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.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US 2021/0048643 (second Embodiment) in view of Fukaya US 2021/0048631.
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches an optical imaging lens group (Fig. 5: 20), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (see Fig. 5: L1 to L7 lenses sequentially arranged from left to right or object to image side):
a first lens (Fig. 5: L1) with a positive refractive power (Tabl3 13: f1 = 6.69), and an image-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface (from Table 5: the radius of curvature R2 has a value of +9.281, and positive sign indicates that the image side surface of L1 is concave);
a second lens (Fig. 5: L2) with a refractive power (Table 13: f2 = -33.42), and an image-side surface of the second lens is a concave surface (from Table 5: the radius of curvature R4 has a value of +6.222, and positive sign indicates that the image side surface of L2 is concave);
a third lens (Fig. 5: L3) with a refractive power (Table 13: f3 = 49.201);
a fourth lens (Fig. 5: L4);
a fifth lens (Fig.5: L5) with a refractive power (Table 13: f5 = 922.928), and an object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface (from Table 5: the radius of curvature R9 has a value of -76.628, and negative sign indicates that the object side surface of L5 is concave);
a sixth lens (Fig. 5: L6) with a positive refractive power (Table 13: f6 = 7.694), and an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface (from Table 5: the radius of curvature R11 has a value of +3.717, and positive sign indicates that the object side surface of L6 is convex);
a seventh lens (Fig. 5: L7) with a negative refractive power (Table 13: f7 = -4.316), and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface (from Table 5: the radius of curvature R14 has a value of +15.231, and positive sign indicates that the image side surface of L7 is concave); and
an iris diaphragm (Fig. 5: aperture stop S1),
wherein ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens group, FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens group, and ImgH and FOV satisfy:
4.5<ImgH*tan(FOV/2)<5.5 (from para 0128: ImgH = 6 and FOV/2 = 83/2 = 41.5, thus ImgH*tan(FOV/2) = 6 * tan(41.5) = 5.31, which falls within claimed range); and
T45 is an on-axis spacing distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens, and T45 and a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens on the optical axis satisfy:
1<T45/CT5<1.5 (Table 5: T45 = 0.553 and CT5 = 0.401, thus 0.553/0.401 = 1.38, which falls within claimed range).
Lin fails to teach: the iris diaphragm is arranged between the first lens and the second lens.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device. The benefits of this modification include controlling the amount of light entering to the imaging optical lens and enhance the image quality by correcting aberration.
In any event, Fukaya teaches a lens comprising seven lenses (see Fig. 1), and the iris diaphragm is arranged between the first lens and the second lens (para 0013: “When an aperture stop is arranging between the first lens and the second lens, lowering of a F-number is achieved and proper correction of lateral aberration is made.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical imaging lens of Lin by arranging the claimed aperture between the first lens and second lens as taught by Fukaya in order to lower the F-number such that a proper correction of lateral aberration achieved as described in para 0013 of Fukaya.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art (Kwak et al. US 2018/0164544 2nd Embodiment) an optical imaging lens group (Fig. 3: lens assembly 100-2), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (Fig. 3: L12 to L72):
a first lens with a positive refractive power (Table 4: f1 = 9.5054), and an image-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface (from Table 4: R2 = +3.217, which infers concave image side surface of L12);
a second lens with a refractive power (Table 4: f2 = +4.7142), and
a third lens with a refractive power (Table 4: f3 = -5.3975);
a fourth lens (Table 4: f4 = 13.03);
a fifth lens with a refractive power (Table 4: f5 = infinity power), and
a sixth lens with a positive refractive power (Table 4: +14.36), and an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface (Table 4: R12 = 7.202, which infers convex object side surface L62);
a seventh lens with a negative refractive power (Table 4: -5.67), and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface (Table 4: R15 = +1.318, which infers concave image side surface of L72); and
an iris diaphragm (Fig. 4: ST22),
imaging lens having Fno1 and Fno2 satisfy: 1.3<Fno2/Fno1<1.8 (para 0088: fno1 = 1.57 and fno2 = 2.71, thus Fno2/Fno1 = 2.71/1.57 = 1.73); and
ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens group, FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens group, and ImgH and FOV satisfy: ImgH*tan(FOV/2) = 2.73 (para 0088: ImgH = 3.5 and FOV/2 = 37.925, thus 3.5*tan(37.925) = 2.73).
Kwak fails to teach: an image-side surface of the second lens is a concave surface; an object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface; the iris diaphragm is arranged between the first lens and the second lens; and wherein Fno2 is an F-number when an object distance of the optical imaging lens group is 1000 mm, Fno1 is an F-number when the object distance of the optical imaging lens group is 7000 mm, and Fno2 and Fno1 satisfy: 1.3<Fno2/Fno1<1.8, and ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens group, FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens group, and ImgH and FOV satisfy: 4.5 < ImgH*tan(FOV/2) < 5.5.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device. The benefits of this modification include controlling the amount of light entering to the imaging optical lens and enhance the image quality by correcting aberration.
In any event, Fukaya teaches a lens comprising seven lenses (see Fig. 1), and the iris diaphragm is arranged between the first lens and the second lens (para 0013: “When an aperture stop is arranging between the first lens and the second lens, lowering of a F-number is achieved and proper correction of lateral aberration is made.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the optical imaging lens of Kwak by arranging the claimed aperture between the first lens and second lens as taught by Fukaya in order to lower the F-number such that a proper correction of lateral aberration achieved as described in para 0013 of Fukaya.
Kwak fails to explicitly teach: an image-side surface of the second lens is a concave surface; an object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface; and wherein Fno2 is an F-number when an object distance of the optical imaging lens group is 1000 mm, Fno1 is an F-number when the object distance of the optical imaging lens group is 7000 mm, and Fno2 and Fno1 satisfy: 1.3<Fno2/Fno1<1.8, and ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens group, FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens group, and ImgH and FOV satisfy: 4.5 < ImgH*tan(FOV/2) < 5.5.
Regarding claims 2-19, these claims depend on an allowable base claim 1 and are therefore allowable for the reasons stated supra.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872