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 .
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US 2018/0188493 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 09/25/2024, hereinafter, “Huang”) in view of Jung et al. US 2017/0269342 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 09/25/2024, hereinafter, “Jung”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Huang discloses an optical imaging lens including at least six optical elements (Huang discloses an image picking-up system, a fifth embodiment of which is shown in at least Fig. 9 with seven lenses), the lens comprising:
a first optical element of the at least six optical elements (Fig. 9, first lens element 510), the first optical element having an object-side surface and an image-side surface (refer to Fig. 9 depicting first lens element 510 with an object-side surface and an image-side surface, and refer to Table 9 providing parameters of the fifth embodiment, where lens 510 has two radiuses of curvature, indicating it has an object-side surface and an image-side surface), the object-side surface of the first optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has a concave curvature in the paraxial region of the object side, and refer to Table 9 where first lens 510 has a first surface 1 that has a negative radius of curvature R = -4.582, indicating a concave paraxial region, and from Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the paraxial region on the object side), the image-side surface of the first optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has a convex curvature in the paraxial region of the image side, and refer to Table 9 where first lens 510 has a second surface 2 that has a negative radius of curvature R = -5.611, indicating a convex central region, and from Fig. 9 first lens element 510 has concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the paraxial region on the image side);
a second optical element of the at least six optical elements (Fig. 9, second lens element 520), the second optical element being arranged adjacent to the image-side surface of the first optical element (Fig. 9, second lens 520 is adjacent to image side surface of first lens element 510), an image-side surface of the second optical element having a concave curvature in a central region thereof and a convex curvature in an outer region thereof surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, second lens element 520 has an image side surface that is concave in a paraxial region, and second lens element 520 has a convex curvature in a region surrounding the paraxial region on the image side surface, see also Table 9); and
a last optical element of the at least six optical elements (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570 is the last optical element with refractive power), the last optical element having an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see Fig. 9 and refer to Table 9, seventh lens element 570 has surfaces on object and image sides), the object-side surface of the last optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570, i.e., the last lens, has a convex surface in a paraxial region, and a concave surface in a region surrounding the paraxial region on the object side), and the image-side surface of the last optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570 has an image side surface that is concave in a paraxial region, and a convex curvature surrounding the paraxial region on the image side, refer also to Table 9).
Huang, in the fifth embodiment, does not disclose the optical imaging lens having a total field of view value between 110° and 140° (Huang fifth embodiment has HFOV of 40.3 degrees, see Table 9, therefore the fifth embodiment has a field of view of 80.6 degrees) nor does Huang disclose a ratio of a total track length to an image footprint diameter between 0.85 and 0.95 (Huang, in the fifth embodiment, discloses an image height, equivalent to an image footprint diameter, of 3.20 in Fig. 10, and a total track length for the fifth embodiment is 6.20, see Table 9, therefore the fifth embodiment has a ratio of 1.94), nor does Huang explicitly disclose a distortion profile creating a resolution curve (Huang, in Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24, discloses distortion curves for the embodiments of the image capturing device disclosed therein, but does not explicitly teach a relationship between resolution and distortion), and Huang does not teach a resolution curve being a mathematical derivative of a position curve of an image height in an image plane of the lens in mm as a function of the field of view in degrees, the resolution curve being in mm per degree as a function of the field of view in degrees and having a maximum resolution value, a central resolution value, and an edge resolution value, a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the central resolution value being higher than 1.75, and a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the edge resolution value being higher than 1.75.
In the same field of invention, Jung teaches a super wide-angle lens system with first to sixth lenses that satisfies the field of view (FOV) condition 100 degrees < FOV < 160 degrees (pars. [0064-65] thereof) with a first embodiment of the disclosed device that has FOV = 143.90 degrees as disclosed in Table 7 thereof. Jung also discloses the super wide-angle lens satisfies a condition of 0.7 < TTL/IH < 1.0, where TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the image plane and IH is an image height (pars. [0066-67]), with a first embodiment thereof having TTL/IH = 0.92 as disclosed in Table 8 thereof, within the claimed range of 0.85 to 0.95.
Jung discloses an imaging system with a field of view of 143.90 degrees, and in claim 1 thereof recites a condition for the super wide-angle lens disclosed therein of 100 degrees < FOV < 160 degrees. The value of FOV = 143.90 degrees for the first embodiment of Jung is within 3% of the claimed upper value of 140 degrees for the imaging system of the instant invention.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In this case, the range of FOV claimed by Jung overlaps the range of FOV in the instant invention. Field of view is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the field of view of an imaging system influences the imaging range of the system, as taught by Jung at least in par. [0006] and by Huang at par. [0066]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the field of view of a wide-angle imaging system because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting the field of view is a common activity in imaging system design and photography.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Jung to the disclosure of Huang to have reduced the total track length of the fifth embodiment of Huang relative to the size of the image plane, to produce an imaging system having a value of TTL/IH = 0.92 which would be small enough to fit in a mobile device while also serving as a wide angle lens with FOV = 143.90 (Jung, par. [0068]).
As to the limitations regarding a distortion profile creating a resolution curve, the resolution curve being a mathematical derivative of a position curve of an image height in an image plane of the lens in mm as a function of the field of view in degrees, the resolution curve being in mm per degree as a function of the field of view in degrees and having a maximum resolution value, a central resolution value, and an edge resolution value, a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the central resolution value being higher than 1.75, and a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the edge resolution value being higher than 1.75, Huang is silent.
However, it is known in the art that an imaging lens system produces a final image with particular characteristics, such as distortion and resolution curves, that depend on the number of optical elements in the system and the shape, position, and material of each optical element, and the claimed structure and the prior art structures disclosed by Huang in view of Jung are mapped to the claimed structures, where the number of lenses, the surface shapes, and the other structural details claimed in the instant application are disclosed by the prior art. The language of the claim is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited references of Huang and Jung. Examiner notes that the instant application makes no claims directed to the surface curvatures of the third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, nor are there any claims directed to the spacing, thicknesses, or materials of these lens elements, and in fact the claims are directed specifically to a first lens element, a second lens element, and a last lens element, and as such even the total number of refractive optical elements is not explicitly claimed.
Therefore, the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements that lead to the claimed resolution ratios are not clear in the claim. While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art references can also produce a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed by appropriate choice of parameters that are not currently claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to modify these various lens features to arrive at a particular resolution curve exhibiting the claimed ratios during the design process and would reasonably look to the prior art references cited to design an optical imaging lens with the recited resolution characteristics, because “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be free to select parameters as a matter of design choice and be able to select values for the unclaimed parameters and unspecified details of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, as well as all other details not claimed, to achieve the ratios of resolution recited in the claims.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and Huang further discloses wherein the optical imaging lens has six optical elements including the first, second, and last optical elements (see Huang Fig. 9 depicting fifth embodiment, and refer to Table 9 of Huang for parameters of fifth embodiment, which has seven optical elements 510 through 570, and see Jung Fig. 1 depicting a first embodiment, and refer to Table 1 of Jung for parameters of first embodiment, which has six optical elements I through VI).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 2, and Huang further discloses wherein the second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, second lens element 520 has Abbe number of 55.9), a third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, third lens element 530 has Abbe number of 55.9), a fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Huang Table 9, fourth lens element 540 has Abbe number of 23.5), a fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, fifth lens element 550 has Abbe number of 56.8).
Huang does not teach the first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40, and Huang does not teach the last optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40.
Jung in the first embodiment teaches in Table 1 the first lens I, second lens II, third lens III and fifth lens V all have an Abbe number of 56.09278 (i.e., larger than 40), a fourth lens IV with Abbe number 21.47439 (i.e., smaller than 40), and a sixth lens VI with Abbe number 23.51650 (i.e., smaller than 40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fifth embodiment of Huang according to the disclosed first embodiment of Jung and used lens materials with Abbe number greater than 40 for the first lens 510 and an Abbe number smaller than 40 for the last lens 570 to reduce chromatic aberration in the final image (Jung, par. [0077]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 2, and both Huang and Jung further disclose wherein the first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, first lens element 510 has focal length of -51.14 and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens I has a focal length of -1.9180), the second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, second lens element 520 has focal length of 17.10, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens II has a focal length of 2.5655), a third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, third lens element 530 has focal length 2.96, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens III has a focal length of 2.3060), a fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, fourth lens element 540 has focal length -4.11, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens IV has a focal length of -3.2399), a fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, fifth lens element 550 has focal length of 59.96, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens V has a focal length of 1.4375) and the last optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, seventh lens element 570 has focal length of -2.14, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens VI has a focal length of -2.5898).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and both Huang and Jung further disclose wherein all optical elements of the optical imaging lens, including the first, second, and last optical elements, are made of plastic material (refer to Huang Table 9, listing plastic as material for lens elements 510 through 570, and refer to Jung par. [0062] where all of the first to sixth lenses may include plastic).
Regarding independent claim 7, Huang discloses an optical imaging lens including at least six optical elements (Huang discloses an image picking-up system, a fifth embodiment of which is shown in at least Fig. 9 with seven lenses), the lens comprising:
a first optical element of the at least six optical elements (Fig. 9, first lens element 510), the first optical element having an object-side surface and an image-side surface (refer to Fig. 9 depicting first lens element 510 with an object-side surface and an image-side surface, and refer to Table 9 providing parameters of the fifth embodiment, where lens 510 has two radiuses of curvature, indicating it has an object-side surface and an image-side surface), the object-side surface of the first optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has a concave curvature in the paraxial region of the object side, and refer to Table 9 where first lens 510 has a first surface 1 that has a negative radius of curvature R = -4.582, indicating a concave paraxial region, and from Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the paraxial region on the object side), the image-side surface of the first optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, first lens element 510 has a convex curvature in the paraxial region of the image side, and refer to Table 9 where first lens 510 has a second surface 2 that has a negative radius of curvature R = -5.611, indicating a convex central region, and from Fig. 9 first lens element 510 has concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the paraxial region on the image side); and
a last optical element of the at least six optical elements (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570 is the last optical element with refractive power), the last optical element having an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see Fig. 9 and refer to Table 9, seventh lens element 570 has surfaces on object and image sides), the object-side surface of the last optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570, i.e., the last lens, has a convex surface in a paraxial region, and a concave surface in a region surrounding the paraxial region on the object side), and the image-side surface of the last optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 9, seventh lens element 570 has an image side surface that is concave in a paraxial region, and a convex curvature surrounding the paraxial region on the image side, refer also to Table 9).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the optical imaging lens system having a total field of view value between 110° and 140°, nor does Huang disclose a distortion profile creating a resolution curve (Huang, in Figs. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 discloses distortion curves for the embodiments of the image capturing device disclosed therein, but does not explicitly teach a relationship between resolution and distortion), the resolution curve being a mathematical derivative of a position curve of an image height in an image plane of the lens in mm as a function of the field of view in degrees, the resolution curve being in mm per degree as a function of the field of view in degrees and having a maximum resolution value, a central resolution value, and an edge resolution value, a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the central resolution value being higher than 1.75, and a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the edge resolution value being higher than 1.75.
In the same field of invention, Jung teaches a super wide-angle lens system with first to sixth lenses that satisfies the field of view (FOV) condition 100 degrees < FOV < 160 degrees (pars. [0064-65] thereof) with a first embodiment of the disclosed device that has FOV = 143.90 degrees as disclosed in Table 7 thereof.
Jung discloses an imaging system with a field of view of 143.90 degrees, and in claim 1 thereof recites a condition for the super wide-angle lens disclosed therein of 100 degrees < FOV < 160 degrees. The value of FOV = 143.90 degrees for the first embodiment of Jung is within less than 3% of the claimed upper value of 140 degrees for the imaging system of the instant invention.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See MPEP 2144.05(I). In this case, the range of FOV claimed by Jung overlaps the range of FOV in the instant invention. Field of view is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the field of view of an imaging system influences the imaging range of the system, as taught by Jung at least at par. [0006] and Huang at par. [0066]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the field of view of a wide-angle imaging system because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting the field of view is a common activity in imaging system design and photography.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Jung to the disclosure of Huang to produce an imaging system having a FOV = 143.90 degrees (Jung, par. [0068]).
However, it is known in the art that an imaging lens system produces a final image with particular characteristics, such as distortion and resolution curves, that depend on the number of optical elements in the system and the shape, position, and material of each optical element, and the claimed structure and the prior art structures disclosed by Huang in view of Jung are mapped to the claimed structures, where the number of lenses, the surface shapes, and the other structural details claimed in the instant application are disclosed by the prior art. The language of the claim is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited references of Huang and Jung. Examiner notes that the instant application makes no claims directed to the surface curvatures of the third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, nor are there any claims directed to the spacing, thicknesses, or materials of these lens elements, and in fact the claims are directed specifically to a first lens element, a second lens element, and a last lens element, and as such even the total number of refractive optical elements is not explicitly claimed.
Therefore, the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements that lead to the claimed resolution ratios are not clear in the claim. While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art references can also produce a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed by appropriate choice of parameters that are not currently claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to modify these various lens features to arrive at a particular resolution curve exhibiting the claimed ratios during the design process and would reasonably look to the prior art references cited to design an optical imaging lens with the recited resolution characteristics, because “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be free to select parameters as a matter of design choice and be able to select values for the unclaimed parameters and unspecified details of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, as well as all other details not claimed, to achieve the ratios of resolution recited in the claims.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 7, and both Huang and Jung further disclose wherein the optical imaging lens has six optical elements including the first and last optical elements (see Huang Fig. 9 depicting fifth embodiment, and refer to Table 9 of Huang for parameters of fifth embodiment, which has seven optical elements 510 through 570, and see Jung Fig. 1 depicting a first embodiment, and refer to Table 1 of Jung for parameters of first embodiment, which has six optical elements I through VI).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 8, and Huang further discloses a second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, second lens element 520 has Abbe number of 55.9), a third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, third lens element 530 has Abbe number of 55.9), a fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Huang Table 9, fourth lens element 540 has Abbe number of 23.5), a fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Huang Table 9, fifth lens element 550 has Abbe number of 56.8).
Huang does not teach the first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40, and Huang does not teach the last optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40.
Jung in the first embodiment teaches in Table 1 the first lens I, second lens II, third lens III and fifth lens V all have an Abbe number of 56.09278 (i.e., larger than 40), a fourth lens IV with Abbe number 21.47439 (i.e., smaller than 40), and a sixth lens VI with Abbe number 23.51650 (i.e., smaller than 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fifth embodiment of Huang according to the disclosed first embodiment of Jung and used lens materials with Abbe number greater than 40 for the first lens 510 and an Abbe number smaller than 40 for the last lens 570 to reduce chromatic aberration in the final image (Jung, par. [0077]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 8, and both Huang and Jung further disclose wherein the first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, first lens element 510 has focal length of -51.14 and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens I has a focal length of -1.9180), the second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, second lens element 520 has focal length of 17.10, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens II has a focal length of 2.5655), a third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, third lens element 530 has focal length 2.96, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens III has a focal length of 2.3060), a fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, fourth lens element 540 has focal length -4.11, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens IV has a focal length of -3.2399), a fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, fifth lens element 550 has focal length of 59.96, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens V has a focal length of 1.4375) and the last optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Huang Table 9, seventh lens element 570 has focal length of -2.14, and the parameters in Jung Table 1 show lens VI has a focal length of -2.5898).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 7, and both Huang and Jung further disclose wherein all optical elements of the optical imaging lens, including the first and last optical elements, are made of plastic material (refer to Huang Table 9, listing plastic as material for lens elements 510 through 570, and refer to Jung par. [0062] where all of the first to sixth lenses may include plastic).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Jung as applied to independent claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hou et al. US 2016/0018626 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 09/25/2024, hereinafter, “Hou”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 1, but these prior art references are silent as to the limitation of at least one optical element of the optical imaging lens has at least one non-rotationally symmetric freeform surface.
In the same field of invention, Hou teaches an optical zoom lens system (Fig. 1, optical system 100, par. [0060] thereof) with one or more pairs of freeform lenses (par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hou to the disclosure of Huang to have at least one lens with a freeform surface so as to contribute to reduction of chromatic aberration in the final image (Hou, par. [0118]) and produce an optical system with optical zoom capability in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the Huang-Jung combination teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 7, but these prior art references are silent as to the limitation of at least one optical element of the optical imaging lens has at least one non-rotationally symmetric freeform surface.
In the same field of invention, Hou teaches an optical zoom lens system (Fig. 1, optical system 100, par. [0060] thereof) with one or more pairs of freeform lenses (par. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hou to the disclosure of Huang to have at least one lens with a freeform surface so as to contribute to reduction of chromatic aberration in the final image (Hou, par. [0118]) and produce an optical system with optical zoom capability in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Regarding independent claim 13, Jung discloses an optical imaging lens comprising at least six optical elements (see at least Fig. 1, depicting a first embodiment of a super wide-angle lens system with six lenses I through VI, and refer to Table 1, par. [0083]), and a ratio of a total track length to an image footprint diameter between 0.85 and 0.95 (refer to Table 8, where first embodiment has TTL/IH = 0.92, where TTL is a distance from the first surface of the first lens I to the image plane IP, and IH refers to an image height, equivalent to an image footprint diameter).
Jung does not specifically disclose the optical imaging lens having a total field of view value between 110° and 140°, nor does Jung disclose a distortion profile creating a resolution curve, the resolution curve being a mathematical derivative of a position curve of an image height in an image plane of the lens in m as a function of the field of view in degrees, the resolution curve being in um per degree as a function of the field of view in degrees and having a maximum resolution value, a central resolution value, and an edge resolution value, a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the central resolution value, measured in pm per degree, higher than 1.75, and a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the edge resolution value higher than 1.75.
However, Jung does disclose a super wide-angle lens system with first to sixth lenses that satisfies the field of view (FOV) condition 100 degrees < FOV < 160 degrees (pars. [0064-65]) with a first embodiment of the disclosed device that has FOV = 143.90 degrees as disclosed in Table 7. The value of FOV = 143.90 degrees for the first embodiment of Jung is within less than 3% of the claimed upper value of 140 degrees for the imaging system of the instant invention.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See MPEP 2144.05(I). In this case, the range of FOV claimed by Jung overlaps the range of FOV in the instant invention. Field of view is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the field of view of an imaging system influences the imaging range of the system, as taught by Jung at least par. [0006]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the field of view of a wide-angle imaging system because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting the field of view is a common activity in imaging system design and photography.
As to the limitation regarding a distortion profile creating a resolution curve, the resolution curve being a mathematical derivative of a position curve of an image height in an image plane of the lens in m as a function of the field of view in degrees, the resolution curve being in um per degree as a function of the field of view in degrees and having a maximum resolution value, a central resolution value, and an edge resolution value, a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the central resolution value, measured in pm per degree, higher than 1.75, and a ratio between the maximum resolution value and the edge resolution value higher than 1.75, Jung is silent.
However, it is known in the art that an imaging lens system produces a final image with particular characteristics, such as distortion and resolution curves, that depend on the number of optical elements in the system and the shape, position, and material of each optical element, and the claimed structure and the prior art structures disclosed by Jung are mapped to the claimed structures, where the number of lenses, the surface shapes, and the other structural details claimed in the instant application are disclosed by the prior art. The language of the claim is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference Jung. Examiner notes that the instant application makes no claims directed to the surface curvatures of the third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, nor are there any claims directed to the spacing, thicknesses, or materials of these lens elements, and in fact the claims are directed specifically to a first lens element, a second lens element, and a last lens element, and as such even the total number of refractive optical elements is not explicitly claimed.
Therefore, the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements that lead to the claimed resolution ratios are not clear in the claim. While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art references can also produce a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed by appropriate choice of parameters that are not currently claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to modify these various lens features to arrive at a particular resolution curve exhibiting the claimed ratios during the design process and would reasonably look to the prior art reference Jung to design an optical imaging lens with the recited resolution characteristics, because “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be free to select parameters as a matter of design choice and be able to select values for the unclaimed parameters and unspecified details of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements, as well as all other details not claimed, to achieve the ratios of resolution recited in the claims.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Jung teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 13, wherein the optical imaging lens has six optical elements (see at least Jung Fig. 1 depicting the first embodiment with six lenses, lens I through lens VI, and refer to Table 1).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Jung teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 14, wherein a first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, lens I has Abbe number Vd of 56.09278), a second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, lens II has Abbe number Vd of 56.09278), a third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, lens III has Abbe number Vd of 56.09278), a fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, lens IV has Abbe number Vd of 21.47439), a fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, lens V has an Abbe number Vd of 56.09278) and a sixth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, lens VI has an Abbe number Vd of 23.51650).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Jung teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 14, wherein a first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1 which provides parameters for first embodiment of Jung super wide-angle lens system, and from the data provided in Table 1, lens I has a focal length of -1.9180), a second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1, lens II has a focal length of 2.5655), a third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1, lens III has focal length of 2.3060), a fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1, lens IV has a focal length of -3.2399), a fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1, lens V has a focal length of 1.4375) and a sixth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (refer to Abstract and Table 1, lens VI has a focal length of -2.5898).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Jung teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 13, wherein the at least six optical elements are all made of plastic material (par. [0062], all of the first to sixth lenses may include plastic).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Hou.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Jung teaches the optical imaging lens of claim 13, but does not teach wherein at least one of the plurality of optical elements has at least one non-rotationally symmetric freeform surface.
In the same field of invention, Hou teaches an optical zoom lens system (Fig. 1, optical system 100, par. [0060] thereof) with one or more pairs of freeform lenses (par. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hou to the disclosure of Jung to have at least one lens with a freeform surface so as to contribute to reduction of chromatic aberration in the final image (Hou, par. [0118]) and produce an optical system with optical zoom capability in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872