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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, it is believed “light emitting unit” should read –light emitting units-- to more clearly call back to the two light emitting units previously mentioned in the claim.
In claim 3, line 2, “is arranged to be aplanatic” should read –is aplanatic--.
Claim 12, line 15, it is believed “light emitting unit” should read –light emitting units-- to more clearly call back to the two light emitting units previously mentioned in the claim.
Claim 13, line 15, it is believed “light emitting unit” should read –light emitting units-- to more clearly call back to the two light emitting units previously mentioned in the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 12 and 13, the examiner is unclear what is meant by “incidence-side lens group” and “emission-side lens group”. Specifically the use of the word “group”. In ([0015]) applicant states “The incidence-side lens group 41 includes a single lens 41a having a positive refractive power. Similarly, the emission-side lens group 42 also includes a single lens 42a having a positive refractive power.” As such applicant appears to define each respective group as having a single lens 41a or 42a respectively. The word group is defined as “a number of people or things that are together or considered as a unit: a group of trees I’m meeting a group of friends for dinner.” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/group. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “group” in claims 1, 12 and 13 are used by the claim to mean “a lens,” while the accepted meaning is “two or more lenses.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Specifically applicant does not explicitly state that group will consist of one or more lenses. As applicant does provide examples where the emission-side lens group does contain two or more lenses. Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on instant claim 1.
As to claim 1, 12 and 13, the examiner is unclear how to interpret the position of “an incidence-side lens group which is arranged on a side on which a luminous flux emitted from the light distribution correction lens is incident”. Specifically the word incident is defined as “falling or striking on something” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incident. As such it would seem applicant is saying the incidence-side lens group is optically upstream from the light distribution correction lens. As the language states that the group is arranged “on a side” on which a luminous flux emitted which alone would be somewhat clear. However then the claim concludes with is incident, which implies an input surface to a lens as light emitting from a lens is not light that is incident on it. As such it remains unclear if the incidence-side lens group is optically upstream or downstream from the light distribution correction lens. In light of the instant disclosure, for examination purposes the examiner will interpret the claim such that the incidence-side lens group is optically downstream from the light distribution correction lens.
As to the limitation “an emission-side lens group which is arranged on a side on which the interference fringe is projected toward the object surface by emitting the luminous flux” in claims 1, 12 and 13, similar to the previous limitation the examiner is unclear how to structurally position the noted limitation in the optical system. The language “arranged on a side on which the interference fringe is projected” is entirely unclear, on a side of what specifically? In this case the examiner can only guess based on the disclosure that applicant is intending to position the emission-side lens group optically downstream from the incidence-side lens group. As such the claim will be interpreted in this configuration for examination which appears consistent with the instant figures.
The language “when a” renders the claim indefinite as it appears setup to provide a uncertain limitation. As the examiner is unclear when there would be a situation when the focal lengths are not satisfied. In other words similar to the phrase "for example", “when a” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested for simplicity that the word “when” simply be deleted from the claim so that is clear that the noted limitation is positively limiting
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1, 12 and 13, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose an interference fringe projection optical system comprising: wherein the light source includes two light emitting units that are positioned side by side on an incident side of the magnification optical system, the light distribution correction lens is arranged at a position at which a distance from the light distribution correction lens to the light emitting unit is smaller than a distance from the light distribution correction lens to the incidence-side lens group, and each of the incidence-side lens group and the emission-side lens group has positive refractive power, and when a distance from an emission-side principal point of the incidence-side lens group to an incidence-side principal point of the emission-side lens group is denoted by xd, xd < f1+f2 is satisfied in combination with the entirety of elements.
The closest prior art of Matsumoto (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0045508 A1) does disclose a large portion of the instant claims. However, Matsumoto fails to disclose the relationship xd < f1+f2. Further Matsumoto fails to disclose the use of three lens structures in the optical train (in the case of Matsumoto two lenses are used (22 and 23) in combination with birefringent/polarization plates (17/18).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights