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 04/06/2026 in response to the office action mailed 01/06/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), and Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and Cai et al., CN112666677A (hereinafter referred to as Cai where reference will be made to the attached machine translation), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), and Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and Cai et al., CN112666677A (hereinafter referred to as Cai where reference will be made to the attached machine translation), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), and further in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren).
As to claim 1, Weng teaches an imaging lens system (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, paragraph [0092], “optical imaging lens”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E1, paragraph [0093], “first lens E1 has a positive refractive power”) and a convex image-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S2, paragraph [0093], “an image side surface S2 of the first lens is a convex surface”);
a second lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E2, paragraph [0093], “second lens E2 has a negative refractive power”) and a convex object-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S3, paragraph [0093], “an object side surface S3 of the second lens is a convex surface”);
a third lens having refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E3, paragraph [0093], “third lens E3 has a positive refractive power”);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E4, paragraph [0093], “fourth lens E4 has a negative refractive power”);
a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E5, paragraph [0093], “fifth lens E5 has a negative refractive power”); and
a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E6, paragraph [0093], “sixth lens E6 has a positive refractive power”),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially disposed from an object side (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E1-E6, paragraph [0092], “sequentially from an object side to an image side”), and wherein
0.95<D23/D34<1.20 (Weng, Embodiment 7, given the values that follow D23/D34=1.14),
where D23 is a distance from an image-side surface of the second lens to an object-side surface of the third lens (Weng, Embodiment 7, Table 13, Thickness column, Surface Number row S4 gives D23=0.5668), and D34 is a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens (Weng, Embodiment 7, Table 13, Thickness column, Surface Number row S6 gives D34=0.4954).
Weng does not explicitly teach TTL/f≤0.85 (Weng, paragraph [0037], TTL/f<1.0, which is close and overlaps with the claimed range),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
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 the ratio of the distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane and a focal length of the imaging lens system such that TTL/f≤0.85, which overlaps the disclosed range of TTL/f<1.0, 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, TTL/f is an art recognized results effective variable in that TTL/f<1.0 is favorable for realizing the long-focus characteristic of the optical imaging lens as taught by Weng (paragraph [0037]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of the distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane and a focal length of the imaging lens system 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 realizing the long-focus characteristic of the optical imaging lens (Weng, paragraph [0037]).
Weng does not teach the imaging lens system wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, in the same field of endeavor Wenren teaches an imaging lens system (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, paragraph [0073], “optical imaging lens assembly”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E1, paragraph [0075], “the first lens E1 has a positive refractive power”);
a second lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E2, paragraph [0075], “the second lens E2 has a negative refractive power”) and a convex object-side surface (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, S3, paragraph [0075], “an object-side surface S3 thereof is a convex surface”);
a third lens having refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E3, paragraph [0075], “the third lens E3 has a negative refractive power”);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E4, paragraph [0075], “the fourth lens E4 has a negative refractive power”);
a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E5, paragraph [0075], “the fifth lens E5 has a negative refractive power”); and
a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E6, paragraph [0075], “the sixth lens E6 has a positive refractive power”),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially disposed from an object side (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E1-E6, paragraph [0074], “from an object side to an image side along an optical axis”),
wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, Table 1, the radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens S5 is given as S5=12.0025, the radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens S11 is given as S11=-6.0362), wherein
TTL/f≤0.85 (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Table 13, TTL/f=0.85, paragraph [0051], “TTL/f≤0.85”),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Weng wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens of Wenren, because doing so enables the optical imaging lens assembly t balance the curvature field and the distortion easily, and ensures a greater focal length of the lens, properly control a range of a depth of field and meet shooting requirements of more users (Wenren, paragraphs [0058] and [0066]).
As to claim 3, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Weng further teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S7, paragraph [0093], “object side surface S7 of the fourth lens is a convex surface”).
As to claim 4, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Weng further teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens comprises a concave image-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S8, paragraph [0093], “image side surface S8 of the fourth lens is a concave surface”).
As to claim 6, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Weng further teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S11, paragraph [0093], “an object side surface S11 of the sixth lens is a convex surface”).
As to claim 8, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weng does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein 0.3<f1/f<0.5, where f 1 is a focal length of the first lens.
However, in the same field of endeavor Wenren teaches the imaging lens system, wherein 0.3<f1/f<0.5, where f 1 is a focal length of the first lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, Table 13, f1/f=0.46, paragraph [0053], “0.45≤f1/f≤0.46”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Weng wherein 0.3<f1/f<0.5, where f 1 is a focal length of the first lens of Wenren, because doing so balances a contribution value of the first lens to the focal length, reduces the sensitivity of the whole assembly, and achieves a higher capability of the optical imaging lens assembly in balancing the curvature field (Wenren, paragraph [0053]).
As to claim 10, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weng does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein 2.4<f/IMGHT<2.8, where IMGHT is a height of the imaging plane (Weng, Embodiment 7, paragraph [0094], “the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens is 5.96 mm… the value of the half of the diagonal length ImgH of the effective pixel area of the imaging surface S15 is 3.07 mm,” thus f/IMGHT=1.94).
However, in the same field of endeavor Wenren teaches an imaging lens system, wherein 2.4<f/IMGHT<2.8 (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, Table 1, given the values that follow f/IMGHT=2.53, f=6.75 mm), where IMGHT is a height of the imaging plane (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, Table 1, IMGHT=2.67 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Weng wherein 2.4<f/IMGHT<2.8, where IMGHT is a height of the imaging plane of Wenren, because doing so achieves high imaging quality (Wenren, paragraph [0080]).
As to claim 11, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Weng further teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein 0.1<BFL/f<0.25 (Weng, Embodiment 7, given the values that follow BFL/f=0.14, paragraph [0094], focal length f=5.96), where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the sixth lens to the imaging plane (Weng, Embodiment 7, Table 13, Thickness column, the sum of Surface Numbers S12-S14 gives BFL=0.8507).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and further in view of Cai et al., CN112666677A (hereinafter referred to as Cai where reference will be made to the attached machine translation), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
As to claim 5, Weng in view of Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weng does not teach imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the fifth lens comprises a convex image-side surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor Cai teaches an imaging lens system (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, 100, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “the optical system 100”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L1, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a first lens L1 with a positive refractive power”) and a convex image-side surface (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L1, S2, translation, page 9, second paragraph, “the image side surface S2 is convex”);
a second lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L2, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a second lens L2 with a negative refractive power”);
a third lens having refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L3, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a third lens L3 with a negative refractive power”);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L4, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “the fourth lens L4 with negative refractive power”);
a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L5, translation, the last line of page 8 through the first line of page 9, “the fifth lens L5 with negative refractive power”); and
a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L6, translation, page 9, first line, “the sixth lens L6 with positive refractive power”),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially disposed from an object side (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L1-L6, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “in order from the object side to the image side”),
wherein
TTL/f≤0.85 (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, 100, original document, paragraph [0131], table gives TTL/f=0.841, as indicated in the annotated table below),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, and
wherein the fifth lens comprises a convex image-side surface (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L5, S10, translation, page 9, sixth paragraph, “the image side surface S10 is convex at the optical axis”).
In the general optical system handbook, Gross demonstrated (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”) without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system wherein the fifth lens comprises a convex image-side surface, as taught by Cai in the system of Weng, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification as evidenced by Gross that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4) and bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), and further in view of Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
As to claim 7, Weng in view Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weng’s Embodiment 7 does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex image-side surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor Weng’s Embodiment 4 teaches an imaging lens system (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, paragraph [0073], “optical imaging lens”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E1, paragraph [0075], “the first lens E1 has a positive refractive power”) and a convex image-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, S2, paragraph [0075], “an image side surface S2 of the first lens is a convex surface”);
a second lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E2, paragraph [0075], “the second lens E2 has a negative refractive power”) and a convex object-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, S3, paragraph [0075], “an object side surface S3 of the second lens is a convex surface”);
a third lens having refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E3, paragraph [0075], “the third lens E3 has a negative refractive power”);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E4, paragraph [0075], “the fourth lens E4 has a negative refractive power”);
a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E5, paragraph [0075], “the fifth lens E5 has a negative refractive power”); and
a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E6, paragraph [0075], “the sixth lens E6 has a positive refractive power”),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially disposed from an object side (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, E1-E6, paragraph [0074], “from an object side to an image side along an optical axis”), and
wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex image-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 4, Fig. 7, S12, paragraph [0075], “an image side surface S12 of the sixth lens is a convex surface”).
In the general optical system handbook, Gross demonstrated (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”) without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex image-side surface, as taught by Weng’s Embodiment 4 in the system of Weng’s Embodiment 7, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification as evidenced by Gross that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4) and bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren).
