DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 04/20/2026) with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-15 have been fully considered, but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1, line 10, should be amended to read “and 32 < V1-V2 < 38”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN 113296234 A, of record) in view of Wu (CN 212969829 U, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens group (Fig. 3, L1-2 and L4);
a first reflective portion (Fig. 3, P) comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 3, S12-13);
wherein the first lens group and the first reflective portion are sequentially arranged from an object side (Fig. 3),
wherein the first lens group comprises a first lens (Fig. 3, L1) having a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0090], S2), a second lens (Fig. 3, L2), and a third lens (Fig. 3, L4) having a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0090], S8), and
wherein 2.0 < TTL/f1 < 4.0 ([0089], TTL= 43.97; [0090], f1= 12.81; giving 3.432), and
32 < V1-V2 < 38 are satisfied ([0090], V1= 55.749 and V2= 23.520, giving 32.229),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens of the lens group to an imaging plane, V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and V2 is an Abbe number of the second lens.
Tan fails to disclose a second reflective portion.
However, Wu teaches a similar imaging lens system having a first lens group comprising three lenses (Fig. 5, 520) and a first reflective portion comprising a plurality of reflected surfaces (Fig. 5, 532), and discloses a second reflective portion comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 5, 534).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Tan and Wu such that a second reflective portion was arranged after the first lens group and first reflective portion, motivated by folding the optical path for greater versatility.
Modified Tan fails to disclose wherein 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 is satisfied.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the TTL value of modified Tan such that 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 was satisfied, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the size of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tan discloses wherein the first reflective portion further comprises:
a rearmost reflective surface disposed closest to the second reflective portion (Tan - Fig. 3, S12); and
a first reflective surface configured to re-reflect light reflect from the first rearmost reflective surface to the second reflective portion (Tan - Fig. 3, S13).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tan discloses wherein the first reflective portion further comprises a first frontmost reflective surface configured to reflect light exiting the first lens group to the first rearmost reflective surface (Tan - Fig. 3, S13).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tan discloses wherein the second reflective portion further comprises:
a second frontmost reflective surface disposed closest to the first reflective portion (Wu - Fig. 5, 5344); and
a second reflective surface configured to reflect light irradiated from the first reflective surface to the second frontmost reflective surface (Wu - Fig. 5, 5342).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tan discloses wherein the second reflective portion further comprises a second rearmost reflective surface configured to reflect light irradiated from the second frontmost reflective surface to the imaging plane (Wu - Fig. 5, 534).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tan fails to explicitly discloses wherein an included angle between the first rearmost reflective surface and the first reflective surface is equal to an included angle between the second frontmost reflective surface and the second reflective surface.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the angles of the reflective portions such that the above expression was satisfied, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the angles of the reflective portions such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tan discloses wherein the first lens group has positive refractive power (Tan - [0089]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tan fails to disclose a third reflective portion disposed on an object side of the first reflective portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose a third reflective portion on an object side of the first reflective portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977), motivated by folding the optical path for greater versatility.
Regarding claim 10, Tan discloses an imaging lens system comprising:
a lens group (Fig. 3, L1-2 and L4) comprising a first lens (Fig. 3, L1) having a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0090], S2), a second lens (Fig. 3, L2), and a third lens (Fig. 3, L4) having a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof ([0090], S8);
a first reflective portion (Fig. 3, P) comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 3, S12-13);
wherein the lens group, the first reflective portion, and the second reflective portion are sequentially arranged from an object side (Fig. 3),
wherein the first reflective portion includes a total internal reflection surface (Fig. 3, P), and
wherein 32 < V1-V2 < 38 ([0090], V1= 55.749 and V2= 23.520, giving 32.229),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens of the lens group to an imaging plane, V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and V2 is an Abbe number of the second lens.
Tan fails to disclose a second reflective portion.
However, Wu teaches a similar imaging lens system having a first lens group comprising three lenses (Fig. 5, 520) and a first reflective portion comprising a plurality of reflected surfaces (Fig. 5, 532), and discloses a second reflective portion comprising a plurality of reflective surfaces (Fig. 5, 534).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Tan and Wu such that a second reflective portion was arranged after the first lens group and first reflective portion, motivated by folding the optical path for increased versatility.
Modified Tan fails to disclose wherein 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 is satisfied.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the TTL value of modified Tan such that 0.6 < BFL/TTL < 0.9 was satisfied, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the size of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tan discloses wherein the lens group comprises:
the first lens having positive refractive power (Tan - [0090], 12.81); and
the second lens having negative refractive power (Tan - [0090], -9.99).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tan discloses wherein 2.0 < TTL/f1 < 4.0 is satisfied (Tan - [0090], TTL= 43.97 and f1= 12.81, giving 3.432), where f1 is a focal length of the first lens.
Regarding claim 14, modified Tan discloses wherein -5.0 < TTL/f2 < -0.2 is satisfied (Tan - [0090], TTL= 43.97 and f2= -9.99, giving -4.401), wherein f2 is a focal length of the second lens.
Regarding claim 15, modified Tan discloses wherein 1.1 < TTL/f is satisfied (Tan - [0090], TTL= 43.97 and f= 37.80, giving 1.163), where f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tan in view of Wu, and further in view of Gross et al. ((Gross, H. (Ed.). 2005. Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems, 377-379, Wiley-Vch.; of record.
Regarding claim 9, modified Tan fails to disclose a second lens group disposed between the third reflection portion and the first reflective portion.
However, Gross teaches wherein “it is an advantageous to make changes in [a lens] system without any great perturbation of the existing setup” and “[o]ne class of modifications of this type are those which do not introduce any refractive power”; and discloses that “inserting a powerless thin or thick meniscus lens” is one of the most essential such operations (page 378, 33.14 Zero Power Operations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Tan with Gross such that a second lens group was disposed between the third reflective portion and the first reflective portion, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights