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 and abstract in the submissions dated 09/14/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are pending. Claims 4 and 13 are cancelled. Note that the current action has not been made final, because upon further consideration, a different grounds of rejection over Huang in view of Gross and Teledyne was found to be the best rejection of claim 1, now that previous claim 4 has been incorporated into claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Note that the grounds of the rejection for claims 1-3, 5-9 and 19-20 have been changed to being obvious over the eighth embodiment of Huang, rather than the sixth embodiment of Huang.
However, the applicant’s submitted arguments will still be addressed herein to the extent that they might also apply to the current rejection.
In paragraph 9 on page 8 of 11 through paragraph 9 on page 9 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks applicant submits that the limitation “the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system, Semi-FOV and a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens satisfy: 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0” of cancelled claims 4 and 13 have been combined with claim 1 and claim 10, respectively.
In paragraph 11 on page 9 of 11 through paragraph 1 on page 10 of 11 of applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “the curvature radius of the lens determines the deflection angle of light, and there is an obvious difference between the optical imaging systems having different curvature radii of lenses. The light path is defined by each lens, when the curvature radii of the lenses are different, the light paths are different between the third embodiment and the eighth embodiment. In the field of optical path design, a new optical imaging system cannot be obtained through simple combining irrelevant design parameters, and such a wrong idea will result in that the optical imaging system cannot be imaged or has a poorer imaging effect.”
This argument is not persuasive because it is understood that making zero power operation changes, such as bending a lens, can be made in the system without any great perturbation of an existing setup (Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4). Changing the curvature radius R3 of the second lens without changing the focal length of the lens, followed by optimizing the optical imaging system, is well within the skillset of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In paragraph 2 on page 10 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “if the curvature radius R3 of the second lens in the eight embodiment is changed to the value in the third embodiment, the light path will be changed, which will affect the imaging effect of the optical imaging system, so that the lens structures in the third embodiment and the eighth embodiment cannot be combined together.”
This argument relies on a premise that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know to try bending the curvature radius R3 of the second lens. Given that it is understood that the design process is an iterative procedure making zero power operation changes, such as bending a lens, is followed by reviewing effects of those changes, this premise clearly underestimates the level skill of an ordinary skilled artisan within the art of imaging lenses. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP §2141.03(I).
In paragraph 3 on page 10 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “by controlling the field of view of the lens and reducing an F-number of the system, the lens may have a larger imaging range; by restraining the half of the maximum field of view of the imaging system, the effective focal length of the imaging system and a ratio of the two to the curvature radius of the object-side surface of the second lens, the system has a large-image-surface imaging effect, and further has high optical performance and a better machining process, so that the optical imaging system with small size, large field of view, large aperture and high imaging quality may be achieved. The technical solution of Huang908 cannot achieve the above technical effects.”
This argument is not persuasive because the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In paragraph 4 on page 10 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “the conditional expressions of the present invention are associated with each other rather than being independent of each other. However, Semi-FOV is 66.15 deg in the eighth embodiment of Huang908, and the eighth embodiment of Huang908 does not disclose the conditional expression Semi-FOV>70°, under this premise, Huang908 cannot compare the following conditional expression f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3 with the present invention.”
This argument is not persuasive because under the new grounds of rejection the conditional expression Semi-FOV>70° is found to be obvious over the eighth embodiment of Huang908 in view of the sixth embodiment of Huang908 which teaches Semi-FOV=72.05 deg.
No further specific arguments are made after the fifth paragraph on page 10 of 11 of the applicant’s remarks.
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 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US 2021/0215908 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang908) in view of Gross, Handbook of Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross), and further in view of Teledyne Princeton Instruments, “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereinafter referred to as Teledyne).
As to claim 1, Huang908 teaches an optical imaging system (Huang908 eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, paragraph [0155], “three-piece compact optical lens system”), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, paragraph [0155], “in order from an object side to an image side”):
a first lens with a negative refractive power (Huang908, , eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 810, paragraph [0157], “first lens element 810 with a negative refractive power”), an object-side surface thereof is a concave surface (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 610, paragraph [0157], “an object-side surface 811 being concave”);
a second lens with a positive refractive power (Huang908, , eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 820, paragraph [0158], “second lens element 820 with a positive refractive power”); and
a third lens with a positive refractive power (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 830, paragraph [0159], “third lens element 830 with a negative refractive power”);
wherein an effective focal length f of the optical imaging system and, an Entrance Pupil Diameter (EPD) of the optical imaging system satisfy: f/EPD<1.6 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, Table 15, Fno=1.50);
the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system, Semi-FOV and a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens satisfy: 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, Table 15, f=0.44, FOV=132.3 deg gives tan(Semi-FOV)=1.13, Curvature Radius column, row 6 gives R3=1.225). Also, it is noted that Table 15 gives a focal length of the second lens as f2=0.771, which is similar to Huang908’s third embodiment which gives the focal length of the second lens as f2=0.764 and a radius of curvature of the object side of the second lens as R3=0.592 (Huang, third embodiment, Table 5).
Huang908 teaches both a three lens optical imaging system with the second lens having a focal length of f2=0.771 and with a radius of curvature of the object-side R3=1.225 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Table 15), and with a second lens having a focal length of f2=0.764 and with a radius of curvature of the object-side R3=0.592 (Huang908, third embodiment, Table 5).
Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when optimizing a lens design (Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical lens system of Huang908’s eighth embodiment wherein the radius of curvature of the object-side of the second lens is R3=0.592, resulting in a value of f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3=1.68, which satisfies: 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try bending the object-side of the second lens element such that R3=0.592, 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, R3/R4 is an art recognized results effective variable in that the radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens element R3 and the radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens element 4 satisfy the relation: -5.91<R3/R4<0.82, so that the astigmatism of the three-piece compact optical lens system can be reduced as taught by Huang908 (Huang908, paragraph [0021]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize R3/R4 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 the astigmatism of the three-piece compact optical lens system can be reduced (Huang908, paragraph [0021]). Furthermore one would have been motivated to optimize R3/R4 such that 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0 because Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when optimizing a lens design (Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4).
Huang908’s eighth embodiment does not teach the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70° (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, Table 15, given FOV=132.3 deg, the Semi-FOV=66.15 deg).
In the same field of endeavor Huang908’s sixth embodiment teaches the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70° (Huang908, sixth embodiment, Fig. 6A, Table 11, given FOV=144.1 deg, the Semi-FOV=72.05 deg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70°, because a change in the FOV is determined by choosing the size of the image of the image sensor (Teledyne, Summary, page 7/9).
As to claim 10, Huang908 teaches an optical imaging system (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, paragraph [0155], “three-piece compact optical lens system”), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, paragraph [0155], “in order from an object side to an image side”):
a first lens with a negative refractive power (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 810, paragraph [0157], “first lens element 810 with a negative refractive power”), an object-side surface thereof is a concave surface (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 610, paragraph [0157], “an object-side surface 811 being concave”);
a second lens with a positive refractive power (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 820, paragraph [0158], “second lens element 820 with a positive refractive power”); and
a third lens with a positive refractive power (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, 830, paragraph [0159], “third lens element 830 with a negative refractive power”);
wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens and an effective focal length f3 of the third lens satisfy a conditional expression: 0.5<f2/f3<1.7 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, given the values that follow f2/f3=0.73. Table 15, f2=0.771, f3=1.050),
the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system, Semi-FOV and a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens satisfy: 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, Table 15, f=0.44, FOV=132.3 deg gives tan(Semi-FOV)=1.13, Curvature Radius column, row 6 gives R3=1.225). Also, it is noted that Table 15 gives a focal length of the second lens as f2=0.771, which is similar to Huang908’s third embodiment which gives the focal length of the second lens as f2=0.764 and a radius of curvature of the object side of the second lens as R3=0.592 (Huang, third embodiment, Table 5).
Huang908 teaches both a three lens optical imaging system with the second lens having a focal length of f2=0.771 and with a radius of curvature of the object-side R3=1.225 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Table 15), and with a second lens having a focal length of f2=0.764 and with a radius of curvature of the object-side R3=0.592 (Huang908, third embodiment, Table 5).
Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when optimizing a lens design (Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical lens system of Huang908’s eighth embodiment wherein the radius of curvature of the object-side of the second lens is R3=0.592, resulting in a value of f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3=1.68, which satisfies: 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try bending the object-side of the second lens element such that R3=0.592, 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, R3/R4 is an art recognized results effective variable in that the radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens element R3 and the radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens element 4 satisfy the relation: -5.91<R3/R4<0.82, so that the astigmatism of the three-piece compact optical lens system can be reduced as taught by Huang908 (Huang908, paragraph [0021]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize R3/R4 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 the astigmatism of the three-piece compact optical lens system can be reduced (Huang908, paragraph [0021]). Furthermore one would have been motivated to optimize R3/R4 such that 1.5<f*tan(Semi-FOV)/R3<4.0 because Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when optimizing a lens design (Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4).
Huang908’s eighth embodiment does not teach the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70° (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, Table 15, given FOV=132.3 deg, the Semi-FOV=66.15 deg).
In the same field of endeavor Huang908’s sixth embodiment teaches the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70° (Huang908, sixth embodiment, Fig. 6A, Table 11, given FOV=144.1 deg, the Semi-FOV=72.05 deg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical imaging system wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV>70°, because a change in the FOV is determined by choosing the size of the image of the image sensor (Teledyne, Summary, page 7/9).
As to claim 2 and claim 11, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10, respectively. Huang908’s eight embodiment does not teach the optical imaging system according to claims 1 and 10, wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f3 of the third lens and an effective focal length f1 of the first lens satisfy: 2.0<|(f2+f3)/f1|<2.5 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, given the values that follow |(f2+f3)/f1|= 3.03. Table 15, Focal length column, f1=-0.851, f2=0.771, and f3=1.050).
In the same field of endeavor Huang908’s seventh embodiment teaches the optical imaging system, wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f3 of the third lens and an effective focal length f1 of the first lens satisfy: 2.0<|(f2+f3)/f1|<2.5 (Huang908, seventh embodiment, Fig. 7A, given the values that follow |(f2+f3)/f1|=2.03, Table 13, f1=-1.132, f2=1.300, and f3=0.993).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try an optical imaging system wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f3 of the third lens and an effective focal length f1 of the first lens satisfy: 2.0<|(f2+f3)/f1|<2.5. In doing so the resolution can be improved evidently (Huang908, paragraph [0013]).
As to claim 5 and claim 14, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10, and Huang908 further teaches the optical imaging system according to claims 1 and 10, wherein a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis and an edge thickness ET3 of the third lens satisfy: 1.5<CT3/ET3<2.1 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8B, 830, in the annotated figure below measurements of the center thickness of the third lens 830 and the edge thickness of the third lens 830 are shown. Given that the claimed quantity is a ratio of CT and ET, and due to the proportionality of the thicknesses, the center thickness of the third lens 630 is shown to be twice the edge thickness of the third lens 630, giving a value of CT3/ET3=1.90 which satisfies the ratio 1.5<CT3/ET3<2.1) One of ordinary skill in the art would have assumed that Fig. 8B is to scale because it is the output of a ray-tracing program.
In the alternative that Huang908 fails to explicitly teach 1.5<CT3/ET3<2.1, this limitation would also have been obvious as explained below.
Huang908 does not explicitly discuss CT3/ET3.
However, Huang908 Fig. 8B shows CT/ET3=1.90 which is in the claimed range.
The instant claims and the prior art differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, CT3/ET3. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative dimension CT3/ET3 to be between 1.5 and 2.1 as suggested by Huang908 Fig. 8B, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV). In the current instance a reasonable value for CT3/ET3 ensures the manufacturability of the lens by no portion of the lens being too thin.
PNG
media_image1.png
739
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7 and claim 16, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10, and Huang908 further teaches the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and claim 10, wherein TD is an on-axis distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image-side surface of the last lens, TO is a distance from a photographed object to the object-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis, TD and TO satisfy: 0.5<TD/TO<1.0 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8B, given the values that follow TD/TO=0.53. Table 15, Thickness column, the sum of row 3 to row 8 gives TD=1.532, the sum of row 1 and row 2 gives TO=2.896).
As to claim 19, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Huang908 further teaches a recognition module, comprising the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and an electronic photosensitive element, wherein the electronic photosensitive element is arranged on an imaging surface of the optical imaging system (Huang908, paragraphs [0002]-[0006], “ biometric identification (biometric) system… provide a three-piece compact optical lens system which can effectively collect light at a large angle, receive a wider range of images and achieve identification effects within very short distances”).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US 2021/0215908 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang908) in view of Gross, Handbook of Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross) and Teledyne Princeton Instruments, “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereinafter referred to as Teledyne), and further in view of Huang, CN 111123489 A (hereinafter referred to as Huang489).
As to claim 3 and claim 12, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10. Huang908 does not teach the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and claim 10, wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: -1.6<f3/R5+f3/R6<-0.9 (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8A, given the values that follow f3/R5+f3/R6=-2.0. Paragraph [0163], Embodiment 8 table, f3/R5=-0.10, f3/R6=-1.90).
In the same field of endeavor Huang489 teaches the optical imaging system wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: -1.6<f3/R5+f3/R6<-0.9 (Huang489, seventh embodiment, Fig. 7A, given the values that follow f3/R5+f3/R6=-0.91. Original, paragraph [0185], Table 13, last column, row 8, f3=0.78, 3rd column, rows 8 and 9 give R5=1.496 and R6=-0.544, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try an optical imaging system wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: -1.6<f3/R5+f3/R6<-0.9. Doing so corrects the magnification of the imaging (Huang489, translation, page 2, paragraphs 10 and 11, and Huang908, paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
Claims 6, 8, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US 2021/0215908 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang908) in view of Gross, Handbook of Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross) and Teledyne Princeton Instruments, “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereinafter referred to as Teledyne), and further in view of Hsueh et al., US 2020/0326507 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hsueh).
As to claim 6 and claim 15, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10. Huang908 in view of Teledyne does not teach the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and claim 10, wherein YO is an object height of a maximum imaging height of the optical imaging system, lmgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface, YO and lmgH satisfy: 4.0<YO/lmgH<5.5.
Huang908 does not explicitly teach YO/ImgH, however Huang908 does teach 2.2<P/Y<7.0 which is a ratio of related sizes, where P is the object height of a main light of the image height of the image plane which corresponds to the image-side surface of the flat panel, and Y is the image height of the image plane (Huang908, eighth embodiment, Fig. 8B, paragraph [0163], Embodiment 8 table, P/Y=4.69).
In the same field of endeavor Hsueh teaches an optical imaging system wherein YO is an object height of a maximum imaging height of the optical imaging system, lmgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface, YO and lmgH satisfy: 4.0<YO/lmgH<5.5 (Hsueh, paragraph [0104], 3.5<YOB/ImgH<9.0).
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(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose YO/lmgH such that 4.0<YO/lmgH<5.5, which overlaps the disclosed range of 3.5<YOB/ImgH<9.0, since 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(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the ratio of the maximum imaging height of the optical imaging system and the diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface is an art recognized results effective variable in that it is favorable for adjusting the optical magnification for various applications as taught by Hsueh. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize YO/lmgH 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 it is favorable for adjusting the optical magnification for various applications (Hsueh, paragraph [0104]).
As to claim 8 and claim 17, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10. Huang908 in view of Teledyne does not teach the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and claim 10, wherein an on-axis distance SL from an aperture to the imaging surface satisfies: 1.0mm<SL<1.5mm (Huang908, sixth embodiment, Fig. 6A, Table 11, Thickness column, sum of rows 5-10 gives SL=1.706).
In addition, Huang908’s third embodiment teaches the optical imaging system wherein an on-axis distance SL from an aperture to the imaging surface satisfies: 1.0mm<SL<1.5mm (Huang908, third embodiment, Fig. 3A, Table 7, Thickness column, sum of rows 5-10 gives SL=1.349).In the same field of endeavor Hsueh teaches the optical imaging system wherein an on-axis distance SL from an aperture to the imaging surface satisfies: 1.0mm<SL<1.5mm (Hsueh, 1st Embodiment, Fig. 1A, Table 1, Thickness column, sum of rows 8-11 gives SL=1.119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical imaging system wherein an on-axis distance SL from an aperture to the imaging surface satisfies: 1.0mm<SL<1.5mm. Doing so is favorable for further adjusting the position of the aperture stop so as to reduce distortion (Hsueh, paragraph [0100]).
As to claim 20, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 19. Huang908 does not teach an electronic device, comprising the recognition module according to claim 19.
In the same field of endeavor Hsueh teaches an electronic device, comprising the recognition module (Hsueh, 14th Embodiment, Fig. 40, 10a, 20a, 30a, paragraph [0270], “the electronic device 20a includes an imaging capturing unit 10a, a fingerprint identification module 30a”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try an electronic device comprising the recognition module. Doing so allows biometric identification functions in electronic devices such as smartphones (Hsueh, paragraphs [0273]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US 2021/0215908 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Huang908) in view of Gross, Handbook of Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross) and Teledyne Princeton Instruments, “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereinafter referred to as Teledyne), and further in view of Li et al., US 2021/0116679 (hereinafter referred to as Li).
As to claim 9 and claim 18, Huang908 in view of Gross and further in view of Teledyne teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and claim 10. Huang908 does not teach the optical imaging system according to claim 1 and claim 10, wherein SAG12 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the first lens, and SAG12 and an air space T12 between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis satisfy: 1.0<SAG12/T12<1.5.
In the same field of endeavor Li teaches an optical imaging system (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 2, 10, paragraph [0058], “lens system 10”), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 2, 10, paragraph [0058], “arranged sequentially from an object side to an image side”):
a first lens with a negative refractive power (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, 21, paragraph [0059], “first lens is a meniscus negative optical power lens”), an object-side surface thereof is a concave surface (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, 21, paragraph [0059], “object side being concave”);
a second lens with a positive refractive power (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, 22, paragraph [0059], “second lens is a positive optical power lens”); and
a third lens with a positive refractive power (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, 23, paragraph [0059], “third lens is a positive optical power lens”);
wherein an effective focal length f of the optical imaging system and, an Entrance Pupil Diameter (EPD) of the optical imaging system satisfy: f/EPD<1.6 (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, paragraph [0109], “the F-number is 1.240”); and Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: Semi-FOV=60° (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, paragraph [0109], “the FOV is 120 degrees,” giving the Semi-FOV is 60°);
and wherein SAG12 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the first lens, and SAG12 and an air space T12 between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis satisfy: 1.0<SAG12/T12<1.5 (Li, embodiment 3, Fig. 14, in the annotated figure below measurements of the SAG12 and T12 are shown. Given that the claimed quantity is a ratio of SAG12 and T12, and due to the proportionality of the distances, the value SAG12/T12=1.11 which satisfies the ratio 1.0<SAG12/T12<1.5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have assumed that Fig. 14 is to scale because it is the output of a ray-tracing program.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the optical imaging system wherein SAG12 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the first lens, and SAG12 and an air space T12 between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis satisfy: 1.0<SAG12/T12<1.5. Doing so increases compactness of the optical imaging system.
PNG
media_image2.png
818
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872