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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 1/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Note
In consultation with Primary Examiner Arnel Lavarius on 7/7/2026, Examiner was advised to update the rejections of independent claims 1, 15, and 17 to more precisely define a manner of modifying Matsui with Gross. Corresponding changes are reflected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows.
On pgs. 8-10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that
“One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to come to the recited independent claims in the instant application via Gross and the other cited art of record without a tremendous amount of experimentation.”
Examiner disagrees. In the field of optical design, it is a rather common matter of practice to manipulate lens parameters including radii, thicknesses, spacings, material properties (including refractive indices, Abbe numbers, etc.). The basic governing equations of linear optics represent classical knowledge that has been well-established for more than a century. And over at least the past several decades, there have existed numerous ubiquitous, industry-standard software tools (e.g. Code V, Zemax) available for practitioners to test different design modifications and even automate basic optimization procedures using conventional numerical techniques – tools that, notably, one would also expect to be involved in the development of the disclosed invention. Modifications such as Gross’s lens bending would thus appear to fall within standard design practice, instead of posing any “tremendous amount of experimentation”.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant also states that
“the Examiner's reliance on Gross amounts to a hindsight-driven assertions”.
In response to such arguments, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Examiner next notes the presence of certain Remarks that further detract from Applicant’s arguments addressed above. For instance,
“Examiner's position is based on an incorrect reading of Gross. […] Gross page 378 categorizes bending as one of several "zero-power operations" changes that should be made only when they do not cause "great perturbation of the existing setup”
– Remarks, pg. 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is a simple mischaracterization of Gross. On pg. 378, screenshot below, Gross quite plainly lists bending a lens as a first example of a class of modifications that enable “changes in the system without any great perturbation of the existing setup”.
Another mischaracterization of the prior art occurs on pgs. 9-10 of the Remarks, where Applicant states
PNG
media_image2.png
226
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“The system in Matsui has already been designed and optimized to correct aberrations. See screenshot from Matsui column 1, lines 10-21.
Because the system in Matsui is already designed and optimized, bending a lens in Matsui would cause great perturbation of the existing setup in Matsui.”
However, a plain reading of the Matsui excerpt gives no indication that their lens system is “optimal” or optimized in any particular manner – instead, it only describes the system as capable of “effectively”, or adequately, correcting aberrations. Moreover, even supposing Matsui does present an “optimal” configuration, it should be noted that this does not obviate or rule out other useful configurations with optimized (or simply adequate) results/properties (including different combinations thereof) that may be sought out. To the contrary, any hypothetical optimization would be rather unencumbering to those seeking to further modify the system’s performance – especially to those equipped with conventional optical knowledge and standard computational tools that can preclude “great perturbation[s] of the existing setup”.
The remaining arguments on pgs. 11-13 of the Remarks are further unpersuasive. Applicant rehashes earlier arguments (also addressed in ¶s 9-11 of the 1/8/2026 Non-Final Rejection), stating that
“[Ori’s lens] groupings are not mere nomenclature, but are substantive and structural”
– Remarks, pg. 11,
“Ori is specifically indicating that it only has three lens groups and the Examiner mischaracterizes it as having four groups under the guise that groupings are nomenclature”
– Remarks, pg. 12.
Examiner maintains that practitioners are not bound by labels used in the prior art when considering how other technical aspect may be incorporated into a combination. Ori provides a series of lenses – a subset of which are sufficient in number to define four groups, and which practitioners remain free to consider alone (e.g., as a simple mental exercise) and to compare with other lens systems also under consideration, regardless of how Ori decided to label them. Examiner thus again finds the argument continues to present improper attacks on the Ori reference individually for its labels, and that they further continue to improperly assert that such labels and other irrelevant features not relied upon in the rejection should be wholly required in a bodily incorporation of structure.
With respect to the arguments above, Applicant is again reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is also reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 1-6, 9-10, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4062630) in view of Tang et al (US 20120087019 A1, hereinafter “Tang”) and Gross (NPL entitled Handbook of Optical Systems).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses a lens group (see FIG. 1), comprising a first group (“first lens member including a positive lens L1”), a second group (“second lens member having a negative meniscus lens L2 and a positive meniscus lens L3”), a third group (“third lens member having… a positive lens L4 and a biconcave lens L5”), and a fourth group (“fourth lens member consisting of a positive lens L6”) that are sequentially disposed from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (see also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 7), wherein:
the first group (first lens member) has positive optical power (col. 1, line 62);
the second group (second lens member) has positive optical power (col. 1, line 63-64), the second group (second lens member) comprises a second lens (L2) and a third lens (L3) that are sequentially disposed from the object side to the image side along the optical axis (FIG. 1; col. 2, lines 2-3), and the second lens (L2) and the third lens (L3) are bonded as a doublet (col. 2, line 3-4);
the third group (third lens member) has negative optical power (col. 1, line 66),
the fourth group (fourth lens member) comprises a fifth lens (L6); and
an optical length of the lens group is Through the Lens (TTL) (total length T.L.), an effective focal length of the lens group is f, and TTL and f meet: TTL/f ≤ 1 (see col. 4, lines 26-44 – tabulated telephoto ratios show, for Example III, that TTL/f = T.L./f = 0.994 ≤ 1).
Matsui does not disclose wherein the second lens and the third lens are made of glass, the fifth lens is made of plastic, and an image side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface at a paraxial position; and
Matsui and Tang are commonly related to telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Tang discloses wherein the second lens (second element 420) and the third lens (third element 430) are made of glass and the fifth lens (fifth element 450) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 4A, ¶ 133.)
Matsui and Gross are commonly related to lens system optics.
Gross discloses that an image side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface at a paraxial position. (See pg. 378 section 33.1.4; Gross teaches 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 one or both lens surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done “without any great perturbation of the existing setup”.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Matsui and Tang and to form a hybrid plastic/glass lens system, in order to incorporate benefits of both well-known and commonly used lens materials, as glass offers great stability and a wider range of (refractive) properties (“greater flexibility in refractive power distribution” – Tang ¶ 70) while plastic materials help reduce production costs (also noted in ¶ 70).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the image side of Matsui’s fifth lens with a convex shape in a zero power operation (e.g., by compensating with the object side curvature), because Gross teaches 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 pg. 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses wherein dispersion coefficients of the second lens (L2) and the third lens (L3) are respectively V2 (νd2) and V3 (νd3), wherein V2 meets: 15 ≤ V2 ≤ 100, and V3 meets: 15 ≤ V3 ≤ 100. (See col. 3 lines 25-50, where dispersion coefficients, i.e., Abbe numbers, are tabulated for Example III as cited in claim 1 above. Note from here that d3 and d4 – corresponding to (second and third) lenses L2 and L3 in FIG. 1 – are associated with Abbe numbers νd2=34.6 and νd3=61.2. Thus, 15 ≤ (V2=νd2=34.6) ≤ 100 and 15 ≤ (V3=νd3=61.2) ≤ 100 are both satisfied.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 2.
Matsui further discloses wherein:
V2 and V3 (νd2 and νd3) meet: 15 ≤ V2 ≤ 40, and 40 ≤ V3 ≤ 100; or
V2 and V3 (νd2 and νd3) meet: 40 ≤ V2 ≤ 100 and 15 ≤ V3 ≤ 40.
(See col. 3 lines 25-50, where dispersion coefficients, i.e., Abbe numbers, are tabulated for Example III as cited in claim 2 above. Note from here that d3 and d4 – corresponding to (second and third) lenses L2 and L3 in FIG. 1 – are associated with Abbe numbers νd2=34.6 and νd3=61.2. Thus, 15 ≤ (V2=νd2=34.6) ≤ 40 and 40 ≤ (V3= νd3=61.2) ≤ 100 are both satisfied.)
Regarding claim 4, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses wherein:
a curvature radius of an object side surface of the fifth lens (L6) is R51 (r9),
a curvature radius of an image side surface of the fifth lens (L6) is R52 (r10), and
R51 and R52 (r9 and r10) meet: |f/R51|+|f/R52| ≤ 8.
