DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 03/12/2026) with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-16 have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20210263275 A1, of record) in view of Fang et al. (CN 107664817 A, of record), and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 111505806 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses an imagine lens system comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Table 17, Embodiment 1), a second lens having negative refractive power (Table 17, Embodiment 1), a third lens having positive refractive power (Table 17, Embodiment 1), a fourth lens having a concave object-side surface (Fig. 1, L4), a fifth lens (Fig. 1, L5), a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Table 17, Embodiment 1), and a seventh lens (Fig. 1, L7) disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 1),
wherein TTL/2ImgHT is less than 0.640 (Table 1, TTL=7.481; [0069], 2ImgHT=12.5; giving 0.598), where TTL is an axial distance between an object-side surface of the first lens and an imaging plane and 2ImgHT is a diagonal length of the imaging plane.
Yang fails to disclose a third lens having a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region, and a fourth lens having a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
However, Fang teaches a similar seven-lens system having a +-+-++- refractive power arrangement ([0165], Embodiment 1), wherein a third lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region ([0057], R6), and a fourth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0057], R7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Yang and Fang such that a third lens was to have a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region, and a fourth lens was to have a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Modified Yang fails to disclose a seventh lens having a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region.
However, Li teaches a similar seven-lens system having a +-+-++- refractive power arrangement (Fig. 8), and discloses wherein a seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region (Fig. 8, L7A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Yang and Liu such that a seventh lens was to have a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Modified Yang fails to disclose 0.8 < f3/f5 < 1.2 (Yang - Table 17, f3=38.067 and f5=27.121, giving 1.4036), where f3 is a focal length of the third lens, and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the third and/or fifth lenses of modified Yang such that 0.8 < f3/f5 < 1.2 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the f3 and/or f5 values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yang discloses wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Yang - Fig. 1, L6).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yang discloses wherein the object-side surface of the sixth lens comprises a first convex portion (Yang - Fig. 1, L6), a first concave portion (Yang - Fig. 1, L6), and a second convex portion (Yang - Fig. 1, L6) formed about an optical axis (Yang - Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yang fails to disclose wherein SagS11tp is greater than 0.10 mm, where SagS11tp is an optical-axis direction distance from an optical-axis center of an object-side surface of the sixth lens to a point closest to the imaging plane on the object-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sixth lens of modified Yang such that SagS11tp > 0.10 mm was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the SagS11tp value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yang fails to disclose wherein 0.43 < S11tp/S11ER < 0.51, where S11tp is a shortest distance from an optical axis to a point closest to an imaging plane on an object-side surface of the sixth lens, and S11ER is an effective radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the sixth lens of modified Yang such that 0.43 < S11tp/S11ER < 0.51 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the S11tp and/or S11ER values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang discloses wherein the fourth lens has negative refractive power (Yang - Table 17, Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yang discloses wherein the third lens comprises a convex image-side surface (Yang - Fig. 1, L3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yang fails to disclose wherein S1ER/S14ER is less than 0.290, where S1ER in an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens and S14ER is an effective radius of an image-side surface of the seventh lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the first and/or seventh lenses of modified Yang such that S1ER/S14ER < 0.290 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the S1ER and/or S14ER values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang fails to disclose wherein S10ER/S14ER is less than 0.510, where S10ER in an effective radius of an image-side surface of the fifth lens and S14ER is an effective radius of an image-side surface of the seventh lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the fifth and/or seventh lenses of modified Yang such that S10ER/S14ER < 0.510 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the S10ER and/or S14ER values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yang discloses wherein the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Fang - [0057], R9).
5. Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (CN 110596861 A, of record) in view of Fang.
Regarding claim 12, Xie discloses an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens (Fig. 6, L1) having positive refractive power (Fig. 8, 4.996) and a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a second lens (Fig. 6, L2) having refractive power (Fig. 8, -7.003);
a third lens (Fig. 6, L3) comprising a convex object-side surface (Fig. 6);
a fourth lens (Fig. 6, L4) comprising a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 8);
a fifth lens (Fig. 6, L5) having positive refractive power (Fig. 8, 4.731);
a sixth lens (Fig. 6, L6) having positive refractive power (Fig. 8, 17.462); and
a seventh lens (Fig. 6, L7),
wherein the first to seventh lenses are disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 6), and
wherein f/ImgHT < 1.12 (Fig. 8, f=3.650 and ImgHT=5.209, giving 0.7007), where f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, and ImgHT is a maximum effective image height of the optical imaging system and is equal to one half of a diagonal length of an effective imaging area of an imaging surface of an imaging plane.
Xie fails to disclose a third lens comprising a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region, a fourth lens comprising a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof, and a seventh lens comprising a convex object-side surface.
However, Fang teaches a similar seven-lens system having a +-+-++- refractive power arrangement ([0165], Embodiment 1), wherein a third lens comprises a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region ([0057], R6), a fourth lens comprises a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0057], R7), and a seventh lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Image 1 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Xie and Fang such that a third lens was to comprise a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region, a fourth lens was to comprise a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof, and a seventh lens was to comprise a convex object-side surface, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Modified Xie fails to disclose 0.8 < f3/f5 < 1.2 (Xie - Fig. 8, f3=6.349 and f5=4.731, giving 1.342).
However, modified Xie provides an f3/f5 value that is only 0.142 greater than 1.2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the f3 and/or f5 values of modified Xie such that 0.8 < f3/f5 < 1.2 was satisfied, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), motivated by improving image aberration correction.
PNG
media_image1.png
124
62
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. The object-side surface of Fang’s seventh lens ([0057]
& [0115], R13), plotted using the Desmos graphing calculator.
Regarding claim 13, modified Xie fails to explicitly disclose wherein SagS11mx is less than -0.4 mm, where SagS11mx is an optical-axis direction distance from an optical-axis center of an object-side surface of the sixth lens to an end portion of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the SagS11mx value of modified Xie such that SagS11mx < -0.4 mm was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the sixth lens such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 14, modified Xie fails to explicitly disclose wherein |SagS11tp/SagS11mx| is less than 0.3, where SagS11tp is an optical-axis direction distance from an optical-axis center of the object-side surface of the sixth lens to a point closest to the imaging plane on the object-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the SagS11tp and/or SagS11mx values of modified Xie such that |SagS11tp/SagS11mx| < 0.3 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the sixth lens such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 15, modified Xie discloses wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Xie - Fig. 6, L6).
Regarding claim 16, modified Xie discloses wherein the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface or a convex image-side surface (Xie - Fig. 6, L5 image-side).
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights