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 statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the modified aerial image" in line 1 and "the minifying lens" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All 112 rejected claims will be interpreted as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tocci discloses an optical imaging system (Figure 3) comprising:
a) an optical housing ([0041] discloses: 74, housing) able to hold one or more optical lens systems ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens; Figure 3 depicts: 74, housing, holding 52, objective lens), the optical housing having a front end (left hand side of 74 housing, see Figure 3) able to receive light from an object ([0043] discloses: 84, optical radiation, from a distant object; Figure 3 depicts: left hand side of 74, housing receiving 84, optical radiation) and a back end (right hand side of 74 housing, see Figure 3);
b) a front objective lens system ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens) positioned within the optical housing able to form an aerial image of the object ([0043] discloses: 84, optical radiation is focused by 52, objective lens, to form an intermediate, real image at a plane substantially coincident with 54, stop; thus considered an aerial image of the object);
c) a rear focusing system ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens) positioned behind the front objective lens system (Figure 3 depicts: 56, collimating lens, positioned to the right of 52, objective lens, considered behind 52, objective lens), wherein the rear focusing system has a focal length ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, produces a collimated beam; thus, has a focal length) and is positioned within the optical housing so as to be able to focus the aerial image ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, receives 102, diverging optical radiation from the intermediate real image formed by 52, objective lens and produces 136, collimated beam; thus 56, collimated beam is positioned to focus the intermediate real image at infinity, thereby transmitting substantially parallel rays corresponding to the claimed infinity beam) and transmit an infinity beam to a rear imaging system ([0041] discloses: 62, focusing lens group; Figure 4 depicts: 56, collimating lens, transmitting substantially collimated light, an infinity beam, to 62, focusing lens group, that is considered the ream imaging system); and
d) the rear imaging system positioned within the optical housing behind the rear focusing system (Figure 3 depicts: 62, focusing lens group, positioned to the right of 56, collimating lens, considered behind 56, collimating lens), wherein the rear imaging system is able to focus the infinity beam onto a camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device (Figure 3 depicts: light from 62, focusing lens group, focused onto 86, detector plane).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Caldwell (US 8,903,232 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system, wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system. Tocci and Caldwell are related because both disclose optical systems.
Caldwell teaches a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment, arranged on the image side of the objective lens to reduce the focal length; thus considered a minifying lens system), wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment is particularly suitable for adapting objected lenses designed with a relatively large working distance to cameras having a relatively small working distance; therefore making a smaller working distance would necessarily move the image closer to the front of the lens system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Caldwell and provide a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system, wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system. Doing so would allow for reduced focal length and shorten the optical path, thereby moving the intermediate image closer to the objective lens and providing a more compact imaging system.
Regarding claim 3, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 2, where the modified aerial image is smaller than if the minifying lens was not used (Caldwell: Col. 5 line 57 teaches: M, magnification, of 0.64x; therefore the aerial image would be larger before use of the optical attachment of Caldwell; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Blazquez-Sanchez (US 2019/0151997 A1) hereinafter Sanchez
Regarding claim 4, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system. Tocci and Sanchez are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sanchez teaches a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system ([0023] teaches: 211, 212, movable lenses, to adjust the focal diameter and/or focal position; thus considered to alter the focal length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Sanchez and provide a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system. Doing so would allow for adjustment of the focal characteristics of the collimating system, thereby allowing the system to maintain or selectively vary the desired collimated output for different imaging conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frazier (US 2009/0168163 A1) in view of Rowe et al. (US 9,635,223).
Regarding claim 5, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose an optical system further comprising a frontal corrector lens system positioned within the optical housing in front of the front objective lens system. Tocci and Frazier are related because both disclose optical systems.
Frazier teaches an optical system further comprising a frontal corrector lens system ([0085] teaches:1280, Aspheron type attachment to correct linear distortion; therefore considered a frontal corrector system) in front of the front objective lens system (Figure 2 depicts: 1280, Aspheron type attachment, in front of the front objective lens system, the left side of Figure 2). Tocci and Rowe are related because both disclose optical systems.
Rowe teaches an optical system with the frontal corrector lens system positioned within the optical housing (Col. 11 lines 35-26 teach: corrector plate positioned within the housing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Frazier and Rowe and provide an optical system further comprising a frontal corrector lens system positioned within the optical housing in front of the front objective lens system. Doing so would allow for correction of the optical distortion while integrating and protecting the corrective element within the housing, thereby improving image quality and providing a compact, self-contained optical assembly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Frazier (US 2009/0168163 A1) in view of Rowe et al. (US 9,635,223), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Moskovich (6,417,971 B1)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 5.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the frontal corrector lens system has a focal length of 100 mm or more and is able to decrease system distortion by c.5% or more. Tocci and Moskovich are related because both disclose optical systems.
Moskovich teaches a system wherein the frontal corrector lens system has a focal length of 100 mm or more (Table 6 teaches: corrector focal lengths of 402 mm, 291 mm…which falls within the claimed range). The modified Tochi fails to disclose wherein the frontal corrector lens is able to decrease system distortion by c.5% or more. However, optimizing system distortion would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would only involve routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand Moskovich discusses in Col. 9 , distortion of less than about 2.5% throughout the zoom range, and discusses that the corrector lens is specifically used to corrected residual distortion and that the degree of distortion correction may be controlled to achieve improved system performance and establishes the system distortion value as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to wherein the frontal corrector lens is able to decrease system distortion by c.5% or more since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tao et al. (US 2020/0233207 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose an optical system wherein the optical housing has a length of 200 mm or less. Tocci and Tao are related because both disclose optical systems.
Tao teaches an optical system wherein the optical housing has a length of 200 mm or less ([0035] teaches: length of system less than 184 mm, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Tao and provide an optical system wherein the optical housing has a length of 200 mm or less. Doing so would allow for reduction of the size and overall optical path length of the imaging assembly, thereby providing a more compact and readily integrated optical system.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Margolis (US 10,935,753, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras. Tocci and Margolis are related because both disclose optical systems.
Margolis teaches a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras (Claim 10 teaches: an optical imaging system that is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm band 35 mm cameras).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Margolis and provide a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras. Doing so would permit the use of the optical system with the cameras having different conventional image formats, thereby increasing the compatibility and versatility of the imaging system.
Regarding claim 9, Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras. Tocci and Margolis are related because both disclose optical systems.
Margolis teaches a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras (Figure 15 shows an optical imaging system in an embodiment of the present invention attached to the front of a professional cinematography camera).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Margolis and provide a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras. Doing so would permit the optical system to be used for motion-picture imaging, thereby increasing the range of photographic applications and compatibility of the imaging system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809).
Regarding claim 10, Tocci discloses a modular optical imaging system (Figure 3) comprising:
a) an optical housing ([0041] discloses: 74, housing) able to hold one or more optical lens systems ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens; Figure 3 depicts: 74, housing, holding 52, objective lens), the optical housing having a front end (left hand side of 74 housing, see Figure 3), wherein the front objective lens system is able to form an aerial image of an object ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens; [0043] discloses: 84, optical radiation is focused by 52, objective lens, to form an intermediate, real image at a plane substantially coincident with 54, stop; thus considered an aerial image of the object);
b) a rear focusing system ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens) positioned within the optical housing (Figure 3 depicts: 56, collimating lens, positioned within 74, housing), wherein the rear focusing system has a focal length ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, produces a collimated beam; thus, has a focal length) so as to be able to focus the aerial image ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, receives 102, diverging optical radiation from the intermediate real image formed by 52, objective lens and produces 136, collimated beam; thus 56, collimated beam is positioned to focus the intermediate real image at infinity, thereby transmitting substantially parallel rays corresponding to the claimed infinity beam) and transmit an infinity beam to a rear imaging system ([0041] discloses: 62, focusing lens group; Figure 4 depicts: 56, collimating lens, transmitting substantially collimated light, an infinity beam, to 62, focusing lens group, that is considered the ream imaging system); and
d) the rear imaging system positioned within the optical housing behind the rear focusing system (Figure 3 depicts: 62, focusing lens group, positioned to the right of 56, collimating lens, considered behind 56, collimating lens), wherein the rear imaging system is able to focus the infinity beam onto a camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device (Figure 3 depicts: light from 62, focusing lens group, focused onto 86, detector plane).
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical housing having a front end able to attach to a front lens system having a front objective lens system and focusing when the optical housing is attached to the front lens system. Tocci and Griffith are related because both disclose optical systems.
Griffith teaches a system wherein the optical housing having a front end able to attach to a front lens system having a front objective lens system (Figure 2 depicts: 50, optical adapter having an adapter housing with 52, first mounting member for attachment to 20, lens barrel or directly to the mounting structure of 22, objective lens system, see Col. 3 lines 47-50; therefore consider having a front end able to attach to a front lens systems having a front objective lens system) and focusing when the optical housing is attached to the front lens system (Col. 6 lines 1-40 teach: the image formed by the objective lens system is the object viewed by the attachment and it is located inside the lens attachment optical system; the attachment includes 120 and 130 power lens units that act on the image forming beam and reconverge the light toward the image plane; thus, the attachment optics operate on/focus the image produced by 22, objective lens system when the adapter is in the housing is attached to the front lens system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Griffith and provide a system wherein the optical housing having a front end able to attach to a front lens system having a front objective lens system and focusing when the optical housing is attached to the front lens system. Doing so would allow for different front objective lens systems to be removably coupled to the housing while allowing the internal focusing optics to operate on the image produced by the attached objective, thereby increasing the versatility and compatibility of the optical imaging system.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Caldwell (US 8,903,232 B1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system, wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system, where the modified aerial image is formed closer to the front end than the aerial image formed when the minifying lens is not used. Tocci and Caldwell are related because both disclose optical systems.
Caldwell teaches a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment, arranged on the image side of the objective lens to reduce the focal length; thus considered a minifying lens system), wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment is particularly suitable for adapting objected lenses designed with a relatively large working distance to cameras having a relatively small working distance; therefore making a smaller working distance would necessarily move the image closer to the front of the lens system), where the modified aerial image is formed closer to the front end than the aerial image formed when the minifying lens is not used (Col. 6 lines 25-35 teach: 108, image plane is located approximately 74.8 mm from the 80 mm, 101 objective lens and that the resulting lens system has a vertex length 6.567 mm shorter than 101, objective lens alone with the same plane parallel plate; thus, use of the focal reducing attachment causes the resulting image, to be formed closer toward the objective/front end than the corresponding image formed without the focal-reducing attachment, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Caldwell and provide a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system, wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system, where the modified aerial image is formed closer to the front end than the aerial image formed when the minifying lens is not used. Doing so would allow for reduced focal length and shorten the optical path, thereby moving the intermediate image closer to the objective lens and providing a more compact imaging system.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Tocci discloses the optical imaging system of claim 10, where the modified aerial image is smaller than if the minifying lens was not used (Caldwell: Col. 5 line 57 teaches: M, magnification, of 0.64x; therefore the aerial image would be larger before use of the optical attachment of Caldwell; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 2, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Blazquez-Sanchez (US 2019/0151997 A1) hereinafter Sanchez.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system. Tocci and Sanchez are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sanchez teaches a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system ([0023] teaches: 211, 212, movable lenses, to adjust the focal diameter and/or focal position; thus considered to alter the focal length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Sanchez and provide a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises one or more moveable or deformable lens systems able to alter the focal length of the rear focusing system. Doing so would allow for adjustment of the focal characteristics of the collimating system, thereby allowing the system to maintain or selectively vary the desired collimated output for different imaging conditions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0123223 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises a first rear positive lens system, a second rear positive lens system, and a first rear negative lens system. Tocci and Lin are related because both disclose optical system.
Lin teaches a system (Figure 1A) wherein the rear focusing system comprises a first rear positive lens system ([0016] teaches: 11, negative powered first lens), a second rear positive lens system ([0016] teaches: 13, positive powered third lens), and a first rear negative lens system ([0017] teaches: 14, negative powered fourth lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Lin and provide a system wherein the rear focusing system comprises a first rear positive lens system, a second rear positive lens system, and a first rear negative lens system. Doing so would allow for controlled collimation while correcting optical aberrations and maintaining a compact optical assembly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Margolis (US 10,935,753).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras. Tocci and Margolis are related because both disclose optical systems.
Margolis teaches a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras (Claim 10 teaches: an optical imaging system that is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm band 35 mm cameras).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Margolis and provide a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with 23 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm cameras. Doing so would permit the use of the optical system with the cameras having different conventional image formats, thereby increasing the compatibility and versatility of the imaging system.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras. Tocci and Margolis are related because both disclose optical systems.
Margolis teaches a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras (Figure 15 shows an optical imaging system in an embodiment of the present invention attached to the front of a professional cinematography camera).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Margolis and provide a system wherein the optical imaging system is able to be integrated with cinematographic cameras. Doing so would permit the optical system to be used for motion-picture imaging, thereby increasing the range of photographic applications and compatibility of the imaging system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809), as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Luther et al. (US 2006/0077535 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Tocci discloses the modular optical imaging system of claim 10.
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device is able to be interchanged with a different camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device. Tocci and Luther are related because both disclose optical systems.
Luther teaches a system wherein the camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device is able to be interchanged with a different camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device (in at least abstract teaches: the camera adapter is suitable for different cameras and facilitates exchange of cameras).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tocci in view of Luther and provide a system wherein the camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device is able to be interchanged with a different camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device. Doing so would allow for accommodation of different imaging devices, thereby increasing the versatility and compatibility of the optical imaging system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tocci (US 2003/0007254 A1) in view of Griffith (US 5,726,809) in view of Caldwell (US 8,903,232 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Tocci discloses a modular optical imaging system Figure 3) comprising:
a) an optical housing ([0041] discloses: 74, housing) able to hold one or more optical lens systems ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens; Figure 3 depicts: 74, housing, holding 52, objective lens), the optical housing having a front end (left hand side of 74 housing, see Figure 3) and having a front objective lens system ([0041] discloses: 52, objective lens), wherein the front objective lens system is able to form an aerial image of an object ([0043] discloses: 84, optical radiation is focused by 52, objective lens, to form an intermediate, real image at a plane substantially coincident with 54, stop; thus considered an aerial image of the object);
b) a rear focusing system ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens) positioned within the optical housing (Figure 3 depicts: 56, collimating lens, positioned within 74, housing), wherein the rear focusing system has a focal length ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, produces a collimated beam; thus, has a focal length) so as to be able to focus the aerial image ([0051] discloses: 56, collimating lens, receives 102, diverging optical radiation from the intermediate real image formed by 52, objective lens and produces 136, collimated beam; thus 56, collimated beam is positioned to focus the intermediate real image at infinity, thereby transmitting substantially parallel rays corresponding to the claimed infinity beam) and transmit an infinity beam to a rear imaging system ([0041] discloses: 62, focusing lens group; Figure 4 depicts: 56, collimating lens, transmitting substantially collimated light, an infinity beam, to 62, focusing lens group, that is considered the ream imaging system);
d) the rear imaging system positioned within the optical housing behind the rear focusing system (Figure 3 depicts: 62, focusing lens group, positioned to the right of 56, collimating lens, considered behind 56, collimating lens), wherein the rear imaging system is able to focus the infinity beam onto a camera, sensor, further imaging system, or microscope device (Figure 3 depicts: light from 62, focusing lens group, focused onto 86, detector plane).
Tocci fails to disclose a system wherein the optical housing having a front end able to attach to a front lens system having a front objective lens system and focusing when the optical housing is attached to the front lens system and a minifying lens system positioned within the optical housing in front of the rear focusing system, wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image in conjunction with the front objective lens system, where the modified aerial image is formed closer to the front end than the aerial image formed when the minifying lens is not used. Tocci and Griffith are related because both disclose optical systems.
Griffith teaches a system wherein the optical housing having a front end able to attach to a front lens system having a front objective lens system (Figure 2 depicts: 50, optical adapter having an adapter housing with 52, first mounting member for attachment to 20, lens barrel or directly to the mounting structure of 22, objective lens system, see Col. 3 lines 47-50; therefore consider having a front end able to attach to a front lens systems having a front objective lens system) and focusing when the optical housing is attached to the front lens system (Col. 6 lines 1-40 teach: the image formed by the objective lens system is the object viewed by the attachment and it is located inside the lens attachment optical system; the attachment includes 120 and 130 power lens units that act on the image forming beam and reconverge the light toward the image plane; thus, the attachment optics operate on/focus the image produced by 22, objective lens system when the adapter is in the housing is attached to the front lens system). Tocci and Caldwell are related because both disclose optical systems.
Caldwell teaches a system further comprising a minifying lens system positioned between the front objective lens system and the rear focusing system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment, arranged on the image side of the objective lens to reduce the focal length; thus considered a minifying lens system), wherein the minifying lens system is able to produce a modified aerial image that is closer to the front objective lens system (in at least abstract teaches: optical attachment is particularly suitable for adapting objected lenses designed with a relatively large working distance to cameras having a relatively small working distance; therefore making a smaller working distance would necessarily move the image closer to the front of the lens system), where the modified aerial image is formed closer to the front end than the aerial image formed when the minifying lens is not used (Col. 6 lines 25-35 teach: 108, image plane is located approximately 74.8 mm from the 80 mm, 101 objective lens and that the resulting lens system has a vertex length 6.567 mm shorter than 101, objective lens alone with the same plane parallel plate; thus, use of the focal reducing attachment causes the resulting image, to be formed closer
Compact Prosecution
A potential amendment to overcome the rejection of record, if supported by the specification, may be provided to recite the specific relationship between the front objective lens system and the minifying/compressor lens system, including that the compressor lens both reduces the size of the aerial image and moves the aerial image toward the objective, together with the disclosed focal-length and/or spacing relationships. The prior art located during examination does not teach this more specific optical configuration in combination with the clamed system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rowe et al. (US 2016/0299331 A1) and Zhao et al. (US 2014/0300959 A1) both disclose relevant lens systems but fails to disclose the correct aerial image placement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
