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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 10/28/2025 and 11/26/2025.
Amendments to claims 1, 15, and 17, filed 10/28/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 18, filed 7/21/2022, remains in effect.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 8-10 of the Remarks, filed 10/28/2025, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 17 have been fully considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 10/28/2025, not the Final Rejection filed 8/1/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
For completeness, Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument on pg. 9 of the Remarks that “Ori, does not teach or suggest any fourth lens group, and therefore cannot teach the fourth group is a fifth lens and an image side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface at a paraxial position”. However, Examiner disagrees for reasons given as follows.
Examiner finds that the lens grouping/numbering insisted upon (“fourth group”) is largely a subjective or preferential matter of nomenclature, rather than substance. With respect to teachings of Ori as a secondary reference, one of ordinary skill may consider and implement aspects of any subset of Ori’s lenses/groups to suit a particular design, and they are free to relabel or renumber those elements as they please. Examiner notes that the prior rejection has already demonstrated precisely how one might accomplish this, e.g. with respect to claims 15-17 (“lenses L21, L22, L23, L24 and L31 which may comprise Applicant’s first to fourth groups”). Examiner also finds that Applicant is not in a position to prevent a practitioner of ordinary skill from exercising this basic creative freedom.
Examiner further contends that any argument which would limit said practitioner to importing structures only according to explicit (and purely nominal) groupings/labels is essentially an argument based on bodily incorporation. However, Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the (arbitrarily numbered) features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. 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).
The previous statement highlights an additional flaw in Applicant’s argument, namely that Applicant attacks the secondary reference Ori individually, rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references. As another reminder to Applicant, 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).
On this last point, Applicant is finally reminded that lens groups had already been identified in primary reference Matsui – including a fourth group that is a fifth lens; see in regards to claims 1, 15, and 17. Thus, while Examiner has already clarified that Applicant’s concern regarding Ori’s alleged failure to disclose the fourth group is a mere nominal matter, Examiner notes that such disclosure would be entirely unnecessary given Matsui’s teachings. One of ordinary skill is one of ordinary competence; they do not need to be repeatedly reminded of a primary reference’s nominal groupings or labels in each subsequent reference that they encounter – certainly not to make a simple association between clearly analogous structures (e.g. lens elements or groups in series), nor to determine what design elements may be borrowed from a secondary reference to improve the primary features.
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/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 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, 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, 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
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