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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 07/10/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13, and 15-17 are amended. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 19, 20, and 21 are added without the addition of new matter. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-21 are pending.
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, 3-5, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka US PGPub 2021/0041669 A1 (hereinafter, “Teraoka”) in view of Jung et al. US 2017/0269342 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 09/25/2024, hereinafter, “Jung”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Teraoka discloses an optical imaging lens including exactly six optical elements (Fig. 1 shows Embodiment 1 with exactly six lenses, abstract, par. [0007]), the lens comprising:
a first optical element having 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, 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. 1 depicts Embodiment 1 with first lens L1 having object-side surface with a concave curvature in the central region and a convex curvature on the image side, and L1 is shown to have a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region and an image-side surface with a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, refer also to Table 1 where surface R1 shows object-side surface of first lens L1 is concave and surface R2 is convex);
a second optical element arranged adjacent to the image-side surface of the first optical element, 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. 1, Embodiment, second lens L2 has 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, refer to Table 1, surfaces R3 and R4 of second lens L2);
a third optical element arranged adjacent to the image-side surface of the second optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has third lens L3, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3);
a fourth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the third optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has fourth lens L4, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3);
a fifth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the fourth optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has fifth lens L5, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3); and
a sixth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the fifth optical element and having an object-side surface and an image-side surface, the object-side surface of the sixth optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, and the image-side surface of the sixth optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 1, Embodiment has sixth lens L6 with object-side surface R11 having a convex curvature in a central region, see Table 1, and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, and the image-side surface R12 has a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, Table 1, par. [0105]), and
the optical imaging lens having a total field of view value between 110° and 140° (Table 3, Embodiment 1 has field of view 2w of 130.01°).
Teraoka does not disclose a ratio of a total track length to an image footprint diameter between 0.85 and 0.95 (TTL is a total optical length from the object side surface of the first lens L1 to the image plane of the camera lens along an optic axis, par. [0100], and in Table 3 TTL is given as 5.530 mm for Embodiment 1, and image height, par. [0102], is given in Table 3 as 2.619 mm, thus Embodiment 1 has a ratio of TTL to IH of 2.111, outside of the claimed range), and Teraoka does not 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 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, see Table 7). 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.
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 Teraoka to have reduced the total track length of the Embodiment 1 of Teraoka 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 (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, Teraoka 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 Teraoka 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 Teraoka. 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 sixth lens element.
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 selected parameters such that the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the choices of radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements such that these unclaimed parameters would lead to the claimed resolution ratios, to optimize aberrations present in the image produced by the lens system.
While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art reference 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 amended dependent claim 3, Teraoka in view of Jung (hereinafter, “modified Teraoka”) discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and Teraoka further discloses wherein the first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Teraoka Table 1, Embodiment 1 first lens L1 has Abbe number of 55.95), the third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 third lens L3 has Abbe number of 76.90), the fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fourth lens L4 has Abbe number of 19.24), the fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fifth lens L5 has Abbe number of 55.95) and the sixth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 sixth lens L6 has Abbe number of 22.48).
Teraoka does not disclose the second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, second lens L2 has Abbe number of 25.92).
Jung teaches an embodiment wherein the second lens has an Abbe number of 56.09 (see Jung Table 1, par. [0083]).
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 Teraoka and included a second lens with an Abbe number of 56.09, because Jung teaches a second lens with a high Abbe number contributes to reduced chromatic aberration in the image produced (Jung, par. [0077]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 4, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and Teraoka further discloses wherein the first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, the second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, the third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, the fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, the fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region and the sixth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Teraoka Embodiment 1, first lens L1 has negative refractive power, second lens L2 has positive refractive power, third lens L3 has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens L4 has a negative refractive power, the fifth lens L5 has a positive refractive power, and the sixth lens L6 has a negative refractive power, par. [0018]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 5, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and Jung further discloses wherein the six optical elements of the optical imaging lens are made of plastic material (Jung teaches all of the first to sixth lenses I to IV may include plastic materials, par. [0062]).
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 Teraoka and made all the lenses of Embodiment 1 of Teraoka of plastic, because Jung teaches a plastic lens may have a lighter weight and be more advantageous in mass production than a glass lens (Jung, par. [0062]).
Regarding amended independent claim 13, Teraoka discloses an optical imaging lens comprising exactly six optical elements (Fig. 1 shows Embodiment 1 with exactly six lenses, abstract, par. [0007]), a first optical element of the six optical elements having 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, 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. 1 depicts Embodiment 1 with first lens L1 having object-side surface with a concave curvature in the central region and a convex curvature on the image side, and L1 is shown to have a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region and an image-side surface with a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, refer also to Table 1 where surface R1 shows object-side surface of first lens L1 is concave and surface R2 is convex), the optical imaging lens having a total field of view value between 110° and 140° (Table 3, Embodiment 1 has field of view 2w of 130.01°).
Teraoka does not disclose a ratio of a total track length to an image footprint diameter between 0.85 and 0.95 (TTL is a total optical length from the object side surface of the first lens L1 to the image plane of the camera lens along an optic axis, par. [0100], and in Table 3 TTL is given as 5.530 mm for Embodiment 1, and image height, par. [0102], is given in Table 3 as 2.619 mm, thus Embodiment 1 has a ratio of TTL to IH of 2.111, outside of the claimed range), and Teraoka does not 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 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, see Table 7). 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.
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 Teraoka to have reduced the total track length of the Embodiment 1 of Teraoka 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 (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, Teraoka 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 Teraoka 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 Teraoka. 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 sixth lens element.
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 selected parameters such that the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the choices of radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements such that these unclaimed parameters would lead to the claimed resolution ratios, to optimize aberrations present in the image produced by the lens system.
While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art reference 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 amended dependent claim 15, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 13, and Teraoka further discloses wherein the first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Teraoka Table 1, Embodiment 1 first lens L1 has Abbe number of 55.95), the third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 third lens L3 has Abbe number of 76.90), the fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fourth lens L4 has Abbe number of 19.24), the fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fifth lens L5 has Abbe number of 55.95) and the sixth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 sixth lens L6 has Abbe number of 22.48).
Teraoka does not disclose the second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, second lens L2 has Abbe number of 25.92).
Jung teaches an embodiment wherein the second lens has an Abbe number of 56.09 (see Jung Table 1, par. [0083]).
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 Teraoka and included a second lens with an Abbe number of 56.09, because Jung teaches a second lens with a high Abbe number contributes to reduced chromatic aberration in the image produced (Jung, par. [0077]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 16, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 13, and Teraoka further discloses wherein the first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, a second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, a third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, a fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, a fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region and a sixth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Teraoka Embodiment 1, first lens L1 has negative refractive power, second lens L2 has positive refractive power, third lens L3 has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens L4 has a negative refractive power, the fifth lens L5 has a positive refractive power, and the sixth lens L6 has a negative refractive power, par. [0018]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 17, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 13, and Jung further discloses wherein the six optical elements are all made of plastic material (Jung teaches all of the first to sixth lenses I to IV may include plastic materials, par. [0062]).
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 Teraoka and made all the lenses of Embodiment 1 of Teraoka of plastic, because Jung teaches a plastic lens may have a lighter weight and be more advantageous in mass production than a glass lens (Jung, par. [0062]).
Regarding new dependent claim 19, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 1, and Teraoka and Jung disclose the optical imaging lens further comprising at least one of an aperture stop or an infrared filter (Teraoka Fig. 1, glass plate GF is arranged between the sixth lens L6 and an image plane, and glass plate GF may be any of various optical filters, par. [0017], and Jung teaches the super wide-angle lens may further include an aperture stop between the second lens and the third lens, par. [0018]).
Regarding new dependent claim 21, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 13, and Teraoka and Jung disclose the optical imaging lens further comprising at least one of an aperture stop or an infrared filter (Teraoka Fig. 1, glass plate GF is arranged between the sixth lens L6 and an image plane, and glass plate GF may be any of various optical filters, par. [0017], and Jung teaches the super wide-angle lens may further include an aperture stop between the second lens and the third lens, par. [0018]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka in view of Jung as applied to claim 1 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, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein at least one optical element of the optical imaging lens has at least one non-rotationally symmetric freeform surface (neither Teraoka nor Jung teach or suggest freeform surfaces).
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 Teraoka 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 in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Claims 7, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka US PGPub 2021/0041669 A1.
Regarding amended independent claim 7, Teraoka discloses an optical imaging lens including exactly six optical elements (Fig. 1 shows Embodiment 1 with exactly six lenses, abstract, par. [0007]), the lens comprising:
a first optical element having 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, 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. 1 depicts Embodiment 1 with first lens L1 having object-side surface with a concave curvature in the central region and a convex curvature on the image side, and L1 is shown to have a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region and an image-side surface with a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, refer also to Table 1 where surface R1 shows object-side surface of first lens L1 is concave and surface R2 is convex);
a second optical element arranged adjacent to the image-side surface of the first optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has second lens L2, refer to Table 1, surfaces R3 and R4 of second lens L2);
a third optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the second optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has third lens L3, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3);
a fourth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the third optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has fourth lens L4, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3);
a fifth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the fourth optical element (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 has fifth lens L5, par. [0105], refer to Table 1 and 3); and
a sixth optical element arranged adjacent to an image-side surface of the fifth optical element and having an object-side surface and an image-side surface, the object-side surface of the sixth optical element having a convex curvature in a central region and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, and the image-side surface of the sixth optical element having a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region (Fig. 1, Embodiment has sixth lens L6 with object-side surface R11 having a convex curvature in a central region, see Table 1, and a concave curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, and the image-side surface R12 has a concave curvature in a central region and a convex curvature in an outer region surrounding the central region, Table 1, par. [0105]), the optical imaging lens system having a total field of view value between 110° and 140° (Table 3, Embodiment 1 has field of view 2w of 130.01°).
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, Teraoka 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 Teraoka 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 Teraoka. 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 sixth lens element.
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 selected parameters such that the contributions of the at least third, fourth, and fifth lens elements of the instant application by the choices of radius of curvatures, thicknesses, lens materials, and spacings between optical elements such that these unclaimed parameters would lead to the claimed resolution ratios, to optimize aberrations present in the image produced by the lens system.
While the claimed elements can contribute to the production of a resolution curve with the limitations and details claimed, the prior art reference 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 amended dependent claim 10, Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 7, wherein the first optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, the second optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, the third optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region, the fourth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region, the fifth optical element has a positive power in a paraxial region and the sixth optical element has a negative power in a paraxial region (Teraoka Embodiment 1, first lens L1 has negative refractive power, second lens L2 has positive refractive power, third lens L3 has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens L4 has a negative refractive power, the fifth lens L5 has a positive refractive power, and the sixth lens L6 has a negative refractive power, par. [0018]).
Regarding new dependent claim 20, Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 7, further comprising at least one of an aperture stop or an infrared filter (Teraoka Fig. 1, glass plate GF is arranged between the sixth lens L6 and an image plane, and glass plate GF may be any of various optical filters, par. [0017], where Examiner understands an infrared filter is included in the options for an optical filter disclosed by Teraoka).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Jung.
Regarding amended dependent claim 9, Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 7, wherein the first optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Teraoka Table 1, Embodiment 1 first lens L1 has Abbe number of 55.95), the third optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 third lens L3 has Abbe number of 76.90), the fourth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fourth lens L4 has Abbe number of 19.24), the fifth optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 fifth lens L5 has Abbe number of 55.95) and the sixth optical element has an Abbe number value smaller than 40 (Table 1, Embodiment 1 sixth lens L6 has Abbe number of 22.48).
Teraoka does not disclose the second optical element has an Abbe number value larger than 40 (Table 1, second lens L2 has Abbe number of 25.92).
Jung teaches an embodiment wherein the second lens has an Abbe number of 56.09 (see Jung Table 1, par. [0083]).
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 Teraoka and included a second lens with an Abbe number of 56.09, because Jung teaches a second lens with a high Abbe number contributes to reduced chromatic aberration in the image produced (Jung, par. [0077]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 11, Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 7, but Teraoka does not disclose wherein the six optical elements of the optical imaging lens are made of plastic material.
Jung teaches all of the first to sixth lenses I to IV may include plastic materials (par. [0062]).
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 Teraoka and made all the lenses of Embodiment 1 of Teraoka of plastic, because Jung teaches a plastic lens may have a lighter weight and be more advantageous in mass production than a glass lens (Jung, par. [0062]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hou.
Regarding amended dependent claim 12, Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 7, but Teraoka does not teach or suggest wherein 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 Teraoka 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 in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka in view of Jung as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hou.
Regarding dependent claim 18, modified Teraoka discloses the optical imaging lens of claim 13, wherein at least one of the plurality of optical elements has at least one non-rotationally symmetric freeform surface (neither Teraoka nor Jung teach or suggest freeform surfaces).
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 Teraoka 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 in a compact form (Hou, par. [0142]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, to facilitate compact prosecution, Examiner notes that claiming parameters for the third, fourth, and fifth lenses would advance prosecution, because as currently recited, Examiner can only assume that the third, fourth, and fifth lenses do not contribute to the resolution of the image produced by the lens system, or these lenses may have such broad ranges of parameters that almost any lenses included in the recited system would produce the same resolution ratios as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights