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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments, the applicant agrees that Yan discloses a total of eight lenses in its disclosure; however, the applicant states that the modification of Tseng to the disclosure of Yan is not obvious. As stated previously, Tseng is only relied on to disclose a material of the lenses, which is not affected by the number of lenses present. Material suitability does not have to do with number of lenses present. Further, the prior art of Ye has been relied on to teach the refractive powers of all eight lenses, which can modify the disclosure of Yan. Yan in view of Ye discloses the refractive power and arrangement of all eight lenses. The applicant states that it would not make sense to modify the Abbe number of Ye to fit the inequalities. However, Ye is not relied on to disclose the relationship of the Abbe number. The primary reference of Yan already discloses the relationship of the abbe numbers. Further, it is not necessary that changing the refractive power of the lenses would also change the abbe number. Therefore, there is no proper evidence that the combination of Ye and Yan is incorrect. There is also a motivation provided below as to why Ye may be combined with Yan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0055520 A1 of record, “Yan”) in view of Tseng et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0244500 A1 of record, “Tseng”) and Ye et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0173183 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Yan discloses an optical imaging system (Figure 5), comprising:
A first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, and an eighth lens disposed in order from an object side to an imaging side (Figure 5, first lens L1, second lens L2, third lens L3, fourth lens L4, fifth lens L5, sixth lens L6, seventh lens L7, eighth lens L8), wherein:
The first lens is configured to have positive refractive power (Figure 5, Tables 5-6 disclose a positive refractive power of first lens L1), and the second lens has negative refractive power (Figure 5, Tables 5-6 disclose a negative refractive power of second lens L2); and wherein
40 < v1-v2 < 70 and 20 < v1-(v6+v7)/2 < 50 are satisfied, where v1 indicates an Abbe number of the first lens, v2 indicates an Abbe number of the second lens, v6 indicates an Abbe number of the sixth lens, and v7 indicates an Abbe number of the seventh lens (Yan, Table 9, where v1=74.64, v2=21.82, v4=37.01, v6=33.45, v7=55.81, which satisfies each inequality).
Yan fails to disclose that at least one lens of the first to eighth lens is formed of glass, and remaining lenses are formed of plastic, and that the third lens has positive refractive power, and the fourth lens has positive refractive power, the fifth lens has negative refractive power, the sixth lens has negative refractive power, the seventh lens has positive refractive power, and the eighth lens has negative refractive power, wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
However, Tseng discloses a similar optical imaging system where at least one lens of the first to eighth lens is formed of glass, and remaining lenses are formed of plastic (Tseng, Paragraph 0086 discloses the use of glass and plastic for the lenses), and that the third lens has positive refractive power (Tseng, Paragraph 0101), and the fourth lens has positive refractive power (Tseng, Paragraph 0102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Yan to have a glass lens and positive refractive power of the third and fourth lenses as disclosed by Tseng. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a more flexible refractive power distribution of the optical imaging system (Tseng, Paragraph 0086) and to reduce spherical aberration and distortions (Tseng, Paragraph 0098).
Further, the prior art of Ye discloses a similar optical imaging system having a total of eight lenses, where the third lens has positive refractive power, and the fourth lens has positive refractive power, the fifth lens has negative refractive power, the sixth lens has negative refractive power, the seventh lens has positive refractive power, and the eighth lens has negative refractive power, wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Ye, Figure 1 discloses a total of eight lenses; Paragraph 0110 discloses the refractive powers and convexity/concavity of each surface of each lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Yan to have particular refractive powers of each lens as disclosed by Ye. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing image transmission through the lens thereby achieving high imaging quality (Ye, Paragraph 0107).
Regarding Claim 2, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: at least one of -0.2<SAG52/TTL<0, 0.2 < SAG62/TTL < 0, -0.3 < SAG72/TTL < 0, and -0.3 < SAG82/TTL < 0 is satisfied (Figure 5; Tables 5 and 6; Paragraphs 0090-0092 discloses TTL=9.569mm, SAG52=-.477mm, SAG62=-1.439mm, SAG72=-.954mm, SAG82=-2.265mm, where all would value into the claimed range), where SAG52 indicates a Sag value obtained at an end of an effective diameter of an image-side surface of the fifth lens, SAG62 indicates a Sag value obtained at an end of an effective diameter of an image-side surface of the sixth lens, SAG72 indicates a Sag value obtained at an end of an effective diameter of an image-side surface of the seventh lens, and SAG82 indicates a Sag value obtained at an end of an effective diameter of an image-side surface of the eighth lens.
Regarding Claim 3, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein 30 <v1-v4 < 70 is satisfied, where v1 indicates an Abbe number of the first lens, v4 indicates an Abbe number of the fourth lens,(Yan, Table 9, where v1=74.64, v4=37.01, which satisfies the inequality).
Regarding Claim 4, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 3, wherein the first lens has an Abbe number greater than 70 (Yan, Table 9 discloses an Abbe number of the first lens to be 74.64).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the first lens is made of glass.
However, Tseng discloses a similar system where the first lens is made of glass(Tseng, Paragraph 0151 discloses a first lens is made of glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Yan to have a glass lens as disclosed by Tseng. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a more flexible refractive power distribution of the optical imaging system (Tseng, Paragraph 0086).
Regarding Claim 6, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: 0< f1/f< 1.4 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f1 is a focal length of the first lens (Yan, Paragraph 0050 discloses .7<f1/f<1, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 7, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: -10 < f2/f < -1 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (Yan, Paragraph 0057 discloses -6.75<f2/f<-.93, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: 0 < |f3/f|/10 < 30 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens (Yan, Paragraph 0060 discloses 1.75<f3/f<60.76, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: 0.5 < |f6/f|< 10 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens (Yan, Paragraph 0067 discloses 1.62<|f6/f<824.15 which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein: -3 < f8/f < 0 is satisfied, where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f8 is a focal length of the eighth lens (Yan, Paragraph 0071 discloses -1.69<f8/f<-0.52 which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 14, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fifth lens has at least one inflection point on an image-side surface thereof (Yan, Figure 13 discloses inflection points for fifth lens).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose that 2 <|Y52/Z52|< 50 is satisfied, where Y52 indicates a vertical height between a first inflection point of the image-side surface of the fifth lens and the optical axis, and Z52 indicates a Sag value obtained at the first inflection point of the image-side surface of the fifth lens.
However, Yan discloses that Y52>Z52 (Yan, Figure 13). The parameters Y52 and Z52 (i.e., a vertical height between the optical axis and a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the fifth lens, and the Sag value (along the optical axis) at a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the fifth lens) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the shape, i.e., thickness of the peripheral portion of the lens relative to the central thickness, thus affecting the propagation of the light waves through the lens assembly. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Yan so that |Y52/Z52| lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, Y52 and Z52 are art recognized result- effective variables in that they affect the imaging quality of the optical lens assembly. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize |Y52/Z52| because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(ID(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result- effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding Claim 15, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens has at least one inflection point on an image-side surface thereof (Yan, Figure 13).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose that 3 <|Y62/Z62|< 50 is satisfied, where Y62 indicates a vertical height between a first inflection point of the image-side surface of the sixth lens and the optical axis, and Z62 indicates a Sag value obtained at the first inflection point of the image-side surface of the sixth lens.
However, Yan discloses that Y62>Z62 (Yan, Figure 13). The parameters Y62 and Z62 (i.e., a vertical height between the optical axis and a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the sixth lens, and the Sag value (along the optical axis) at a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the sixth lens) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the shape, i.e., thickness of the peripheral portion of the lens relative to the central thickness, thus affecting the propagation of the light waves through the lens assembly. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Yan so that |Y62/Z62| lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, Y62 and Z62 are art recognized result- effective variables in that they affect the imaging quality of the optical lens assembly. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize |Y62/Z62| because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(ID(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result- effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding Claim 16, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the seventh lens has at least one inflection point on an image-side surface thereof (Yan, Figure 13).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose that 5 <|Y72/Z72|< 120 is satisfied, where Y72 indicates a vertical height between a first inflection point of the image-side surface of the seventh lens and the optical axis, and Z72 indicates a Sag value obtained at the first inflection point of the image-side surface of the seventh lens.
However, Yan discloses that Y72>Z72 (Yan, Figure 13). The parameters Y72 and Z72 (i.e., a vertical height between the optical axis and a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the seventh lens, and the Sag value (along the optical axis) at a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the seventh lens) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the shape, i.e., thickness of the peripheral portion of the lens relative to the central thickness, thus affecting the propagation of the light waves through the lens assembly. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Yan so that |Y72/Z72| lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, Y72 and Z72 are art recognized result- effective variables in that they affect the imaging quality of the optical lens assembly. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize |Y72/Z72| because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(ID(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result- effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding Claim 17, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the eighth lens has at least one inflection point on an image-side surface thereof (Yan, Figure 13).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose that 2 <|Y82/Z82|< 30 is satisfied, where Y82 indicates a vertical height between a first inflection point of the image-side surface of the eighth lens and the optical axis, and Z82 indicates a Sag value obtained at the first inflection point of the image-side surface of the eighth lens.
However, Yan discloses that Y82>Z82 (Yan, Figure 13). The parameters Y82 and Z82 (i.e., a vertical height between the optical axis and a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the eighth lens, and the Sag value (along the optical axis) at a first inflection point of an image-side surface of the eighth lens) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the shape, i.e., thickness of the peripheral portion of the lens relative to the central thickness, thus affecting the propagation of the light waves through the lens assembly. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Yan so that |Y82/Z82| lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, Y82 and Z82 are art recognized result- effective variables in that they affect the imaging quality of the optical lens assembly. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize |Y82/Z82| because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, Jn re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(ID(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result- effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding Claim 18, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein TTL/(2*IMGHT)<0.6 (Figure 5; Table 5; Paragraphs 0090-0092 discloses TTL=9.569 mm, IMG HT=8.000mm), where TTL indicated a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and IMG HT indicates half a diagonal length of the imaging plane.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Tseng and Ye in further view of Song et al (US Publication No. US 2020/0249439 A1 of record, “Song”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 3, wherein the Abbe number of the first lens is the greatest among the Abbe numbers of the first to eighth lenses, and the second lens is formed of one of glass and plastic having a refractive index greater than 1.65 and the Abbe number less than 22 (Yan, Table 9 discloses the first lens to have the greatest Abbe number at 74.64, where the second lens has a refractive index close to 1.65 and an Abbe number of 21.82).
Yan fails to disclose that the second and fourth lens are each formed of one of glass and plastic, having a refractive index greater than 1.65 and the Abbe number less than 22.
However, Song discloses a similar system where the second and fourth lens are each formed of one of glass and plastic, having a refractive index greater than 1.65 and the Abbe number less than 22 (Song, Table 1, second and fourth lenses both have a refractive index of 1.67 and an Abbe number of 20.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lenses as disclosed by Yan to have particular characteristics as disclosed by Song. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reasonably controlling the lens thereby achieving good processability of the imaging system (Song, Paragraph 0070).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Tseng and Ye in further view of Jung et al (US Publication No.: US 2018/0180856 A1 of record, “Jung”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Yan fails to disclose that TTL/f<1.4 and BFL/f<0.3 are satisfied, where TTL indicates a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the eighth lens to the imaging plane on the optical axis.
However, Jung discloses a similar optical imaging system where TTL/f<1.4 and BFL/f<0.3 are satisfied, where TTL indicates a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the eighth lens to the imaging plane on the optical axis (Jung, Paragraph 0070 discloses a BFL/f of 0.13 and a TTL/f of 0.893).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Yan to have particular focal length and distance values as disclosed by Jung. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing aberration characteristics (Jung, Paragraph 0088).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Tseng and Ye in further view of Adachi et al (US Publication No.: US 2012/0147254 A1 of record, “Adachi”).
Regarding Claim 12, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Yan fails to disclose that D1/f<0.1 is satisfied, where D1 is a distance on the optical axis between an image-side surface of the first lens and an object- side surface of the second lens, and f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
However, Adachi discloses a similar system where D1/f<0.1 is satisfied, where D1 is a distance on the optical axis between an image-side surface of the first lens and an object- side surface of the second lens, and f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system (Adachi, Table 11 discloses D1/f=0.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as disclosed by Yan to have a particular distance as disclosed by Adachi. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of compensating lens to optimize light and image transmission (Adachi, Paragraph 0041).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Tseng and Ye in further view of Sun et al (US Publication No.: US 2022/0244494 A1 of record, “Sun”).
Regarding Claim 13, Yan in view of Tseng and Ye discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Yan fails to disclose that FOV*(IMG HT/f)>65° is satisfied, where IMG HT indicates half a diagonal length of an imaging plan, f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and FOV is a field of view of the optical imaging system.
However, Sun discloses a similar system where FOV*(IMG HT/f)>65° is satisfied, where IMG HT indicates half a diagonal length of an imaging plan, f indicates a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and FOV is a field of view of the optical imaging system (Sun, Paragraph 0132 discloses an FOV of 119° and Table 17 discloses IMG HT/f to be 1.69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging system as disclosed by Yan to achieving high imaging quality (Sun, Paragraph 0076).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871