As to claim 12, Wenren teaches an imaging lens system (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, paragraph [0073], “optical imaging lens assembly”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E1, paragraph [0075], “the first lens E1 has a positive refractive power”), a second lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E2, paragraph [0075], “the second lens E2 has a negative refractive power”), a third lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E3, paragraph [0075], “the third lens E3”), a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E4, paragraph [0075], “the fourth lens E4 has a negative refractive power”), a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E5, paragraph [0075], “the fifth lens E5 has a negative refractive power”), and a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E6, paragraph [0075], “the sixth lens E6 has a positive refractive power”), sequentially disposed from an object side (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, E1-E6, paragraph [0074], “from an object side to an image side along an optical axis”),
wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Fig. 1, Table 1, the radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens S5 is given as S5=12.0025, the radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens S11 is given as S11=-6.0362), and wherein
TTL/f≤0.85 (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Table 13, TTL/f=0.85, paragraph [0051], “TTL/f≤0.85”),
and
0.30 < D34/D45 < 0.40 (Wenren, Embodiment 1, given the values that follow D34/D45=0.27),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, D34 is a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Table 1, radius of curvature column, row S6, gives D34=0.2798), and D45 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to an object-side surface of the fifth lens (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Table 1, radius of curvature column, row S8, gives D45=1.05).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. 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. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of D34/D45=0.27 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.30 < D34/D45 < 0.40 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the ratio of the distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens and the distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to an object-side surface of the fifth lens such that 0.30 < D34/D45 < 0.40 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. 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. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
As to claim 15, Wenren teaches the imaging lens system of claim 12, wherein
0.17 < D45/f < 0.20 (Wenren, Embodiment 1, Table 1, D45/f=0.16).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. 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. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of D45/f=0.16 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.17 < D45/f < 0.20 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. 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 the ratio of the distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to an object-side surface of the fifth lens and the focal length of the imaging system such that 0.17 < D45/f < 0.20 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. 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. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and further in view of Weng et al., US 2021/0255424 (hereinafter referred to as Weng), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
As to claim 13, Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Wenren does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 12, wherein the first lens comprises a convex image-side surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor Weng teaches an imaging lens system (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, paragraph [0092], “optical imaging lens”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E1, paragraph [0093], “first lens E1 has a positive refractive power”), a second lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E2, paragraph [0093], “second lens E2 has a negative refractive power”), a third lens (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E3, paragraph [0093], “third lens E3 has a positive refractive power”), a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E4, paragraph [0093], “fourth lens E4 has a negative refractive power”), a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E5, paragraph [0093], “fifth lens E5 has a negative refractive power”), and a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E6, paragraph [0093], “sixth lens E6 has a positive refractive power”),sequentially disposed from an object side (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, E1-E6, paragraph [0092], “sequentially from an object side to an image side”), and wherein
TTL/f≤0.85 (Weng does not explicitly teach TTL/f≤0.85, however Weng teaches the range TTL/f<1.0 which is close and overlaps with the claimed range, paragraph [0037]),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, and
wherein the first lens comprises a convex image-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S2, paragraph [0093], “an image side surface S2 of the first lens is a convex surface”).
In the general optical system handbook, Gross demonstrated (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”) without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system wherein the first lens comprises a convex image-side surface, as taught by Weng in the system of Wenren, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification as evidenced by Gross that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4) and bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
As to claim 14, Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Wenren does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 12, wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor Weng teaches an imaging lens system, wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface (Weng, Embodiment 7, Fig. 13, S11, paragraph [0093], “an object side surface S11 of the sixth lens is a convex surface”).
In the general optical system handbook, Gross demonstrated (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”) without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system wherein the sixth lens comprises a convex object-side surface, as taught by Weng in the system of Wenren, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification as evidenced by Gross that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4) and bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenren et al., US 2022/0099925 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Wenren), and further in view of Cai et al., CN112666677A (hereinafter referred to as Cai where reference will be made to the attached machine translation), as evidenced by Gross, Handbook of the Optical Systems (hereinafter referred to as Gross).
As claim 16, Wenren teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Wenren does not teach the imaging lens system of claim 12, wherein 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073.
However, in the same field of endeavor Cai teaches an imaging lens system (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, 100, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “the optical system 100”), comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L1, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a first lens L1 with a positive refractive power”), a second lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L2, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a second lens L2 with a negative refractive power”), a third lens (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L3, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “a third lens L3 with a negative refractive power”), a fourth lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L4, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “the fourth lens L4 with negative refractive power”), a fifth lens having negative refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L5, translation, the last line of page 8 through the first line of page 9, “the fifth lens L5 with negative refractive power”), and a sixth lens having positive refractive power (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L6, translation, page 9, first line, “the sixth lens L6 with positive refractive power”), sequentially disposed from an object side (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, L1-L6, translation, page 8, last paragraph, “in order from the object side to the image side”), and wherein
TTL/f≤0.85 (Cai, third embodiment, Fig. 9, 100, original document, paragraph [0131], table gives TTL/f=0.841, as indicated in the annotated table below),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, and
wherein 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073 (Cai, third embodiment, given the values that follow D34/f=0.057: original document, paragraph [0124], Table 6, gives f=12.601, paragraph [0126], Table 7, fourth column, row 6 gives D34=0.719).
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Cai’s value of 0.057 for D34/f is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073 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 0.057 and the endpoint of 0.06 is insubstantial, representing only a 10% difference. Here, the calculated D34/f value from the prior art is substantially close to Applicant’s claimed range similar to 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 range of 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073.
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 0.057 for D34/f, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.057 and the endpoint of 0.063 is insubstantial, a value of 0.057 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for D34/f, 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Wenren wherein 0.063 < D34/f < 0.073 of Cai, because a high-resolution image can be obtained, and the optical system can be made more compact (Cai, translation, page 7, second paragraph).
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 at 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
/JENNIFER A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights