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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 01/09/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 18, 21, and 22 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-17, and 19-20 are pending.
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, 4-6, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai US PGPub 2018/0113282 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 01/25/2022, hereinafter, “Tsai”) in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007, of record, see Office action dated 11/15/2024, hereinafter, “Gross”), Yao et al. US PGPub 2017/0299845 A1 (hereinafter, “Yao”), Zhang et al. US PGPub 2019/0121064 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 10/10/2025, hereinafter, “Zhang”), and Fang US Patent 9,995,913 B1 (of record as CN 106802469 A, see IDS dated 11/08/2022, hereinafter, “Fang”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Tsai discloses an optical system (refer to title and abstract describing a six-piece optical lens system) comprising, in order from an object side toward an image side (the six-piece optical lens system is arranged from an object side to an image side, par. [0037]):
a stop (Fig. 1 depicting the first embodiment shows stop 100 is on the object side relative to the lens group, par. [0037]);
a first lens with a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the first lens being convex at a paraxial position, and an image-side surface of the first lens being concave at the paraxial position (Fig. 1, first lens element 110 has positive refractive power and object-side surface 111 that is convex near the optical axis 190 and image-side surface 112 that is concave near the optical axis 190, par. [0038]);
a second lens with a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the second lens being convex at a paraxial position (Fig. 1, second lens element 120 has negative refractive power and an object-side surface 121 that is convex near the optical axis, par. [0039]);
a third lens with a refractive power, an object-side surface of the third lens being convex at a paraxial position (Fig. 1, third lens element 130 has positive refractive power and an object-side surface 131 that is convex near the optical axis 190, par. [0040]);
a fourth lens with a refractive power, an image-side surface of the fourth lens being convex at a paraxial position (Fig. 1, fourth lens element 140 has negative refractive power and an image-side surface 142 that is convex near the optical axis 190, par. [0041]);
a fifth lens with a refractive power, an object-side surface of the fifth lens being convex at a paraxial position (Fig. 1, fifth lens element 150 has positive refractive power and an object-side surface 151 that is convex near the optical axis 190, par. [0042]); and
a sixth lens with a negative refractive powerFig. 1, sixth lens element 160 has negative refractive power, par. [0043]),
wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditions:
-3 ≤ f6/f ≤ -0.969
wherein f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens (Table 1 lists detailed optical data of the first embodiment, par. [0077], where the focal length of the sixth lens element 160 is given as f6 = -4.556 and the effective focal length of the first embodiment is f = 3.89, therefore Tsai teaches the ratio f6/f = -1.17, within the claimed range); and
1 ≤ f12/f ≤ 1.5 wherein f12 is a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens (Table 1, lens elements 110 and 120 have a combined focal length of 4.624 as determined from the values for f1 and f2, and f = 3.89, therefore Tsai teaches the ratio f12/f = 1.19, within the claimed range).
Tsai does not disclose an object-side surface of the sixth lens being convex at a paraxial position nor an image-side surface of the sixth lens being concave at the paraxial position (as shown in Fig. 1, sixth lens element 160 has an object-side surface 161 that is concave near the optical axis 190 and an image side surface 162 that is convex near the optical axis 190, par. [0043]), nor does Tsai specifically disclose the limitation (TTL-BFL)/f < 0.92, wherein TTL is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens toward an imaging surface of the optical system, BFL is a shortest distance in a direction parallel to the optical axis from the image-side surface of the sixth lens toward the imaging surface of the optical system, and f is an effective focal length of the optical system (Fig. 1, Table 1, total track length is 4.577, back focal length BFL is 0.957, and f is 3.89, therefore Tsai teaches the condition (TTL-BFL)/f = 0.93, which is within 1.15% of the claimed upper limit), and Tsai does not disclose the condition 1.0 ≤ TTL/IMGH ≤ 1.4, wherein IMGH is half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel area on the photosensitive element (Tsai is silent as to image height for the optical system disclosed, so a value for the ratio TTL/IMGH is not available to compare to the claimed range), and Tsai does not disclose the condition 0.135 ≤ SAG21/CT2 ≤ 0.327 wherein SAG21 is a sagittal height of the object-side surface of the second lens, and CT2 is a central thickness of the second lens (Table 1, lens 2 has thickness 0.239, but the sagittal height of the object-side surface of lens element 120 is not provided, therefore no comparison can be made between the condition claimed and the prior art).
With regard to the limitation (TTL-BFL)/f < 0.92, the Examiner contends that value of 0.93 disclosed by Tsai for (TTL-BFL)/f is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.92 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 0.93 as taught by Tsai and the endpoint of the claimed range of being no greater than 0.92 is insubstantial, representing only a 1.15% difference, while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated (TTL-BFL)/f value 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 range of less than 0.92.
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 0.93 for (TTL-BFL)/f, calculated from the prior art disclosure of Tsai, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of no more than 0.92 to render it obvious, because the difference between 0.93 and the endpoint of 0.92 is insubstantial, a value of 0.93 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for (TTL-BFL)/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.
In the general field of lens design, Gross teaches (refer to page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Flipping a lens into reverse orientation does not modify the curvatures of the two surfaces, thus keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power’). Gross teaches that flipping a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
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 Gross to the disclosure of Tsai and flip lens 160 into a reverse orientation, such that object-side surface 161 would become the image-side surface and the image-side surface 162 would become the object-side surface, as Gross teaches the reversal of orientation of a lens does not alter the refractive power of the lens (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because flipping the orientation of a lens does not alter the surface shapes or refractive powers and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
In addition, in the same field of invention, Yao discloses an imaging lens system of six lenses (refer to at least Fig. 4 depicting lens system 110) with an aperture stop 130, a first lens element 101 having positive refractive power with an object-side surface that is convex and an image-side surface that is concave, a second lens element 102 having negative refractive power and an object-side surface that is convex, a third lens element 103 with an object-side surface that is convex, a fourth lens element 104, a fifth lens element 105 with an object-side surface that is convex, and a sixth lens element 106 having negative refractive power and an object-side surface that is convex and an image-side surface that is concave (refer to at least pars. [0076-82] and Table 1 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 Yao to the disclosure of Tsai and modified sixth lens element 160 to have an object-side surface convex at a paraxial position, and an image-side surface concave at the paraxial position, to implement an imaging system suitable for use in small and/or mobile multipurpose devices while capturing sharp, high-resolution images (Yao, par. [0055]). As such the prior art combination teaches and renders obvious the inclusion of a sixth lens element with a convex object-side surface and an image-side surface that is concave, because Tsai in view of either Gross or Yao, or both, demonstrates the feasibility and advantage of such a sixth lens element.
The prior art combination of Tsai in view of Gross and Yao does not disclose the condition 1.0 ≤ TTL/IMGH ≤ 1.4, wherein IMGH is half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel area on the photosensitive element (as noted above, Tsai is silent as to image height for the optical system disclosed, so a value for the ratio TTL/IMGH is not available to compare to the claimed range, while Yao discloses TTL/ImageH < 1.9 in par. [0075] thereof and thus at least overlapping the claimed range while in Table 3 Yao discloses TTL/ImageH is 1.77 for lens system 110, outside of the claimed range), and the prior art combination does not disclose the condition 0.135 ≤ SAG21/CT2 ≤ 0.327 wherein SAG21 is a sagittal height of the object-side surface of the second lens, and CT2 is a central thickness of the second lens (Tsai Table 1, lens 2 has thickness 0.239, but the sagittal height of the object-side surface of lens element 120 is not provided, therefore no comparison can be made between the condition claimed and the prior art).
In the same field of invention, Zhang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, a first embodiment of which is shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, with a first lens E1 that has positive refractive power, an object-side surface S1 that is convex and an image-side surface S2 that is concave (par. [0085] thereof), a second lens E2 that has negative refractive power with an object-side surface S3 that is convex (par. [0086] thereof), a third lens E3 that has positive refractive power and an object-side surface S5 that is convex (par. [0087] thereof), a fourth lens E4 that has negative refractive power (par. [0088] thereof), a fifth lens E5 that has positive refractive power (par. [0089] thereof), and a sixth lens E6 that has negative refractive power with an image-side surface S12 that is concave (par. [0090] thereof), and in Table 3 of Zhang the total track length TTL for the first embodiment is given as 4.69 mm, and the image height ImgH is 3.38 mm, and so Zhang teaches the condition TTL/ImgH = 1.39, within the claimed range of 1.0 ≤ TTL/IMGH ≤ 1.4.
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 Zhang to the disclosure of Tsai and to have adjusted the spacing and thicknesses of the lens elements so as to achieve a ratio TTL/IMGH that is 1.39, so that the thicknesses, spacings, and surfaces of the lens elements are reasonably distributed to achieve enhanced imaging in dim environments and optimizing aberrations in the final image produced (Zhang, par. [0034]).
The prior art combination of Tsai in view of Gross, Yao, and Zhang does not disclose the condition 0.135 ≤ SAG21/CT2 ≤ 0.327.
In the same field of invention, Fang discloses an optical camera lens with six lenses (refer to title and abstract thereof, and see at least Fig. 1 and refer to at least Table 1 thereof), with a first lens L1 that has positive refraction power (col. 2, line 21), a second lens L2 with negative refraction power and a convex object-side surface as shown in Fig. 1 (col. 2 lines 27-28), a third lens L3 that has positive refractive power (col. 2 lines 30-31), a fourth lens L4 with negative refraction power (col. 2 lines 32-33), a fifth lens L5 with positive refractive power (col. 2 line 36), and a sixth lens L6 with negative refractive power (col. 2, lines 38-39) and a concave image-side surface as shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, Fang teaches the relation between total track length TTL and image height IH to be TTL/IH < 1.35 (col. 2, lines 54-57), and in Table 2 Fang discloses lens L2 has a thickness of 0.222 mm and a sagittal height SAG21 of the object-side surface of second lens L2 is 0.073 mm, therefore Fang teaches the ratio SAG21/CT2 = 0.329, within less than 1% of the upper limit of the claimed range of 0.135 ≤ SAG21/CT2 ≤ 0.327.
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 Fang to the disclosure of Tsai and modified the second lens element by changing the object-side radius of curvature to optimize the sagittal height of the object-side surface of the second lens so as to achieve optimal aberration correction and improve image quality while also reducing total track length (Fang, col. 3, lines 4-12), and as a result the optical system of the prior art combination would have a ratio SAG21/CT2 that is 0.329 for the second lens, within 0.6% of the upper limit of 0.327.
With regard to the limitation 0.135 ≤ SAG21/CT2 ≤ 0.327, the Examiner contends that value of 0.329 disclosed by Fang for SAG21/CT2 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.327 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 0.329 and the endpoint of 0.327 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.6% difference, while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated SAG21/CT2 value 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 range of 0.135 to 0.327.
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 0.329 for SAG12/CT2, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.135 to 0.327 to render it obvious, because the difference between 0.329 and the endpoint of 0.327 is insubstantial, a value of 0.329 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for SAG21/CT2, 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.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior art combination of Tsai in view of Gross, Yao, Zhang, and Fang (hereinafter, “modified Tsai”) discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
∑CT/T214 ≤ 1
wherein SCT is a sum of central thicknesses of all lenses in the optical system, and T214 is a distance on the optical axis from the object-side surface of the first lens toward the image-side surface of the sixth lens (Tsai Table 1, SCT = 2.393 and T214 = 3.927, therefore Tsai discloses the ratio SCT/T214 = 0.609, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
1 ≤ ET2/CT2 ≤ 2
wherein ET2 is an edge thickness of the second lens, and CT2 is a central thickness of the second lens (Tsai Table 1 lists lens 2 with a central thickness CT2 of 0.239, and in Fig. 1A second lens element 120 has an edge thickness greater than the central thickness, and as best estimated by the Examiner the ratio ET2/CT2 for second lens element 120 is 1.5, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
(CT3+CT4+CT5)/f ≤ 0.5
wherein CT3 is a central thickness of the third lens, CT4 is a central thickness of the fourth lens, and CT5 is a central thickness of the fifth lens (Tsai Table 1 gives CT3 as 0.375, CT4 as 0.302, and CT5 as 0.496, and f = 3.89, therefore Tsai discloses the ratio 0.302, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but Tsai does not disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.5 ≤ R12/f ≤ 1.5
wherein R12 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis (Tsai discloses R12/f = 2.26 (refer to Tsai Table 1, lens 1 image-side radius of curvature is 8.800 and f is given as 3.89 in Table 1).
Fang discloses in Table 2 thereof that the radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the first lens L1 is R12 = 5.48830 and the effective focal length of the system disclosed is f = 4.234589, thus Fang teaches the ratio R12/f = 1.296, within the claimed range.
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 Fang to the disclosure of Tsai and adjusted the radius of curvature R12, or the focal length f, to achieve a value of 1.296 for the ratio R12/f, to optimally correct aberrations so as to guarantee imaging quality (Fang, col. 3, lines 4-12).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens are made of plastic (Tsai in Table 1 lists all lenses as plastic).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein an object-side surface of at least one of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens is aspherical (Tsai in Table 1 lists the object-side surfaces of all lenses as aspherical).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein an image-side surface of at least one of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens is aspherical (Tsai in Table 1 lists the image-side surfaces of all lenses are listed as aspherical).
Regarding dependent claim 13, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but Tsai does not disclose wherein an object-side surface of the sixth lens has an inflection point (Tsai discloses the image-side surface of the sixth lens element has at least one inflection point, par. [0007], but does not disclose the object-side surface of the sixth lens has an inflection point).
Fang discloses in Table 4 the object-side surface R11 of the sixth lens L6 has three inflection points.
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 Fang to the disclosure of Tsai and modified the sixth lens to have an object-side surface with at least one inflection point, because Fang teaches an inflection point can be provided on the object-side surface of the lens, so as to satisfy high quality imaging needs (Fang, col. 4, lines 14-18).
Regarding dependent claim 14, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the image-side surface of the sixth lens has an inflection point (Tsai discloses the image-side surface of the sixth lens element has at least one inflection point, par. [0007], and further teaches that at least one of the object-side surface 161 and the image-side surface 162 is provided with at least one inflection point, par. [0043]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but Tsai does not disclose wherein a projection of the stop on the optical axis of the optical system overlaps with a projection of the first lens on the optical axis of the optical system (Fig. 1 depicting the first embodiment shows stop 100 is on the object side relative to the lens group, par. [0037], but stop 100 does not overlap the projection of first lens element 110).
Yao discloses an imaging lens system of six lenses (refer to at least Fig. 4 depicting lens system 110) with an aperture stop 130 and a first lens element 101 having positive refractive power with an object-side surface that is convex and an image-side surface that is concave. As shown in Fig. 4 of Yao, the projection of stop 130 overlaps the projection of lens 101 on the optical axis.
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 Yao to the disclosure of Tsai and adjusted the position of the aperture stop to have the projection overlap the projection of the first lens, to control the brightness of the optical system, and to reduce aberrations (Yao, par. [0003]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai discloses the optical system further comprising an infrared filter arranged on an image side of the sixth lens (Tsai in Table 1 lists the first embodiment with an infrared filter on the image side of lens 6).
Regarding dependent claim 17, modified Tsai discloses a camera module, and Tsai further discloses a camera module comprising a photosensitive element and the optical system according to claim 1, the photosensitive element being arranged on an image side of the sixth lens (Tsai Table 1 discloses an image plane disposed on the image side of sixth lens 160 and in Fig. 1 Tsai shows an image plane 180 on the image side of sixth lens element 160, satisfying the instant limitation).
Regarding dependent claim 19, modified Tsai discloses an electronic device, and Tsai further discloses an electronic device comprising a housing and the camera module according to claim 17 arranged on the housing (Tsai teaches the six-piece optical lens system disclosed therein can be used in electronic imaging systems such as digital cameras, par. [0092], where a digital camera is understood by the Examiner to inherently possess a housing in which to arrange the optical elements so as to ensure the optical system is capable of functioning as intended).
Regarding amended dependent claim 20, modified Tsai discloses the optical system according to claim 1, and Tsai further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
1.79 ≤ FNO ≤ 2.2
wherein FNO is a F-number of the optical system (Tsai in Table 1 lists the first embodiment with Fno = 2.0, within the claimed range).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the primary reference Tsai does not disclose the combination of all the technical features in an optical system in the way currently amended claim 1 does. Specifically, Applicant notes that as acknowledged by the Office, Tsai does not disclose the limitation (TTL-BFL)/f < 0.92. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Tsai teaches (TTL-BFL)/f = 0.93 as determined from the parameters provided therein. Examiner contends that value of 0.93 disclosed by Tsai for (TTL-BFL)/f is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 0.92 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). The difference between 0.93 as taught by Tsai and the endpoint of the claimed range of being less than 0.92 is only a 1.15% difference, and the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of less than 0.92. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have reasonably concluded that the value of 0.93 for (TTL-BFL)/f, calculated from the prior art disclosure of Tsai, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of no more than 0.92 to render it obvious, because the difference between 0.93 and the endpoint of 0.92 is insubstantial, a value of 0.93 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for (TTL-BFL)/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.
With regard to the reference Zhang, Applicant has argued Zhang teaches away from combining the novel technical features in the way currently amended claim 1 does because Zhang teaches the person of ordinary skill to adopt a concave surface image-side surface of the sixth lens and not an object-side surface of the sixth lens being convex at a paraxial position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the current rejection, Zhang is cited to teach a ratio TTL/IMGH that is 1.39, so that the thicknesses, spacings, and surfaces of the lens elements are reasonably distributed to achieve enhanced imaging in dim environments and optimizing aberrations in the final image produced (Zhang, par. [0034]), and is not cited to teach any specific parameters for the sixth lens.
With regard to the reference Fang, Applicant has argued Fang teaches away from combining the novel technical features in the way currently amended claim 1 does because Fang teaches the person of ordinary skill to adopt a concave surface image-side surface of the sixth lens and not an object-side surface of the sixth lens being convex at a paraxial position. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, Fang is cited for teaching the parameter SAG21/CT2, and is not cited to teach any specific parameters for the sixth lens.
In summary, Tsai discloses the arrangement of six lenses with the claimed refractive powers and surface curvatures for the first five lenses, and Tsai in view of Gross teaches the reverse orientation of a lens, particularly the sixth lens of Tsai, can be done without changing the refractive power of the lens nor the surface curvature and does not produce significant perturbation of the existing setup. Tsai also discloses other parameters that are close enough to the claimed ranges to be obvious, and with regard to other parameters and conditions, such as TTL/IMGH and SAG12/CT2, Tsai is merely silent as to the values of these parameters rather than disclosing different values. Therefore the secondary references are cited to provide evidence that such parameters are available for reference in the prior art, and therefore the prior art as a whole teaches the feasibility and utility of such conditions in a lens system such as Tsai modified according to the ability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. All motivations for such modifications are gleaned from the cited art, and no impermissible hindsight has been applied to arrive at the claimed optical system.
Conclusion
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 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872