(See col. 3 lines 25-50, where curvature radii are tabulated for Example III as cited in claim 1 above. Note from here that r9 and 10 – corresponding to object side (R51) and image side (R52) curvature radii of fifth lens L6 in FIG. 1 – are valued at r9=59.333 and r10=185.383, while focal length f=100 mm. Thus, |f/R51|+|f/R52| = |f/r9|+|f/r10| = 100/59.333+100/185.383 = 2.22… ≤ 8 is satisfied.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses wherein a combined focal length of the second lens (L2) and the third lens (L3) is f23, and f23 meets: 0 ≤ f23/f ≤ 3. (See col. 3 lines 25-50, where curvature radii, thicknesses, and indices of refraction are tabulated for Example III as cited in claim 1 above. With indices of refraction η3 and η4, thicknesses d3 and d4, and object/image curvature radii r3/r4 and r4/r5 of respective second and third lenses L2 and L3, we obtain f23≈79.65mm, while focal length f=100mm. Thus, 0 ≤ (f23/f ≈ 0.7965) ≤ 3 is satisfied.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses wherein a spacing from a center position of an image side surface of the third group (third lens member) to a center position of an object side surface of the fourth group (fourth lens member) is SP4 (see FIG 1, where SP4 corresponds to distance d8 between lenses L5 and L6), a spacing from a center position of an object side surface of the first group (first lens member) to a center position of an image side surface of the fourth group (fourth lens member) is LT (see FIG 1, where LT corresponds to the sum of thicknesses/distances d1+d2+…+d9), and SP4 and LT meet: SP4/LT≈0.35 (See col. 3 lines 25-50, where distances and thickness d1-d9 are tabulated for Example III as cited in claim 1 above. With these we obtain SP4=d8=24.44, and we also obtain LT=d1+d2+…+d9=69.19. Thus, SP4/LT=24.44/69.19≈0.35).
Matsui thus discloses an SP4/LT ratio which is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with, the claimed range in which SP4 and LT meet: SP4/LT≤0.3. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for the upper end (SP4/LT=0.3) of this range.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsui’s SP4/LT ratio to fall within the claimed range, in order to more evenly distribute the groups (and their weight) along the optical axis – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses (see FIG. 1) wherein the first group (first lens member) comprises a first lens (L1), the third group (third lens member) comprises a fourth lens (L4).
Tang further discloses that a relative refractive index temperature coefficient of the second lens (second element 420) and the third lens (third element 430) is β, and β meets: -9×10-5 K-1 ≤ β ≤ 9×10-5 K-1 (as established in claim 1 above, the second and third lenses may be made of glass, and as is generally known in the art, glass has a low refractive index temperature coefficient, commonly cited to be on the order of 10-6 K-1 such that -9×10-5 ≤ (β~O[10-6]) ≤ 9×10-5 is satisfied).
Regarding claim 10, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 9.
Modified Matsui, incorporating an embodiment of Tang cited above (i.e. of FIG. 4A), does not disclose wherein the first lens is made of plastic.
Tang, in another embodiment, discloses wherein the first lens (first lens element 110) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 1A and ¶ 74.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Matsui with aspects of Tang’s other embodiment by using plastic materials for the first lens, in order to further reduce production costs (Tang ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 14, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses wherein the first group (first lens member) comprises a first lens (L1), and an object side surface of the first lens (L1) is a convex surface at a paraxial position (see FIG. 1 and col. 1 lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 21, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui further discloses (see FIG. 1) wherein the first group (first lens member) comprises a first lens (L1) and the third group (third lens member) comprises a fourth lens (L4).
Tang further discloses wherein the fourth lens (fourth lens element 440) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 4A, ¶ 133.)
Modified Matsui, incorporating the embodiment of Tang cited above, does not disclose wherein the first lens is made of plastic.
Tang, in another embodiment, discloses wherein the first lens (first lens element 110) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 1A and ¶ 74.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Matsui with aspects of Tang’s other embodiment by using plastic materials for the first lens, in order to further reduce production costs (Tang ¶ 70).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Tang and Gross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirao et al (US 20130063828 A1, hereinafter “Hirao”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Modified Matsui does not disclose wherein an off-axis chromatic aberration of the lens group is CA1, an axial chromatic aberration of the lens group is CA2, CA1 meets: CA1 ≤ 1μm, and CA2 meets: CA2 ≤ 10μm.
Matsui and Hirao are commonly related to imaging lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Hirao discloses junction type compound lenses (see FIG. 3; see also HL1 and HL2 in FIG. 7’s imaging lens unit) in which differences between Abbe numbers may be controlled to reduce chromatic aberrations (¶s 7, 12), such that an off-axis chromatic aberration (lateral chromatic aberration) of the lens group (imaging lens unit) is CA1, an axial chromatic aberration (vertical spherical aberration) of the lens group (imaging lens unit) is CA2, CA1 meets: CA1 ≤ 1μm (see ¶ 76, FIG. 10), and CA2 meets: CA2 ≤ 10μm (see FIG. 9A).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Matsui by incorporating junction type compound lenses and controlling differences between Abbe numbers, as taught by Hirao, in order to reduce the off-axis and axial chromatic aberrations so that they fall below the claimed threshold.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Tang and Gross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Momiyama (US 4045128).
Regarding claim 8, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Modified Matsui does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the lens group is L_1, a length from a center of gravity of the lens group to a vertex position of an image side surface of the first group is L_2, and L_1 and L_2 meet: 0.4×L_1 ≤ L_2 ≤ 0.6×L_1.
Matsui and Momiyama are commonly related to telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Momiyama discloses wherein a length of the lens group (telephoto objective; see FIG. 7 and 8) is L_1, a length from a center of gravity of the lens group (telephoto objective) to a vertex position of an image side surface of the first group (front lens L1) is L_2, and L_1 and L_2 meet: 0.4×L_1 ≤ L_2 ≤ 0.6×L_1. (See col. 8, lines 30-50, where the center of the physical length(=L_1) of the telephoto objective may correspond to the center of gravity. The image side surface of front lens (first group) L1 must therefore be positioned at a distance of L_2 ≈ 0.5*L_1 away from the center of gravity. Thus, 0.4×L_1 ≤ (L_2 ≈ 0.5*L_1) ≤ 0.6×L_1 is satisfied.)
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the lens group of Matsui so that the first group is maintained at a distance of approximately half the length of the lens group away from the center of gravity, as taught by Momiyama, in order to permit easy management and prevent accidental/unwanted shifting of outermost lens group members (i.e., the first group) relative to the center of gravity.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Tang and Gross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al (CN 108646393 A, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Modified Matsui does not disclose wherein a bonding surface of the second lens and the third lens is a spherical surface, a curvature radius of the bonding surface is R23, and R23 meets: 0 mm ≤ R23 ≤ 10 mm.
Matsui and Wu are commonly related to telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Wu discloses wherein a bonding surface (s6) of the second lens (L3) and the third lens (L4) is a spherical surface (see FIG. 4), a curvature radius of the bonding surface (s6) is R23, and R23 meets: 0 mm ≤ R23 ≤ 10 mm (see ¶s 43-47 of the original foreign document, where curvature radii R are tabulated for different lens surfaces of Example 2 corresponding to FIG. 4. Note from here that s6 – corresponding to the (bonding) surface between (second and third) lenses L3 and L4 – is associated with a radius of R(s6)=5.5986mm. Thus, 0 mm ≤ (R23=R(s6)=5.5986mm) ≤ 10 mm is satisfied.)
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the lens group of Matsui by adjusting the curvature radius R23 of the bonding surface, as taught by Wu, in order to adjust the focusing power (f34) of the bonded second/third lenses according to desired specifications (see, e.g., ¶s 49, 64, and 80 across Wu’s Examples 1, 2, and 3 in the translated foreign document).
Regarding claim 13, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Modified Matsui does not disclose wherein:
the lens group further comprises a stop; and
the stop is located on a side that is of the first group and that faces the image side, or the stop is located on a side that is of the first group and that faces the object side.
Matsui and Wu are commonly related to telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Wu discloses wherein:
the lens group (see FIG. 4) further comprises a stop (aperture stop S; see FIG. 4); and
the stop (aperture stop S) is located on a side that is of the first group (lens L2) and that faces the image side, or the stop (aperture stop S) is located on a side that is of the first group (lens L2) and that faces the object side (aperture stop S, behind lens L5 in FIG. 4, is located on a side of the lens L2 that faces the image side).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the lens group of Matsui by adding an aperture stop, as taught by Wu, in order to control the amount of light that passes through the lens group.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Tang and Gross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (TW 201533463 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsui discloses the lens group according to claim 1.
Matsui does not disclose wherein a temperature drift coefficient of the lens group is Δf/Δ°C, and Δf/Δ°C meets: -0.5 μm/°C ≤ Δf/Δ°C ≤ 1.5 μm/°C.
Matsui and Chang are commonly related to imaging lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Chang discloses that glass can be used to suppress thermal effects and improve thermal performance of imaging lens systems (¶ 2), such that a temperature drift coefficient (focus offset) of the lens group (imaging lens 3; see FIG. 5) is Δf/Δ°C, and Δf/Δ°C meets: -0.5 μm/°C ≤ Δf/Δ°C ≤ 1.5 μm/°C. (See ¶74, where the focus offset, corresponding to Applicant’s temperature drift coefficient Δf/℃, is approximately 0.11 μm/℃ for imaging lens 3.)
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Matsui with the teachings of Chang, in order to address thermal effects (Chang ¶s 2-3) and allow temperature drift coefficients to fall within the desired range.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4062630) in view of Tang et al (US 20120087019 A1, hereinafter “Tang”), Gross (NPL entitled Handbook of Optical Systems), and Ori (CN 103221868 A).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Matsui discloses a lens group (see FIG. 1), the lens group comprises a first group (“first lens member including a positive lens L1”), a second group (“second lens member having a negative meniscus lens L2 and a positive meniscus lens L3”), a third group (“third lens member having… a positive lens L4 and a biconcave lens L5”), and a fourth group (“fourth lens member consisting of a positive lens L6”) that are sequentially disposed from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, wherein (see also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 7):
the first group (first lens member) has positive optical power (col. 1, line 62);
the second group (second lens member) has positive optical power (col. 1, line 63-64), the second group (second lens member) comprises a second lens (L2) and a third lens (L3) that are sequentially disposed from the object side to the image side along the optical axis (FIG. 1; col. 2, lines 2-3), and the second lens (L2) and the third lens (L3) are bonded as a doublet (col. 2, line 3-4);
the third group (third lens member) has negative optical power (col. 1, line 66),
the fourth group (fourth lens member) comprises a fifth lens (L6); and
an optical length of the lens group is Through the Lens (TTL) (total length T.L.), an effective focal length of the lens group is f, and TTL and f meet: TTL/f1 ≤ 1 (see col. 4, lines 26-44 – tabulated telephoto ratios show, for Example III, that TTL/f = T.L./f = 0.994 ≤ 1).
Matsui does not disclose:
a terminal device, comprising a camera module, comprising an image sensor, wherein the camera module further comprises the lens group
wherein the second lens and the third lens are made of glass, the fifth lens is made of plastic, and an image side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface at a paraxial position;
the image sensor is located on an image side of the lens group.
Matsui and Tang are commonly related to telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Tang discloses wherein the second lens (second element 420) and the third lens (third element 430) are made of glass and the fifth lens (fifth element 450) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 4A, ¶ 133.)
Matsui and Gross are commonly related to lens system optics.
Gross discloses that an image side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface at a paraxial position. (See pg. 378 section 33.1.4; Gross teaches 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 one or both lens surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done “without any great perturbation of the existing setup”.)
Matsui and Ori are related as being directed towards telephoto lens systems and the reduction of optical aberrations within them.
Ori discloses (see FIGs. 1 and 2(A-C)):
a terminal device (digital camera 200), comprising a camera module, comprising an image sensor (210), wherein the camera module further comprises the lens group (lenses L21, L22, L23, L24 and L31 which may comprise Applicant’s first to fourth groups)
the image sensor (210) is located on an image side of the lens group (see FIG. 1).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Matsui and Tang and to form a hybrid plastic/glass lens system, in order to incorporate benefits of both well-known and commonly used lens materials, as glass offers great stability and a wider range of (refractive) properties (“greater flexibility in refractive power distribution” – Tang ¶ 70) while plastic materials help reduce production costs (also noted in ¶ 70).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the image side of Matsui’s fifth lens with a convex shape in a zero power operation (e.g., by compensating with the object side curvature), because Gross teaches 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 pg. 378, section 33.1.4).
It would have then been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Matsui by including the lens group in a digital camera having an image sensor as taught by Ori, so that the images produced by Matsui’s lens group may be captured and processed.
Regarding claim 16, modified Matsui discloses the camera module according to claim 15.
Ori further discloses wherein an infrared cut-off filter (Lf) is disposed on a side that is of the fourth group (lens L31) and that faces the image side (see FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Matsui discloses the terminal device according to claim 17 and the camera module according to claim 15, respectively.
Matsui further discloses (see FIG. 1) wherein the first group (first lens member) comprises a first lens (L1) and the third group (third lens member) comprises a fourth lens (L4).
Tang further discloses wherein the fourth lens (fourth lens element 440) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 4A, ¶ 133.)
Modified Matsui, incorporating the embodiment of Tang cited above, does not disclose wherein the first lens is made of plastic.
Tang, in another embodiment, discloses wherein the first lens (first lens element 110) is made of plastic. (See FIG. 1A and ¶ 74.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Matsui with aspects of Tang’s other embodiment by using plastic materials for the first lens, in order to further reduce production costs (Tang ¶ 70).
Conclusion
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights