direct light received from the first aspheric reflective surface onto the third spherical reflective surface (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 directs light reflected from mirror 206 to mirror 208, [0022]), and (ii) direct light received from the third spherical reflective surface onto a focal plane (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 directs light from mirror 208 to focal plane 214, [0022]),
wherein the first aspheric reflective surface (Figure 2 mirror 206) and the third reflective surface (Figure 2 mirror 208) are arranged in a monolithic substrate (Figure 2 reflecting surface 202) in fixed alignment with respect to each other ([0020] mirrors 206, 208 form the integral first reflecting surface 202), and
wherein the second reflective surface (Figure 2 folding mirror 204) is displaced at a distance away from the monolithic substrate (Figure 2 folding mirror 204 is displaced away from reflecting surface 202) and has a variable alignment with the first aspheric reflective surface and the third reflective surface of the monolithic substrate ([0023] the folding mirror comprises a steering mirror).
Draganov fails to teach the second aspheric reflective surface. However, Dong is related to Draganov with respect to teaching a telescope optical system (Figure 3) and teaches the reflective mirror surface of the secondary mirror is an aspheric surface (Figure 3 Schmidt correction plate 1, [0040] Schimdt correction plate 1 has an aspheric surface). Dong further teaches using an aspheric surface to correct spherical aberration ([0049]).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by having the folding mirror of Draganov have an aspheric surface as taught by Dong in order to correct spherical aberration (Dong [0049]).
Draganov and Dong fail to teach the third reflective surface is spherical and a detector. However, Ackermann is related to Draganov with respect to a Gregorian optical system and teaches a spherical secondary mirror (Col. 3 line 55 secondary mirror can be spherical; the secondary mirror of Ackermann is equivalent to the tertiary mirror of the instant application) and a detector (Col. 4 lines 5-13 sensor array at final focus 150). Ackermann further teaches the proper combination of shapes for the primary and secondary mirrors (analogous to the primary and tertiary mirrors of the instant application) can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Col. 3 lines 55-62). Furthermore, there are only four general shapes the tertiary mirror can have – spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Dong to have a spherical tertiary mirror and detector as taught by Ackermann since there is only four possible shapes for the tertiary mirror and the proper combination of shapes for the mirrors can be readily determined using optical modeling methods known to those skilled in the art (Ackermann Col. 3 lines 55-62) and in order to be able to record images, which is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Draganov fails to teach the second aspheric reflective surface is a Schmidt plate (Figure 3 Schmidt correction plate 1) configured to limit spherical and off-axes aberrations in the light directed onto the detector, and wherein the second aspheric reflective surface is defined by a fourth-order polynomial. However, Dong teaches the second aspheric reflective surface is a Schmidt plate configured to limit spherical and off-axes aberrations in the light directed onto the detector ([0049] correct spherical aberration), and wherein the second aspheric reflective surface is defined by a fourth-order polynomial ([0040] 4th order coefficient is 3.112 x 10-12 for Schimdt correction plate). Dong further teaches using an aspheric surface to correct spherical aberration ([0049]).
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 optical system taught by Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann by having the folding mirror of Draganov be a Schmidt plate defined by a fourth-order polynomial as taught by Dong in order to correct spherical aberration (Dong [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Draganov further teaches a fixed focal plane (Figure 2 focal plane 214, [0022]) but fails to the detector is located within the monolithic substrate in fixed alignment with the first aspheric reflective surface and the third spherical reflective surface. However, Ackermann teaches a primary mirror (Figure 1 mirror 110) with a detector (Col. 4 lines 5-13 sensor array at final focus 150) in fix alignment with the primary mirror.
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 optical system taught by Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann by adding the detector in fixed alignment with the mirror as taught by Ackermann in order to be able to record images which is well-known in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Dong (Chinese Patent Publication CN 110543006) and Ackermann (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,297) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Basu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088734).
Regarding claim 14, Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann fail to teach one or more struts or an optical tube assembly that positions the second aspheric reflective surface at the distance away from the monolithic substrate. However, Basu is related to Draganov with respect to a multi-mirror telescope (Figure 1) and teaches the secondary mirror (Figure 1 mirror 24, [0039]) is displaced away from the primary mirror assembly (Figure 1 mirror 22, [0039]) via one or more struts (Figure 1 support connector 32) or an optical tube assembly that is coupled to the primary mirror assembly ([0039] support connector 32 is coupled to primary mirror).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by using struts as taught by Basu to display the secondary mirror from the monolithic mirror assembly in order to support and fix the position of the secondary mirror and struts are well-known in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Dong (Chinese Patent Publication CN 110543006) and Ackermann (U.S. Patent No. 7,236,297) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cappiello (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0373005).
Regarding claim 15, Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 12. Although Draganov fails to explicitly teach an aperture size of the optical system that corresponds to an outer diameter of the first aspheric reflective surface is greater than fifty centimeters, Draganov does teach the compact telescope is fully scalable to the desired size and/or magnification ([0029]). Furthermore, using a similar mirror configuration of mirrors, Cappiello teaches desirable input apertures of the primary mirror ranging from 100 mm to 5m. It is well-known in the art that a larger mirror collects more light and increases angular resolution.
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 optical system taught by Draganov, Dong, and Ackermann to have an aperture size greater than 50 cm as taught by Cappiello in order to collect more light and increase the angular resolution of the telescope.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) as applied to claim 17, and in view of Basu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088734).
Regarding claim 18, Draganov teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Draganov fails to teach attaching a first end of a strut to the monolithic substrate, wherein the secondary mirror is positioned at an opposite end of the strut at the distance away from the monolithic substrate. However, Basu is related to Draganov with respect to a multi-mirror telescope (Figure 1) and teaches attaching a first end of a strut (Figure 1 support connector 32) to the primary mirror assembly (Figure 1 mirror 22, [0039] support connector 32 is attached to mirror 22), wherein the secondary mirror (Figure 1 mirror 24, [0039]) is positioned at an opposite end of the strut at the distance away from the primary mirror assembly (Figure 1 mirror 24 is at the opposite end of strut 32 away from mirror 22).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Cappiello by using struts as taught by Basu to displace the secondary mirror from the monolithic mirror assembly in order to support and fix the position of the secondary mirror and struts are well-known in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draganov (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169493) in view of Basu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0088734) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Thomas (U.S. Patent No. 10,582,113).
Regarding claim 19, Draganov and Basu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 18. Draganov and Basu fail to teach the first end of the strut comprises a ridged or grooved surface that corresponds to a grooved or ridged surface on the monolithic substrate. However, Thomas is related to Draganov with respect to an optical system (Figure 2) and teaches a mounting system for optical components that uses a groove interface that comprises a ridged or grooved surface on the one or more struts (Figure 9 strut has fingers 910, Col. 8 lines 55-60) and a grooved or ridged surface on the housing (Figure 9 threads 915 on housing, Col. 8 lines 55-60). Thomas further teaches using a ridged or grooved interface in order to provide a snap fit to attach components together (Col. 8 lines 55-60).
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 optical system taught by Draganov and Basu by using the ridged or grooved surfaces taught by Thomas to attach the struts taught by Basu to the monolithic mirror of Draganov in order to provide a snap fit to attach components together (Thomas Col. 8 lines 55-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sinclair et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0004006) discloses a telescope mirror configuration (Figure 3) similar to the arrangement of the instant application.
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
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights