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 8/18/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 1 and 4-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the mapping of elements of Wang to the claimed limitations does not address the amended limitation requiring every one of the eight optical elements be formed from only three types of optical glass. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass, a wide variety of which is available commercially, for use in an optical device is within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant has further argued that the changing of the lenses disclosed by Wang from plastic to glass would change the optical properties of the lens system disclosed by Wang. Examiner agrees with this statement. However, a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and a person of ordinary skill would not produce a lens assembly that is not functional (i.e., capable of being focused and producing a satisfactory image with minimal aberrations). Furthermore, parameters describing the lenses of the lens system that are currently unclaimed are available for optimization to produce a functional lens assembly.
No other substantial arguments were presented after page 4 of Remarks. Therefore, the prior art teaches the invention as currently claimed.
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, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US PGPub 2022/0035132 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 05/18/2026, hereinafter, “Wang”) in view of Dowell US Patent 1,839,955 and Yin et al. US PGPub 2018/0252846 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 10/17/2024, hereinafter, “Yin”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Wang discloses a visible and near infrared (VNIR) lens assembly (Wang discloses an image capturing lens system, par. [0002], and Wang teaches the system may optionally include an element to filter near infrared light, par. [0095], therefore the system can accept and transmit infrared light as well as visible light, and as such Wang discloses an image capturing system that is equivalent to a visible and near infrared lens assembly) comprising:
a plurality of first optical elements with five optical elements having a positive power (Figs. 1 and 2 depict the first embodiment which includes first lens element 110 that is positive, par. [0108], third lens element 130 that is positive, par. [0110], fifth lens element 150 that is positive, par. [0112], sixth lens element 160 that is positive, par. [0113], and eighth lens element 180 that is positive, par. [0115], thereby disclosing five optical elements with positive power);
a plurality of second optical elements with three optical elements having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 is negative, par. [0109], fourth lens element 140 is negative, par. [0111], and seventh lens element 170 is negative, par. [0114], thereby disclosing three optical elements with negative power);
a physical aperture stop in front of the plurality of first and second optical elements (Figs. 1 and 2, the image capturing lens system includes, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a stop 101, par. [0106]); and
an image detector behind the plurality of first and second optical elements (Figs. 1 and 2, image sensor 199 is disposed on or near image surface 195, par. [0116]);
wherein at least one optical element of the plurality of first optical elements is formed of a first optical material type (refer to Table 1, lens 1, i.e., lens 110 that is positive, has index of refraction 1.669 and Abbe number 19.5, equivalent to a first optical type), at least another optical element of the plurality of first optical elements is formed of a second optical material type (Table 1, lens 3, i.e., lens 130 that is positive, has index of refraction 1.542 and Abbe number 62.9, equivalent to a second optical type), and at least one of the plurality of second optical elements is formed of a third optical material type (Table 1, lens 2, i.e., lens 120 that is negative, has index of refraction 1.582 and Abbe number 62.9, equivalent to a third optical type), and wherein none of the plurality of second optical elements are formed of the first or second optical material types (Table 1, lens 2, lens 4, and lens 7 are negative, therefore of the second optical elements, and lenses 2, 4, and 7 have indices of refraction and Abbe numbers distinct from lenses 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8, therefore the optical elements with negative power are not formed of the same types of glass as the elements with positive power); and
wherein the optical elements of the first and second pluralities of optical elements are arranged in order from the aperture to the image detector (Figs. 1 and 2, the image capturing lens system includes, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a stop 101, a first lens element 110, a second lens element 120, a third lens element 130, an aperture stop 100, a fourth lens element 140, a fifth lens element 150, a sixth lens element 160, a seventh lens element 170, an eighth lens element 180, a filter 190 and an image surface 195, par. [0106]) and consists of:
a first optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, first lens element 110 has positive refractive power, par. [0108], see also Table 1);
a second optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 has negative refractive power, par. [0109], Table 1);
a third optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 has positive refractive power, par. [0110], Table 1);
a fourth optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, fourth lens element 140 has negative refractive power, par. [0111], Table 1);
a fifth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, fifth lens element 150 has positive refractive power, par. [0112], Table 1 );
a sixth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 has positive refractive power, par. [0113], Table 1);
a seventh optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, seventh lens element 170 has negative refractive power, par. [0114], Table 1); and
an eighth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, eighth lens element 180 has positive refractive power, par. [0115], Table 1);
Wang does not disclose all lens elements of the first embodiment are formed of glass (as detailed in Table 1, only lens 3 is listed as glass, while all other lens elements are listed as being formed of plastic), and therefore Wang does not disclose or suggest wherein each of the first through eighth optical elements is formed of one of only three types of optical glass, the three types of optical glass being the first optical glass type, the second optical glass type, and the third optical glass type, and Wang does not disclose wherein the VNIR lens assembly is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C such that a change in focus position stays inside a depth of focus of the VNIR lens assembly without physical thermal adjustments, such that no refocusing is required.
As to the limitation reciting the disclosure of glass as a material for the optical elements, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass for use in an optical device is within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
However, Wang does teach the lens elements of the image capturing lens system can be made of either glass or plastic material (par. [0093]).
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 formed the lens elements of glass, because Wang teaches that when the lenses are made of glass, the refractive power distribution of the image capturing lens system may be more flexible and the influence on imaging caused by external environment temperature change may be reduced (Wang, par. [0093]).
In the same field of invention, Dowell discloses color photography cameras constructed of only three kinds of glass, and Dowell teaches such an optical system corrects chromatic aberration (claim 7).
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 Dowell to the disclosure of Wang and selected only three kinds of optical glass for the lenses of the image capturing lens system, because Dowell teaches a color photography camera with only three kinds of glass corrects chromatic aberration (Dowell, claim 7).
In the same field of invention, Yin teaches an athermal lens system 100 and athermal camera 180 that are athermal over the range from -45 °C to 105 °C (refer to at least par. [0034] thereof), and the athermal camera 180 does not require physical adjustment for purposes of maintaining the focus position inside a depth of focus.
It has been held that 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). See MPEP §2144.05. In this case, the prior art range of -45°C to 105°C overlaps the claimed range of -14°C to 70°C.
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 Yin to the disclosure of Wang to modify the lens assembly disclosed to have an imaging system capable of producing proper imaging over a wide range of temperatures (Yin, par. [0034]). As a consequence, the combination of Wang in view of Yin teaches and renders obvious the limitation that no refocusing is required, because Yin camera 180 does not require refocusing over the disclosed temperature range.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Wang in view of Yin (hereinafter, “modified Wang”) discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the first optical element further comprises: a double convex lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, first lens element 110 has object-side surface 111 that is convex and image-side surface 112 that is convex, par. [0108], see also Table 1, thereby disclosing a double convex lens, and as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, lens element 110 has a first surface, surface 111, that is oriented towards stop 101, and a second surface, surface 112, that is opposite surface 111).
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1, but in the first embodiment Wang does not disclose wherein the second optical element further comprises: a double concave lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang first embodiment includes second lens element 120 with object-side surface 121 that is convex and an image-side surface 122 that is concave, par. [0109]).
However, Wang discloses a second embodiment, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, with second lens element 220 having negative power and object-side surface 221 that is concave and image-side surface 222 that is concave (par. [0159]),
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 combined the teachings of the first and second embodiments disclosed by Wang, by replacing lens element 120 with lens element 220 because Wang teaches it is favorable for adjusting the surface shape and refractive power of the second lens element to correct aberrations (Wang par. [0063]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 and Wang discloses wherein the fourth optical element further comprises: a lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, fourth lens element 140 has an object-side surface 141 that is concave, and an image-side surface that is convex, par. [0111]); wherein the second surface of the fourth optical element is aspherical (image-side surface 142 of element 140 is aspheric, Wang par. [0111], see also Table 1).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose a fourth lens element that is a double concave lens.
However, Wang discloses a second embodiment, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, with fourth lens 240 having negative power and an object-side surface 241 that is concave and image-side surface 242 that is concave (par. [0161]).
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 combined the teachings of the first and second embodiments disclosed by Wang, by replacing lens element 140 with lens element 240 because Wang teaches it is favorable for correcting aberrations (Wang, par. [0065]) and because Wang teaches many modifications and variations are possible (Wang, par. [0234]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 and Wang further discloses wherein the fifth optical element further comprises: a lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, fifth lens element 150 has an object-side surface 115 that is concave and an image-side surface 152 that is convex, par. [0112]).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose a fifth optical element that is a double convex lens.
However, Wang discloses a second embodiment, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, with fifth lens 250 having positive power with an object-side surface 251 that is convex and image-side surface 252 that is convex (par. [0162]).
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 combined the teachings of the first and second embodiments disclosed by Wang, by replacing lens element 150 with lens element 250, because Wang teaches it is favorable for correcting aberrations (Wang, par. [0066]), and because Wang teaches many modifications and variations are possible (Wang, par. [0234]).
Regarding dependent claim 13, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the seventh optical element further comprises: a double concave lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, seventh lens element 170 has an object-side surface 171 that is concave, and an image-side surface 172 that is concave, par. [0114]); wherein the first surface of the seventh optical element is aspherical (object-side surface 171 is aspheric, Wang par. [0114], see also Table 1 where surface 15 is labeled as aspheric).
Regarding dependent claim 14, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 and Wang further discloses wherein the eighth optical element further comprises: a positive meniscus lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, eight lens element 180 has an object-side surface 181 and an image-side surface 182 opposite therefrom, par. [01115]); wherein the second surface of the eighth optical element is a concave surface of the positive meniscus and is aspherical (eight lens element 180 image-side surface 182 is concave and aspheric, see also Wang Table 1).
Regarding amended independent claim 18, Wang discloses a method comprising:
receiving light through a physical aperture stop of a lens assembly (Figs. 1 and 2, light rays are depicted passing through stop 101 to enter the image capturing system, par. [0106]);
directing the light through a first plurality of optical elements with five optical elements having a positive power and with at least one element of the first plurality of optical elements formed of a first optical glass type and at least another element of the first plurality of optical elements formed of a second optical material type (Figs. 1 and 2 depict the first embodiment which includes first lens element 110 that is positive, par. [0108], third lens element 130 that is positive, par. [0110], fifth lens element 150 that is positive, par. [0112], sixth lens element 160 that is positive, par. [0113], and eighth lens element 180 that is positive, par. [0115], thereby disclosing five optical elements with positive power, and refer to Table 1, lens 1, i.e., lens 110 that is positive, has index of refraction 1.669 and Abbe number 19.5, equivalent to a first optical type and lens 3, i.e., lens 130 that is positive, has index of refraction 1.542 and Abbe number 62.9, equivalent to a second optical type);
directing the light through a second plurality of optical elements with three optical elements having a negative power and with at least one of the second plurality of optical elements formed of a third optical glass type, wherein none of the plurality of second optical elements are formed of the first or second glass types (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 is negative, par. [0109], fourth lens element 140 is negative, par. [0111], and seventh lens element 170 is negative, par. [0114], thereby disclosing three optical elements with negative power, and Table 1, lens 2, lens 4, and lens 7 are negative, therefore of the second optical elements, and lenses 2, 4, and 7 have indices of refraction and Abbe numbers distinct from lenses 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8, therefore the optical elements with negative power are not formed of the same types of glass as the elements with positive power);
wherein the optical elements of the first and second plurality of optical elements are arranged in order from the aperture to the image detector (Figs. 1 and 2, lens system is in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, par. [0106]) and consist of:
a first optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, first lens element 110 has positive refractive power, par. [0108], see also Table 1);
a second optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 has negative refractive power, par. [0109], Table 1);
a third optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 has positive refractive power, par. [0110], Table 1);
a fourth optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, fourth lens element 140 has negative refractive power, par. [0111], Table 1);
a fifth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, fifth lens element 150 has positive refractive power, par. [0112], Table 1);
a sixth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 has positive refractive power, par. [0113], Table 1);
a seventh optical element having a negative optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, seventh lens element 170 has negative refractive power, par. [0114], Table 1); and
an eighth optical element having a positive optical power (Figs. 1 and 2, eighth lens element 180 has positive refractive power, par. [0115], Table 1);
detecting the light with an image detector (Figs. 1 and 2, image sensor 199 is disposed on or near image surface 195, par. [0116]); and
generating an image from the image detector (the imaging light converges in the lens unit of the image capturing unit 10 to generate an image with the driving device utilized for image zooming or focusing on the image sensor, and the generated image is then digitally transmitted to other electronic component for further processing, par. [0222]).
Wang does not disclose all lens elements are formed of glass (as detailed in Table 1, only lens 3 is listed as glass, while all other lens elements are listed as being formed of plastic), and therefore Wang does not disclose wherein each of the first through eighth optical elements is formed of one of only three types of optical glass, the three types of optical glass being the first optical glass type, the second optical glass type, and the third optical glass type, and wherein the VNIR lens assembly is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C such that a change in focus position stays inside a depth of focus of the VNIR lens assembly without physical thermal adjustments, such that no refocusing is required.
As to the limitation reciting the disclosure of glass as a material for the optical elements, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass for use in an optical device is within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
However, Wang teaches the lens elements of the image capturing lens system can be made of either glass or plastic material (par. [0093]).
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 formed the lens elements of glass, because Wang teaches that when the lenses are made of glass, the refractive power distribution of the image capturing lens system may be more flexible and the influence on imaging caused by external environment temperature change may be reduced (Wang, par. [0093]).
In the same field of invention, Dowell discloses color photography cameras constructed of only three kinds of glass, and Dowell teaches such an optical system corrects chromatic aberration (claim 7).
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 Dowell to the disclosure of Wang and selected only three kinds of optical glass for the lenses of the image capturing lens system, because Dowell teaches a color photography camera with only three kinds of glass corrects chromatic aberration (Dowell, claim 7).
In the same field of invention, Yin teaches an athermal lens system 100 and athermal camera 180 that are athermal over the range from -45 °C to 105 °C (refer to at least par. [0034] thereof), and the athermal camera 180 does not require physical adjustment for purposes of maintaining the focus position inside a depth of focus.
It has been held that 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). See MPEP §2144.05. In this case, the prior art range of -45°C to 105°C overlaps the claimed range of -14°C to 70°C.
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 Yin to the disclosure of Wang to modify the lens assembly disclosed to have an imaging system capable of producing proper imaging over a wide range of temperatures (Yin, par. [0034]). As a consequence, the combination of Wang in view of Yin teaches and renders obvious the limitation that no refocusing is required, because Yin camera 180 does not require refocusing over the disclosed temperature range.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dowell and Yin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robert E. Fischer, Alastair J. Grant, Ulrich Fotherginham, Peter Hartmann, Steffen Reichel, “Removing the mystique of glass selection,” Proc. SPIE 5524, Novel Optical Systems Design and Optimization VII, (22 October 2004); doi: 10.1117/12.562914 (of record, see Office action dated 10/17/2024, hereinafter, “Fischer”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 but Wang does not disclose wherein: the first optical glass type further comprises a fluor crown optical glass; the second optical glass type further comprises a dense flint optical glass; and the third optical glass type further comprises a crownflint optical glass (Wang teaches the lens elements of the image capturing lens systems may be made of glass, par. [0093], but does not teach or suggest specific glass types).
In the general field of optical design, Fischer teaches the selection of glasses for optimal design of a lens assembly (see at least Abstract thereof). Fischer teaches that in order to create a lens with red light and blue light that come to a common focus, the use of at least two different materials, one with a low Abbe number and one with a high Abbe number, is needed (refer to page 134, last paragraph thereof). To create an achromatic doublet lens, the use of glasses that have at least an Abbe number difference of 20 between the crown element and the flint element is taught (refer to page 138, first paragraph thereof).
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 Fischer to the disclosure of Wang and used at least two different materials with different Abbe numbers and different refractive indices for the optical elements disclosed by Wang, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to incorporate a third material to correct spherochromatism produced by an achromatic doublet (see Fischer, Fig. 7, and refer to at least page 143 thereof).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Fischer discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 4 and Wang further discloses wherein the fourth, and seventh optical elements are made from the third optical glass type (Wang, Table 1, first embodiment lens 4 and lens 7 have the same index of refraction, 1.614, and the same Abbe number, 26.0, suggesting these lens elements are made from the same optical glass type, which can be labeled a third optical glass type).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose wherein the first, fifth, and sixth optical elements are made from the first optical glass type (Table 1, lenses 1, 5, and 6 are listed as having different indexes of refraction and different Abbe numbers, suggesting all three lenses are of different materials), the third and eighth optical elements are made from the second optical glass type (Table 1, lenses 3 and 8 are listed as having different indexes of refraction and different Abbe numbers, suggesting these lenses are of different materials), and the second, fourth, and seventh optical elements are made from the third optical glass type (Table 1, lens 2 has an index of refraction and Abbe number different from lenses 4 and 7).
However, the prior art combination does teach the use of a plurality of materials, with a variety of Abbe numbers and refractive indices, for the material of the lens elements, refer to at least Wang Table 1.
It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the selection of materials for the lenses and the order in which the lenses are placed will not change the operation of the optical assembly disclosed by Wang. The benefits of this modification include reduction of aberrations in the final image produced by the lens assembly. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass types by their characteristic Abbe number and refractive indexes for specific optical elements of the device to achiever a particular goal, e.g., minimal aberration in the image produced by the lens assembly, is within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Fischer discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 4, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the first optical glass type is Schott optical glass N-FK58, the second optical glass type is Schott optical glass N-SF57HTUltra, and the third optical glass type is Schott optical glass N-KF9 (Wang teaches the lens elements of the image capturing lens systems may be made of glass, par. [0093], but does not teach or suggest specific glass types).
Fischer teaches the selection of glasses for optimal design of a lens assembly (see at least Abstract thereof). Fischer teaches that in order to create a lens with red light and blue light that come to a common focus, the use of at least two different materials, one with a low Abbe number and one with a high Abbe number, is needed (refer to page 134, last paragraph thereof). To create an achromatic doublet lens, the use of glasses that have at least an Abbe number difference of 20 between the crown element and the flint element is taught (refer to page 138, first paragraph thereof).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass types by their characteristic Abbe number and refractive indexes for specific optical elements of the device to achiever a particular goal, e.g., minimal aberration in the image produced by the lens assembly, is within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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 Fischer to the disclosure of Wang and selected specific glasses with known characteristics, such as index of refraction and Abbe number, to minimize aberrations in the final image produced by the lens assembly (Fischer page 138, first paragraph).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dowell and Yin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ko et al. US PGPub 2020/0209554 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 05/18/2026, hereinafter, “Ko”).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1, and Wang further discloses wherein the third optical element further comprises: a lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 has object-side surface 131 and image-side surface 132, par. [0110]).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose a third optical element that is a positive meniscus lens wherein the second surface is a concave surface.
In the same field of invention, Ko discloses an optical imaging system with eight lenses (refer to at least title and abstract thereof), a fifth example of which is shown in Figs. 9 and 10 thereof (refer to par. [0173] and Table 9 thereof), with first lens 510 having positive power (par. [0178] thereof), second lens 520 having negative power (par. [0179] thereof), third lens 530 having positive power with a first surface that is convex and a second surface that is concave (par. [0180] thereof), a fourth lens 540 having negative power (par. [0182] thereof), a fifth lens 550 having positive power (par. [0184] thereof), a sixth lens 560 having positive power (par. [0185] thereof), and a seventh lens 570 with negative power (par. [0187] thereof).
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 Ko to the disclosure of Wang and modified the third lens element to be a positive meniscus lens having positive refractive power with a first surface that is convex and a second surface that is concave, because Ko teaches with such an optical imaging system, an aberration improvement effect may be improved, while high resolution may be implemented (Ko, par. [0193]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dowell and Yin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanetaka et al. US Patent 9,766,431 B2 (of record, see Office action dated 05/18/2026, hereinafter, “Kanetaka”),
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 and Wang further discloses wherein the sixth optical element further comprises: a lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 has an object-side surface 161 and an image-side surface 162, par. [0113]).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose a sixth optical element that is a double convex lens.
In the same field of invention, Kanetaka discloses an imaging lens and image pickup apparatus (refer to at least title and abstract thereof) where Fig. 9 thereof shows the third example disclosed, and numerical example 3 includes a first lens G1 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 21-23 thereof), a second lens G2 with negative refractive power and a biconcave shape (col. 15, lines 26-27 thereof), a third lens G3 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 27-28 thereof), a fourth lens G4 with negative refractive power that is biconcave (col. 15, lines 32-33 thereof), a fifth lens G5 with positive refractive power that is biconvex (col. 15, lines 33-34 thereof), a sixth lens G6 with positive refractive power that is biconvex (col. 15, lines 34-35 thereof), a seventh lens G7 with negative refractive power (col. 15, lines 38-40 thereof), and an eighth lens G8 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 40-42 thereof).
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 Kanetaka to the disclosure of Wang and modified the sixth lens of the imaging system to be biconvex (i.e., double convex), because Kanetaka teaches various kinds of aberration are favorably corrected and superior imaging performance is achieved (Kanetaka, col. 17, lines 38-41).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dowell and Yin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oskotsky et al. US PGPub 2019/0018228 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 03/13/2024, hereinafter, “Oskotsky”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, modified Wang discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 1 and Wang further discloses wherein the lens assembly further comprises: an overall length less than 100mm as measured from the first element to the image detector (Wang Table 2, first embodiment has an overall length of 19.981 mm as measured from surface 2 which is the object-side surface of lens 1 to surface 20, par. [0152]).
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose an orthoscopic lens with residual distortion not exceeding 0.5% over a full field of view (Fig. 3 shows a distortion curve for the image capturing unit of the first embodiment at the short-focal-length end, where distortion reaches a value of -2.5% over the image height), nor a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position).
In the same field of invention, Oskotsky discloses a compact orthoscopic lens system (refer to at least title, abstract, and par. [0020] thereof) with a visible and near-infrared and shortwave infrared spectrum orthoscopic and apochromatic lens corrected for monochromatic and chromatic aberrations for the wide spectrum of 450 nm to 2550 nm, a range of wavelengths covering both VNIR and SWIR spectral regions, and the lens is orthoscopic with residual distortion across the field of 5.56° × 66° not exceeding 0.11% (par. [0032] thereof, see also Fig. 4 thereof).
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 Oskotsky to the disclosure of Wang and selected materials for the lenses such that the image capturing lens system of the first embodiment would be apochromatic over the wavelengths 450 nm to 2550 nm and produce an orthoscopic image not exceeding 0.11%, because Oskotsky teaches such a configuration of the lens optical groups and elements in these groups produces a system with the focal length of the lens being the same at wavelengths not only at the ends of the spectrum of interest, but at intermediate wavelengths as well (Oskotsky, par. [0007]), and produces a precisely scaled image because of the minimization of focal length across the field of view (Oskotsky, par. [0017]), and results in a high performance lens system with reduced size, weight, power, and complexity (Oskotsky, par. [0019]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Oskotsky as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Weida et al. US PGPub 2014/0253714 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 05/18/2026, hereinafter, “Weida”).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Oskotsky discloses the VNIR lens assembly of claim 15, and Oskotsky further discloses wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm (Oskotsky discloses a compact orthoscopic lens system with an apochromatic lens corrected for monochromatic and chromatic aberrations for the wide spectrum of 450 nm to 2550 nm, par. [0022] thereof, overlapping the claimed range).
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Oskotsky does not disclose a lens assembly that is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C, and has a resolution of 3.45 micrometers at the image detector (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system, and Oskotsky does not disclose, teach, or suggest any aspects of the athermal nature of the lens system disclosed therein, and both Wang and Oskotsky are silent as to any resolution at the image detector).
In the same field of invention, Yin teaches an athermal lens system 100 and athermal camera 180 that are athermal over the range from -45 °C to 105 °C (refer to at least par. [0034] thereof).
It has been held that 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). See MPEP §2144.05. In this case, the prior art range of -45°C to 105°C overlaps the claimed range of -14°C to 70°C.
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 Yin to the disclosure of Wang to modify the lens assembly disclosed to have an imaging system capable of producing proper imaging over a wide range of temperatures (Yin, par. [0034]).
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell, Yin, and Oskotsky does not disclose a lens assembly that has a resolution of 3.45 micrometers at the image detector.
In the same field of invention, Weida discloses an imaging microscope 12 (refer to at least title and abstract and see also Fig. 1A thereof) with image sensor 18 (par. [0025] thereof), where the image sensor 18 can have an image resolution of 3.4 µm for a 17 µm pitch pixel (par. [0061] thereof).
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 Weida to the disclosure of Wang and employed a sensor such as sensor 18 taught by Weida, so that the image capturing lens system disclosed by Wang would have acceptable resolution for infrared light (Weida, par. [0064]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ko, Kanetaka, Yin, Finizio et al. US Patent 7,088,525 B2 (of record, see Office action dated 10/17/2024, hereinafter, “Finizio”), and Sugita US PGPub 2019/0004296 A1 (hereinafter, “Sugita”).
Regarding amended independent claim 17, Wang discloses a visible and near infrared (VNIR) orthoscopic lens assembly comprising:
a physical aperture stop defining an entrance pupil (Figs. 1 and 2, the image capturing lens system includes, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a stop 101, par. [0106]); and
a plurality of optical elements arranged in order from an aperture to an image detector (Figs. 1 and 2, the image capturing lens system includes, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a stop 101, a first lens element 110, a second lens element 120, a third lens element 130, an aperture stop 100, a fourth lens element 140, a fifth lens element 150, a sixth lens element 160, a seventh lens element 170, an eighth lens element 180, a filter 190 and an image surface 195, par. [0106]); wherein the plurality of optical elements consist of:
a first optical element having a positive optical power, the first optical element being a double convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, first lens element 110 has positive refractive power with object-side surface 111 that is convex and image-side surface 112 that is convex, par. [0108], see also Table 1);
a second optical element having a negative optical power, the second optical element being a concave lens (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 has negative refractive power with image-side surface 122 that is concave, par. [0109], Table 1);
a third optical element having a positive optical power, the third optical element having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 has positive refractive power and an object-side surface 131 that is convex, par. [0110], Table 1);
a fourth optical element having a negative optical power, the fourth optical element being a concave lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom, wherein the second surface of the fourth optical element is aspherical (Figs. 1 and 2, fourth lens element 140 has negative refractive power with object-side surface 141 that is concave, par. [0111], Table 1, and Table 3 presents the aspheric surface data for the first embodiment, where lens 4, defined by surfaces 9 and 10 in Table 1, has aspheric coefficients for surface 10, therefore the second surface of fourth lens 140 has an aspheric surface);
a fifth optical element having a positive optical power, the fifth optical element being a convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, fifth lens element 150 has positive refractive power and an image-side surface 152 that is convex, par. [0112], Table 1);
a sixth optical element having a positive optical power, the sixth optical element being a convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 has positive refractive power with object-side surface 161 that is convex, par. [0113], Table 1);
a seventh optical element having a negative optical power, the seventh optical element being a double concave lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom, wherein the first surface of the seventh optical element is aspherical (Figs. 1 and 2, seventh lens element 170 has negative refractive power with object-side surface 171 that is concave and image-side surface 172 that is concave, par. [0114], Table 1, and Table 3 presents the aspheric surface data for the first embodiment, where lens 7, defined by surfaces 15 and 16 in Table 1, has aspheric coefficients for surface 15, therefore the first surface of seventh lens 170 has an aspheric surface);
an eighth optical element having a positive optical power, the eighth optical element being a positive meniscus lens having a first surface oriented towards the aperture stop and a second surface opposite therefrom, wherein the second surface of the eighth optical element is a concave surface of the positive meniscus and is aspherical (Figs. 1 and 2, eighth lens element 180 has positive refractive power with object-side surface 181 that is convex and image-side surface 182 that is concave, par. [0115], Table 1, and Table 3 presents the aspheric surface data for the first embodiment, where lens 8, defined by surfaces 17 and 18 in Table 1, has aspheric coefficients for surface 18, therefore the second surface of eighth lens 180 has an aspheric surface); and
an image detector (Figs. 1 and 2, image sensor 199, par. [0116], is an image detector);
wherein the lens assembly has an overall length less than 100mm as measured from the first optical element to the image detector (Table 2, first embodiment has an overall length of 19.981 mm as measured from surface 2 which is the object-side surface of lens 1 to surface 20, par. [0152])
Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose wherein each of the first through eighth optical elements is formed of one of only three types of optical glass, nor does Wang disclose the second optical element being a double concave lens (Figs. 1 and 2, second lens element 120 appears to be double concave, but is disclosed as having object-side surface 121 that is convex and an image-side surface 122 that is concave, par. [0109], and Table 1 lists the radius of curvature for surface 4 as positive, indicating a convex surface on the object side, and as noted above the image-side surface of second lens 120 is concave), and Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose the third optical element being positive meniscus lens wherein the second surface of the third optical element is a concave surface of the positive meniscus (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 is disclosed as having a convex object-side surface 131 and an a convex image-side surface 132, par. [0110]), and Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose the fourth optical element being a double concave lens (Figs. 1 and 2, fourth lens element 140 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 141 that is concave and an image-side surface 142 that is convex, par. [0111]), nor does Wang in the first embodiment disclose the fifth optical element being a double convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, fifth lens element 150 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 151 that is concave and an image-side surface 152 that is convex, par. [0112]), nor does Wang in the first embodiment disclose the sixth optical element being a double convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 161 that is convex and an image-side surface 162 that is concave, par. [0113]). Wang in the first embodiment does not disclose a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position), and Wang does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm and is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C, such that a change in focus position stays inside a depth of focus of the VNIR lens assembly without physical thermal adjustments, such that no refocusing is required (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system).
However, Wang discloses a second embodiment, shown in Figs. 5 and 6, with first lens element 210 having positive power (par. [0158]), second lens element 220 having negative power with object-side surface 221 that is concave and image-side surface 222 that is concave (par. [0159]), third lens element 230 having positive power (par. [0160]), fourth lens 240 having negative power with object-side surface 241 that is concave and image-side surface 242 that is concave (par. [0161]), fifth lens 250 having positive power with an object-side surface 251 that is convex and image-side surface 252 that is convex (par. [0162]), sixth lens element 260 having positive power (par. [0163]), seventh lens element having negative power (par. [0164]), and eighth lens element 280 having positive power (par. [0165]).
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 combined the teachings of the first and second embodiments disclosed by Wang, by replacing lens element 120 with lens element 220 because Wang teaches it is favorable for adjusting the surface shape and refractive power of the second lens element to correct aberrations (Wang par. [0063]), replacing lens element 140 with lens element 240 because Wang teaches it is favorable for correcting aberrations (Wang, par. [0065]), and replacing lens element 150 with lens element 250, because Wang teaches it is favorable for correcting aberrations (Wang, par. [0066]), and because Wang teaches many modifications and variations are possible (Wang, par. [0234]).
The combination of the first and second embodiments of Wang does not disclose wherein each of the first through eighth optical elements is formed of one of only three types of optical glass, nor that the third optical element being positive meniscus lens wherein the second surface of the third optical element is a concave surface of the positive meniscus (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 is disclosed as having a convex object-side surface 131 and an a convex image-side surface 132, par. [0110], and Figs. 5 and 6, third lens element 230 has object-side surface 231 that is convex and image-side surface 232 that is convex, par. [0160]), nor does Wang in the first or second embodiment disclose the sixth optical element being a double convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 161 that is convex and an image-side surface 162 that is concave, par. [0113], and Figs. 5 and 6, sixth lens element 260 has object-side surface 261 that is concave, and image-side surface 262 that is convex, par. [0163]). Wang does not disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position), and Wang does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm and is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system).
In the same field of invention, Dowell discloses color photography cameras constructed of only three kinds of glass, and Dowell teaches such an optical system corrects chromatic aberration (claim 7).
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 Dowell to the disclosure of Wang and selected only three kinds of optical glass for the lenses of the image capturing lens system, because Dowell teaches a color photography camera with only three kinds of glass corrects chromatic aberration (Dowell, claim 7).
The combination of Wang in view of Dowell does not disclose that the third optical element being positive meniscus lens wherein the second surface of the third optical element is a concave surface of the positive meniscus (Figs. 1 and 2, third lens element 130 is disclosed as having a convex object-side surface 131 and an a convex image-side surface 132, par. [0110], and Figs. 5 and 6, third lens element 230 has object-side surface 231 that is convex and image-side surface 232 that is convex, par. [0160]), nor does Wang in the first or second embodiment disclose the sixth optical element being a double convex lens (Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 161 that is convex and an image-side surface 162 that is concave, par. [0113], and Figs. 5 and 6, sixth lens element 260 has object-side surface 261 that is concave, and image-side surface 262 that is convex, par. [0163]). Wang does not disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position), and Wang does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm and is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system).
In the same field of invention, Ko discloses an optical imaging system with eight lenses (refer to at least title and abstract thereof), a fifth example of which is shown in Figs. 9 and 10 thereof (refer to par. [0173] and Table 9 thereof), with first lens 510 having positive power (par. [0178] thereof), second lens 520 having negative power (par. [0179] thereof), third lens 530 having positive power with a first surface that is convex and a second surface that is concave (par. [0180] thereof), a fourth lens 540 having negative power (par. [0182] thereof), a fifth lens 550 having positive power (par. [0184] thereof), a sixth lens 560 having positive power (par. [0185] thereof), and a seventh lens 570 with negative power (par. [0187] thereof).
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 Ko to the disclosure of Wang and modified the third lens element to be a positive meniscus lens having positive refractive power with a first surface that is convex and a second surface that is concave, because Ko teaches with such an optical imaging system, an aberration improvement effect may be improved, while high resolution may be implemented (Ko, par. [0193]).
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell and Ko does not disclose the sixth optical element being a double convex lens (Wang Figs. 1 and 2, sixth lens element 160 is disclosed as having an object-side surface 161 that is convex and an image-side surface 162 that is concave, par. [0113], and Wang Figs. 5 and 6, sixth lens element 260 has object-side surface 261 that is concave, and image-side surface 262 that is convex, par. [0163], and Ko fifth example has sixth lens 560 with a first surface that is concave and a second surface that is convex, par. [0185] thereof), nor does the prior art combination disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position, and Ko fifth example has Fno of 1.74, par. [0176] thereof), and the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm and is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system, and Ko is silent as to any achromaticity and passively athermal aspects of the imaging system disclosed).
In the same field of invention, Kanetaka discloses an imaging lens and image pickup apparatus (refer to at least title and abstract thereof) where Fig. 9 thereof shows the third example disclosed, and numerical example 3 includes a first lens G1 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 21-23 thereof), a second lens G2 with negative refractive power and a biconcave shape (col. 15, lines 26-27 thereof), a third lens G3 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 27-28 thereof), a fourth lens G4 with negative refractive power that is biconcave (col. 15, lines 32-33 thereof), a fifth lens G5 with positive refractive power that is biconvex (col. 15, lines 33-34 thereof), a sixth lens G6 with positive refractive power that is biconvex (col. 15, lines 34-35 thereof), a seventh lens G7 with negative refractive power (col. 15, lines 38-40 thereof), and an eighth lens G8 with positive refractive power (col. 15, lines 40-42 thereof).
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 Kanetaka to the disclosure of Wang and modified the sixth lens of the imaging system to be biconvex (i.e., double convex), because Kanetaka teaches various kinds of aberration are favorably corrected and superior imaging performance is achieved (Kanetaka, col. 17, lines 38-41).
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell, Ko, and Kanetaka does not disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position, and Ko fifth example has Fno of 1.74, par. [0176] thereof, while Kanetaka Example 3 lists Fno as 2.06, 2.09 and 2.19 for the various positions of the lens groups, see Table 11 thereof), and the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm and is passively athermal for the range of -14°C to 70°C (Wang teaches compensation for temperature effects by moving at least one lens group along the optical axis, par. [0058], but does not teach or suggest achromaticity or passively athermal nature of the lens system, and Ko and Kanetaka are silent as to any achromaticity and passively athermal aspects of the imaging systems disclosed).
In the same field of invention, Yin teaches an athermal lens system 100 and athermal camera 180 that are athermal over the range from -45 °C to 105 °C (refer to at least par. [0034] thereof).
It has been held that 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). See MPEP §2144.05. In this case, the prior art range of -45°C to 105°C overlaps the claimed range of -14°C to 70°C.
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 Yin to the disclosure of Wang to modify the lens assembly disclosed to have an imaging system capable of producing proper imaging over a wide range of temperatures (Yin, par. [0034]). As a consequence, the combination of Wang in view of Yin teaches and renders obvious the limitation that no refocusing is required, because Yin camera 180 does not require refocusing over the disclosed temperature range.
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell, Ko, Kanetaka, and Yin does not disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position, and Ko fifth example has Fno of 1.74, par. [0176] thereof, while Kanetaka Example 3 lists Fno as 2.06, 2.09 and 2.19 for the various positions of the lens groups, see Table 11 thereof, and Yin discloses athermal doublet lens 700 has a working f-number of f/3, par. [0054] thereof), and the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the lens assembly is achromatic over a spectral range from 870nm to 400nm (Wang does not teach or suggest achromaticity of the lens system, and Ko, Kanetaka, and Yin are silent as to any achromaticity aspects of the imaging systems disclosed).
In the same field of invention, Finizio teaches a camera with lens assembly 22 configured to focus visible and infrared light over wavelengths of 400-1000 nm by the use of achromatic doublet lenses (col. 7, lines 14-20 thereof).
It has been held that 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). See MPEP §2144.05. In this case, the prior art range of 400 nm to 1000 nm overlaps the claimed range of 400 nm to 870 nm.
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 Finizio to the disclosure of Wang to modify the lens assembly disclosed to have an imaging system capable of producing proper imaging over a wide range of wavelengths in a wide variety of lighting conditions (Finizio, col. 1, lines 61-62).
The prior art combination of Wang in view of Dowell, Ko, Kanetaka, Yin, and Finizio does not disclose an embodiment with a focal point ratio of 2.8 (Wang Table 2 lists the first embodiment as having Fno of 3.21 in a short-focal-length position and 5.16 in a long-focal-length position and Wang in Table 5 lists the second embodiment as having Fno 3.20 in the short-focal-length position, and Fno of 4.59 in the long-focal-length position, and Ko fifth example has Fno of 1.74, par. [0176] thereof, while Kanetaka Example 3 lists Fno as 2.06, 2.09 and 2.19 for the various positions of the lens groups, see Table 11 thereof, and Yin discloses athermal doublet lens 700 has a working f-number of f/3, par. [0054] thereof, while Finizio discloses lens assembly 22 has a F/5, col. 7, lines 20-23 thereof).
However, as the focal point ratio, or f-number, is defined as the ratio of focal length to the aperture diameter, and focal length is determined by the index of refraction of the lens material, the radiuses of curvature of the lens surfaces, and the medium in which the lens resides (typically air), the focal point ratio is the result of variables available for optimization.
Thus, the prior art combination discloses the claimed invention except for the focal point ratio of 2.8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the focal point ratio, or f-number, 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 the current instance, the focal point ratio is an art recognized results effective variable in that the focal point ratio depends on focal length and aperture diameter. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the focal point ratio of Wang 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 focal point ratio is a common activity in lens design, optical imaging, and photography.
Nevertheless, in the same field of invention, Sugita discloses an image pickup apparatus (refer to at least title and abstract thereof) where Example 1 of the lens system disclosed has an F-number of 2.87 to 2.96 (par. [0026] thereof), and a first lens unit Ll having a positive refractive power, a second lens unit L2 having a negative refractive power, third lens unit L3 having a positive refractive power, a fourth lens unit L4 having a negative refraction power, a fifth lens unit L5 having a positive refractive power, and sixth, seventh, and eighth lens units L6, L7, and L8, respectively (see at least Fig. 1 thereof, showing only eight lens units).
The Examiner contends that the prior art reference Sugita value of 2.87 for an f-number of an eight lens system is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2.8 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 2.87 and the endpoint of 2.8 is insubstantial, representing only a 2.5% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the 2.87 value for the f-number from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed value of 2.8.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 2.87 for the f-number of an eight-lens system, disclosed by the prior art, is sufficiently close to the claimed value of 2.8 to render it obvious because the difference between 2.87 and the f-number of 2.8 is insubstantial, a value of 2.87 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the f-number of 2.8 for an eight-lens system, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
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 Sugita to the disclosure of Wang and adjusted the parameters of the elements of the imaging system disclosed to reach an f-number of 2.87, because Sugita teaches it is feasible and possible for an eight-lens imaging system to have an F-number of 2.87 and have optimal variation in spherical aberrations in the final image (Sugita, pars. [0054-60]).
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
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
