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 Amendment filed 7/10/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 7/10/25 have been considered as follows.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejections.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,6-8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20200088972, of record) in view of Mercado (US 20150253543, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yoo teaches (Fig. 16, Table 11) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a lens unit (610-640) comprising at least three lenses;
an image sensor configured to receive light that has passed through the lens unit; and
a reflective member (R) disposed on an object side of the lens unit and comprising a reflective surface configured to change a path of light,
wherein the lens unit comprises a total of four lenses including a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens disposed in order from the object side,
wherein the first lens has positive refractive power, the second lens has negative refractive power, the third lens has positive refractive power, and the fourth lens has positive refractive power (Table 11),
wherein 2 < f/f1 < 3.5 (15/7), where f1 is a focal length of the first lens.
Yoo does not teach the image sensor configured to move along an optical axis direction, wherein 0<(SAS/f)/OD<0.15, where SAS is a moving distance of the image sensor along the optical axis direction, f is a total focal length of the lens unit, and OD is an object distance
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Mercado teaches an image sensor configured to move along an optical axis direction ([56], “...the photosensor at the image plane may be zoomed or moved or actuated for focusing an object scene at distances ranging from greater than 20 meters to less than 1 meter”), wherein 0<(SAS/f)/OD<0.15 (0.1940/14/1000), where SAS is a moving distance of the image sensor along the optical axis direction, f is a total focal length of a lens unit, and OD is an object distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor configured to move along an optical axis direction, wherein 0<(SAS/f)/OD<0.15 as taught by Mercado in the teaching of Yoo for the purposes of having better imaging quality at closer distances.
Regarding claim 6, Yoo in view of Mercado teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach 0.15 mm<AFS_1.0<0.25 mm.
However AFS_1.0 is “a result-effective variable” because it confers focusing effects. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.15 mm<AFS_1.0<0.25 mm (as evidenced by Mercado, Table 10, wherein the value is 0.1940 mm, further the system can be scaled up or down so the value can vary further), 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have 0.15 mm<AFS_1.0<0.25 mm for the purposes of having desired imaging effects.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Yoo in view of Mercado teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 6 rejection above, but does not teach The optical imaging system of claim 6,
wherein the image sensor is configured to move in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction, and
wherein 0.2 mm<OISC_1.0<0.3 mm, where OISC_1.0 is a moving distance of the image sensor in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction with respect to an amount of shaking of 1.0°.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the image sensor is configured to move in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of mitigating hand-shaking effects.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of Yoo in view of Mercado by having the image sensor is configured to move in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction for the purposes of mitigating hand-shaking effects.
The further modified Yoo in view of Mercado does not teach 0.2 mm<OISC_1.0<0.3 mm.
However OISC_1.0 is “a result-effective variable” because it confers correction effects and imaging effects (when the system is scaled up or down). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.2 mm<OISC_1.0<0.3 mm, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have 0.2 mm<OISC_1.0<0.3 mm for the purposes of having desired correction and imaging effects.
Regarding claim 8, mutatis mutandis, the even further modified Yoo in view of Mercado teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 10, Yoo further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a convex image-side surface (Table 11), and the fourth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface (Table 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11 including “wherein the second lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, and the third lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface”, along with the other claimed limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of claim 12 including “wherein the second lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, and the third lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a convex image-side surface”, along with the other claimed limitations of claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights