DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-5, 7, 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Publication 2021/0096325) in view of Chang et al. (US Publication 2020/0096745).
Regarding claim 1, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) discloses an optical imaging system comprising a lens group including a first lens L1, a second lens L2, and a third lens L3, sequentially arranged from the object side forming a first optical axis, and an optical path converter P2 reflecting light emitted from the lens group to form an image on an imaging plane IMA2, wherein the optical imaging system comprises a total of three lenses, wherein a maximum length of the optical imaging system in the first optical axis is 11.0 mm or less (Total Optical System Length = 6.42; see Table 4). Wu discloses all the claimed limitations except that the first optical axis direction and an optical axis of the imaging plane are substantially parallel, and 0.86 < BFL/TTL < 0.96 and 8 < f/IMG HT < 12. Within the same field of endeavor, Chang (Figures 1, 2A & 2B) discloses the teaching to achieve a configuration wherein the first optical axis direction and the optical axis of the imaging plane are substantially parallel by the use of a reflecting module 4. Apparently, the distance between the rearmost lens surface 21 to the reflecting module 4 can be adjusted allowing for adjustment of the distance of an optical path from an image side surface 21 of a rearmost lens to the imaging plane 3, or TTL, to just about any desired value. For this reason, the ratio BFL/TTL can easily be adjustable between 0.86 and 0.96. In addition, Chang (col. 9, lines 40-42) discloses the teaching wherein 8 < f/IMG HT < 12 (From 0.5<BFL/f and 4.0<BFL/IMG HT, we can use substitution and get 8<f/IMG HT). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a reflecting element for the purpose of achieving the desired configuration and the desired BFL/TTL and f/IMG HT ratios for design purpose.
Regarding claim 3, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) further discloses wherein the first lens has positive refractive power (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 4, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) further discloses wherein the second lens has negative refractive power (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 5, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) further discloses wherein the second lens has a concave object side surface S24.
Regarding claim 7, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) further discloses wherein the third lens has positive refractive power (see Table 4).
Regarding claim 8, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) discloses all the claimed limitations except that the distance of an optical path from an image side surface of a rearmost lens to the imaging plane is 20.0mm to 50.0mm. Within the same field of endeavor, Chang (Figures 1, 2A & 2B) discloses the teaching to achieve a configuration wherein the first optical axis direction and the optical axis of the imaging plane are substantially parallel by the use of a reflecting module 4. Apparently, the distance between the image side surface 21 of the rearmost lens to the reflecting module 4 can be adjusted allowing for adjustment of the distance of an optical path from an image side surface 21 of a rearmost lens to the imaging plane 3 to just about any desired value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a reflecting element for the purpose of achieving the desired distance of the optical path from an image side surface of a rearmost lens to the imaging plane.
Regarding claim 22, Wu (Figure 3; Table 4) discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the third lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region. However, consider the prior art satisfies all the claimed optical limitations, the concavity of a lens surface is merely a design choice and does not carry much patentable weight. It is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to vary the concavity of a certain lens in the optical system for design purpose without changing its intended optical purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the concavity of the lens for design purpose.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Publication 2021/0096325) in view of Chang et al. (US Publication 2020/0096745), as applied in claim 2, in view of CN 112764200A.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Chang discloses all the claimed limitations except that the second lens has a concave image side surface. However, the concavity or convexity of the image side surface is merely a design choice and does not carry patentable weight. Within the same field of endeavor, CN 112764200A (Figure 7) discloses a similar optical imaging system wherein the second lens L2 has a concave image side surface S4. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a concave image side surface for the second lens for design purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited
references, alone or in combination, of the feature "8 <f/IMG HT < 12, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and IMG HT is a height of the imaging plane," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang (col. 9, lines 40-42) discloses the teaching where 8<f/IMG HT<12 (From 0.5<BFL/f and 4.0<BFL/IMG HT, we can use substitution and get 8<f/IMG HT which satisfies the condition 8 < f/IMG HT<12).
Regarding claim 6, Applicants does not provide any arguments other than that from the independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/4/26
Prosecution Insights