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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US Pub. 20200064595).
As per claim 1, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (110) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (120) with a refractive power; a third lens (130) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (140) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (150) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (160) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; and a seventh lens (170) with a positive refractive power, wherein the optical imaging system has an effective focal length f (5.88 mm) (see table 1).
Huang does not specifically teach a diaphragm is positioned before the first lens having an entrance pupil diameter such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, Huang teaches in a later embodiment (shown in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught in Huang’s later embodiment in Huang’s first embodiment.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the F number (f/EPD) being less than 1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 2, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f1 of the first lens (3.08), a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens (-6.411) and the effective focal length f (5.88 mm) of the optical imaging system f satisfy: 1.0<(f1+|R2|)/f<3.0 ((f1+|R2|)/f = 1.614 see table 1).
As per claim 4, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens (-10.93) and a curvature radius R12 of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (9.240) satisfy -5<f6/R12<-1 (f6/R12 = -1.183 see table 1).
As per claim 5, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens (16.89) and an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens (-10.43) satisfy: 0<|f4/f5|<9.0 (<|f4/f5| = 1.619, see table 1)
As per claim 6, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens (3.223) and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens (2.067) satisfy: 1.0<R5/R6<2.5 (R5/R6 = 1.5593, see table 1).
As per claim 8, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that a curvature radius R11 of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (-16.181) and a curvature radius R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens (5.330) satisfy: 1.0<|R11/R7|<5.5 (|R11/R7| = 3.036, see table 1).
As per claim 11, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis (.226) and a center thickness CT6 of the sixth lens on the optical axis (.582) satisfy: 4.5mm-2<1/(CT3xCT6)<13.5mm-2 (1/(CT3xCT6) = 7.603 mm-2, see table 1).
As per claim 12, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that TTL is an on-axis distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface (6.2916 mm, see table 1 and paragraph 131), Semi-FOV (22.6 degrees) is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and TTL and Semi-FOV satisfy: TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) = 2.619 mm.
Huang does not specifically teach that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm.
However, both track length and the field of view are result effective variables in that smaller track length results in a more compact device but decreases the field of view and the field of view is dependent on the size of the diaphragm such that when the field of view is increased by increasing the diameter of diaphragm aberrations increase and when the field of view is decreased by decreasing the diameter diaphragm the amount of light on the sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the track length and the diameter of the diaphragm such that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 13, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that a refractive index N7 of the seventh lens (1.68) satisfies: N7>1.6 (see table 1).
As per claim 14, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (110) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (120) with a refractive power; a third lens (130) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (140) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (150) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (160) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; and a seventh lens (170) with a positive refractive power, wherein TTL is an on-axis distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface (6.2916 mm, see table 1 and paragraph 131), Semi-FOV (22.6 degrees) is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and TTL and Semi-FOV satisfy: TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) = 2.619 mm.
Huang does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens or that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm.
However, Huang teaches in a later embodiment (shown in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught in Huang’s later embodiment in Huang’s first embodiment.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) being in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm
However, both track length and the field of view are result effective variables in that smaller track length results in a more compact device but decreases the field of view and the field of view is dependent on the size of the diaphragm such that when the field of view is increased by increasing the diameter of diaphragm aberrations increase and when the field of view is decreased by decreasing the diameter diaphragm the amount of light on the sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the track length and the diameter of the diaphragm such that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 15, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) an effective focal length f of the optical imaging system (5.88 mm) (see table 1).
Huang does not specifically teach that the entrance pupil diameter has a value such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 16, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f1 of the first lens (3.08), a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens (-6.411) and the effective focal length f (5.88 mm) of the optical imaging system f satisfy: 1.0<(f1+|R2|)/f<3.0 ((f1+|R2|)/f = 1.614 see table 1).
As per claim 18, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens (-10.93) and a curvature radius R12 of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (9.240) satisfy -5<f6/R12<-1 (f6/R12 = -1.183 see table 1).
As per claim 19, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens (16.89) and an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens (-10.43) satisfy: 0<|f4/f5|<9.0 (<|f4/f5| = 1.619, see table 1).
As per claim 20, Huang teaches (in figure 1A) that a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens (3.223) and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens (2.067) satisfy: 1.0<R5/R6<2.5 (R5/R6 = 1.5593, see table 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asami (US Pub. 20150168698) in view of Huang (US Pub. 20200064595).
As per claim 3, Asami teaches (in figure 2) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L11) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (L12) with a refractive power; a third lens (L13) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L14) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (L15) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L16) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; a seventh lens (L17) with a positive refractive power, wherein the optical imaging system has an effective focal length f (1.0) wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens (≈ -0.89857 calculated from the values in table 2) and the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system satisfy -1 <f3/f<0 (f3/f ≈ -0.89857).
Asami does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens or that the entrance pupil diameter has a value such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, Huang teaches (in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught Huang.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Asami in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the F number (f/EPD) being less than 1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
As per claim 17, Asami teaches (in figure 2) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L11) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (L12) with a refractive power; a third lens (L13) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L14) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (L15) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L16) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; a seventh lens (L17) with a positive refractive power, wherein TTL is an on-axis distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface (5.1863 calculated from the values in table 1) , Semi-FOV (29.2 degrees) is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and TTL and Semi-FOV satisfy: TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) = 2.899 mm, wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens (≈ -0.89857 calculated from the values in table 2) and the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system (1) satisfy -1 <f3/f<0 (f3/f ≈ -0.89857).
Asami does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens or that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm.
However, Huang teaches (in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught Huang.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Asami in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) being in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm.
However, both track length and the field of view are result effective variables in that smaller track length results in a more compact device but decreases the field of view and the field of view is dependent on the size of the diaphragm such that when the field of view is increased by increasing the diameter of diaphragm aberrations increase and when the field of view is decreased by decreasing the diameter diaphragm the amount of light on the sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the track length and the diameter of the diaphragm such that TTLxTan(Semi-FOV) falls in the range of 3.0-4.0 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US Pub. 20200209554, Ko) in view of Huang (US Pub. 20200064595).
As per claim 7, Ko teaches (in figure 1) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (110) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (120) with a refractive power; a third lens (130) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (140) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (150) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (160) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; and a seventh lens (170) with a positive refractive power, wherein the optical imaging system has an effective focal length f (5.81 mm) (see table 1) wherein a curvature radius R9 of an object-side surface of the fifth lens (-7.98512) and a curvature radius R14 of an image-side surface of the seventh lens (-7.48822) satisfy: 1.0<R9/R14<5.0 (R9/R14 = 1.066, see table 1).
Ko does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens or that the entrance pupil diameter has a value such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, Huang teaches (in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught Huang.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Ko in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the F number (f/EPD) being less than 1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US Pub. 20150192839) in view of Huang (US Pub. 20200064595).
As per claim 1, Miyazaki teaches (in figure 1A) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L1) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (L2) with a refractive power; a third lens (L3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L4) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (L5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; and a seventh lens (L7) with a positive refractive power, wherein a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis (3.92870) and a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis (0.9) satisfy: 4.0<CT2/CT3<7.5 (CT2/CT3 = 4.3652) (see table 1).
Miyazaki does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens wherein the entrance pupil diameter has a value such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, Huang teaches (in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught Huang.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Miyazaki in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the F number (f/EPD) being less than 1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Take et al. (US Pub. 20090273851) in view of Huang (US Pub. 20200064595).
As per claim 10, Take teaches (in figure 1) an optical imaging system, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L1) with a positive refractive power; a second lens (L2) with a refractive power; a third lens (L3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L4) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (L5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) with a refractive power, an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface or a concave surface; and a seventh lens (L7) with a positive refractive power, wherein an effective focal length f of the optical imaging system (32.0) (see table 1) wherein T45 is an air space between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis (8.69), and T45 and a center thickness CT4 of the fourth lens on the optical axis (1.3) satisfy: 3.0<T45/CT4<8.0 (T45/CT4 = 6.685, see table 1).
Take does not specifically teach a diaphragm positioned before the first lens having an entrance pupil diameter such that the f/EPD<1.3.
However, Huang teaches (in figure 9A) providing an additional diaphragm (901) before the first lens (910).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional diaphragm as taught Huang.
The motivation would have been to provide the predictable result of reducing aberrations and further collimating the light entering the lens system.
As such, Take in view of Huang teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the F number (f/EPD) being less than 1.3.
However, the F number is a result effective variable in that as the F number decreases (aperture increases) the amount of aberrations increases and as the F number increases (aperture decreases) the amount of light on the image sensor decreases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm such that f/EPD<1.3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871