DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 6-9), filed 12/23/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “the first lens of Singer is not a convex mirror, but rather has a flat, reflective-coated object-side surface in all embodiments” (pg. 7 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Singer reference was not relied upon for teachings directed to the claimed ‘convex’ limitation of the first mirror, but rather for combining the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Singer specifically directed to the claimed radius of curvature condition as recited in claims 1 and 21-22. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding Chen’s teaching and Chen in view of Singer’s teaching, both findings rendering the obviousness of the claimed limitations as recited in newly amended claims. Nonetheless, Singer also teaches ‘a convex mirror’ in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘convex mirror’ in light of the instant specification. In other words, the present claim language does not require that the front mirror possesses a curved shape, but that “wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side” (see claims 1 and 21-22 filed 12/23/2025). The Examiner additionally notes that the limitation as presently claimed does not require (or specify) where said convex feature is located on front mirror. See corresponding indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) directed to said convex limitation of front mirror, detailed further below. Thus, Singer’s front mirror possessing a planar surface (¶0052 of Singer: surface 1 [front mirror] is reflection-coated which is denoted in both FIG. 4 by the shading; see Table 2 of Singer disclosing front mirror has a flat object-side surface (R_front (S1) (flat) = inf.) satisfies the present claim language in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed term; see also dictionary definition(s) for “convex”: (1) containing all points in a line joining any two constituent points; (2) having all interior angles less than or equal to 180°. Applicant is respectfully reminded that “If an Office action has issued where the plain meaning of the claim terms was used, applicant may point out that the term has been given a special definition. Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” See MPEP § 2173.01 Section I. Since Applicant has not provided any such indication in the Remarks filed 12/23/2025, the Examiner maintains that the Singer reference reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the present claim language directed to the radius of curvature condition. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the newly amended limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further asserts that “in Singer, the central portion of the object-side surface of the first lens (Li) is not reflectively coated, allowing light to pass through, while the peripheral area of the central portion is reflectively coated, allowing light to be reflected. In contrast, in the case of Chen, it is essential that the reflective surface (113) of the lens be convex in all embodiments, the reflective surface (113) is positioned at the center of the object- side surface of the lens, and the peripheral area of the center is made of a light-transmitting material” (pgs. 7-8). However, the Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not positively recited anywhere in the claims (see claims filed 12/23/2025). Applicant further asserts “the lens of Chen, which has the convex reflective surface (113), and the first lens (Li) of Singer, which has the flat reflective-coated surface, have fundamentally different optical properties, such as curvature” (pg. 8). Applicant is also respectfully reminded that it is not necessary that the inventions of the Singer and Chen references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the 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 those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). Applicant argues that “Singer provides no teaching to apply its reflective-coated surface to the reflective surface (113) of Chen” (pg. 8). However, the Examiner notes that there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." See MPEP § 2145 Section X, Part A, citing Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971), wherein the court upheld that "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Examiner further notes that it is not necessary that a primary reference (i.e., the Chen reference) explicitly discloses a motivation for modifying a structure to determine obviousness—it is simply one of many possible valid rationales that may be utilized to support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Court in KSR identified several exemplary rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-21, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-97. See also MPEP § 2141 and § 2143. In the present case, the primary reference of Chen discloses: a front mirror for reflecting the light reflected from the reflection area of the rear mirror to an image side, wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side (FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7: 113/213/313/413; c. 11-12 of Chen: a second reflective surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof). The secondary reference of Singer is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (¶0038, 0047, 0052; FIG. 4 of Singer), and Singer teaches: a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror (¶0038, 0050-52 of Singer: The optical transmission system 4 comprises an object-side subsystem 4a and an intermediate image-side subsystem 4b, each having a plurality of lenses. The catadioptric assembly has lens L1…a mirror element S4 [rear mirror]; ¶0052: surface 1 [front mirror] is reflection-coated which is denoted in both FIG. 4 by the shading; see Table 2 disclosing front mirror has a flat object-side surface (R_front (S1) (flat) = inf.) and rear mirror has a convex image-side surface (R_rear (S4) = -38.74); the Examiner notes that R_front is infinity as is commonly known in the art of optics that any flat lens possesses infinite radius of curvature; thus R_front>R_rear). Singer further teaches that such optical properties of the imaging lens is known and would be selected to eliminate the need for special corrections of chromatic aberrations because the light is reflected, and allows for a sharp reduction in the length of the construction of an apparatus for imaging applications, thereby resulting in out-of-focus volume area being imaged virtually without optical aberrations so that even oblique object planes located in a large area outside of the focus can be imaged correctly, as taught in ¶0016, ¶0058 of Singer (see also pg. 4 of Non-Final Office Action (NFOA) on 09/26/2025). Therefore, the Examiner has clearly articulated multiple reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, the rationales being: (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (2) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in the same field since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and (3) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Applicant has not persuasively disputed the Examiner’s evidentiary findings regarding the Chen and Singer references which support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 by utilization of valid rationales, as detailed previously and below.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus claims 1-12, 14-18 and 21-22 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21-22 all recite the limitation: “wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side”. It is unclear what is meant by “a convex mirror”, i.e., it is unclear where the ‘convex’ aspect/feature of the mirror located and if there is another or convex aspect to the mirror (in addition to the limitation of the mirror being ‘convex toward the image side’)? Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “convex toward the image side”, i.e., what does it mean to be ‘convex toward a side’? which portion of the mirror is convex towards the image side—is it a paraxial and/or a peripheral portion of a specific surface of the mirror? which structural feature corresponds to the image side that the convex shape is toward? which portion of a convex shape is toward said side? The claimed limitation fails to provide clarity to the positional relationships of the structures at hand, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and therefore indefinite. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(b), “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite.” See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror”.
Claims 2-12 and 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-6, 9-11, 15-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10,877,244 B1) in view of Singer et al. (US 2016/0131884 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Chen discloses: An imaging lens (c.11: image capturing unit; FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17-18) comprising: a rear mirror (FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7: 112/212/312/412; c. 11-12: a first reflective surface) comprising a reflection area for reflecting light incident from an object side to the object side, and a transmission area formed with a hollow space in a center of the rear mirror to allow light to pass through (see FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17-18 showing transmission area with hollow space and a reflection area of rear mirror 112 and light rays reflecting light incident from an object side to the object side); a front mirror for reflecting the light reflected from the reflection area of the rear mirror to an image side, wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side (FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7: 113/213/313/413; c. 11-12: a second reflective surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof); and a lens group comprising a plurality of lenses for transmitting the light reflected from the front mirror to an image surface (FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7: 120-140/220-240/320-330/420-430; c. 11: an optical path sequentially passing by a second lens element 120, a third lens element 130, a fourth lens element 140, a filter 150 and an image surface 160), wherein the lens group is all disposed between the rear mirror and the front mirror based on an optical axis (see FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17-18 showing the lens group 120-140/220-240/320-330/420-430 is all disposed between the rear mirror 112 and the front mirror 113 based on an optical axis), wherein the front mirror is formed of a material that transmits light and coated with a reflective layer capable of reflecting light (c. 11-12: first refractive surface 111; c. 6 & c. 11-12: a second reflective surface can be a surface coating)
Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror.
Singer is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (¶0038, 0047, 0052; FIG. 4), and Singer teaches: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror (¶0038, 0050-52: The optical transmission system 4 comprises an object-side subsystem 4a and an intermediate image-side subsystem 4b, each having a plurality of lenses. The catadioptric assembly has lens L1…a mirror element S4 [rear mirror]; ¶0052: surface 1 [front mirror] is reflection-coated which is denoted in both FIG. 4 by the shading; see Table 2 disclosing front mirror has a flat object-side surface (R_front (S1) (flat) = inf.) and rear mirror has a convex image-side surface (R_rear (S4) = -38.74); the Examiner notes that R_front is infinity as is commonly known in the art of optics that any flat lens possesses infinite radius of curvature; thus R_front>R_rear).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the imaging lens of Chen in view of Singer to satisfy the claimed condition because such a radius of curvature condition is known and would be selected to eliminate the need for special corrections of chromatic aberrations because the light is reflected, and allows for a sharp reduction in the length of the construction of an apparatus for imaging applications, thereby resulting in out-of-focus volume area being imaged virtually without optical aberrations so that even oblique object planes located in a large area outside of the focus can be imaged correctly, as taught in ¶0016, ¶0058 of Singer.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein a center point of the transmission area, on the optical axis, is located between an image-side surface of a lens located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses and the image surface (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing center point of the transmission area “TA”, on the optical axis located between an image-side surface 142 of lens 140 located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses and the image surface 160; see also FIGS. 3, 5, 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
835
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein a diameter D1 of the front mirror is smaller than a diameter D2 of the transmission area of the rear mirror (c. 13-14; see FIG. 7 & Table 7 (4th Embod.) of c. 24 disclosing YM1i [R2] = 3.8*2 = 7.6 [D2]; YM2 [R1] = 2.89*2 = 5.78 [D1]; thus D1<D2 and satisfies claimed condition).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the lens group comprises a first lens located closest to the object side, wherein a diameter D.sub.L1 of the first lens is the smallest among diameters of lenses included in the lens group (see e.g., Table 7 (4th Embod.) of Col. 24 disclosing YR2*2 = 2.38*2 [DL1], and YL1Chen2 = 2.53*2 [diameter of last lens]; see also c. 13-14 for 1st Embod. values disclosing YR2/YL1 = 0.79; c. 13-14: a maximum effective radius of an image-side surface of the last lens element is YL1; c. 6: “There can be a stepped structure on the inner surface of the recess structure in the central area of the image-side surface of the first lens element”; see FIGS. 1, 7 & 17 showing first lens 420/120 having the smallest diameter among lenses 420-430/120-140 in group).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 4, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the diameter D.sub.L1 of the first lens is smaller than the diameter D1 of the front mirror (see e.g., Table 7 (4th Embod.) of Col. 24 disclosing YR2*2 [DL1] = 2.38*2, YM2*2 [D1] = 2.89*2; thus D1>DL1; c. 1: a maximum effective radius of the second reflective surface is YM2; see FIGS. 1, 7 & 17 showing first lens 420/120 having a smaller diameter than front mirror 113/413).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 4, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the lens group comprises the first lens to an N-th lens (N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2) positioned in order from the object side to the image side, and when diameters of the first lens to the N-th lens are D.sub.L1 to D.sub.LN, respectively, a conditional expression D.sub.L1≤D.sub.L2≤ . . . ≤D.sub.LN-1≤DLN is satisfied (c. 6: “There can be a stepped structure on the inner surface of the recess structure in the central area of the image-side surface of the first lens element”; see FIGS. 1, 7 & 17 showing first lens 420/120 to Nth lens progressively increasing in diameter).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein when a constant representing a brightness of the imaging lens is Fno, a conditional expression 0<Fno≤3.5 is satisfied (FIG. 7; see e.g., Table 7 (4th Embod.) of Col. 24 disclosing Fno = 3.40).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein when a half angle of view of the imaging lens is ANG, a conditional expression ANG≤6° is satisfied (FIG. 7; see e.g., Table 7 (4th Embod.) of Col. 24 disclosing HFOV = 5.2 deg).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein when an entrance pupil diameter of the imaging lens is EPD, and a diameter of the transmission area of the rear mirror is D2, a conditional expression D2/EPD≤0.8 is satisfied (c. 14: “When an inner effective radius of the first reflective surface 112 is YM1i, the following condition is satisfied: YM1i=2.70 [mm]”; see FIG. 1 & Table 1 (1st Embod.) of c. 16 disclosing Fno & f which is used to calculate EPD = 7.605, and YM1i [R2] = 2.7*2 = 5.4 [D2]; thus D2/EPD ≈ 0.71).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the rear mirror comprises a diffractive element or a refractive element, wherein a reflective coating layer capable of reflecting light is formed on an image side surface of the diffractive element or the refractive element (c.12: the first reflective surface 112 [rear mirror with reflective coating] is in a peripheral area of an image-side surface of the first lens element 110 [refractive element]; c.4: The first lens element has a first refractive surface that is favorable for eliminating the need of disposing an additional reflector so as to provide a compact configuration, thereby reducing the required quantity of components, manufacturing costs, and assembly tolerance; see FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17-18 showing rear mirror comprising refractive element 110 with image side reflective layer surface 112/212/312/412 formed thereon).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 15, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the refractive element is a meniscus shaped lens having a concave object-side surface (c. 11: the first lens element 110 has a first reflective surface 112 being concave in a paraxial region thereof, and a second refractive surface 114 being convex in a paraxial region thereof; see FIGS. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17-18 showing meniscus surfaces 112,114 of refractive element 110).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 15, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the diffractive element is a fresnel lens or a diffractive optical element (DOE) (the Examiner notes that since claim 15 is recited as being directed to alternative limitations with respect to the rear mirror, the case where the rear mirror comprises a refractive element is chosen/being examined on the merit).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein a lens, a blue filter, or a polarizing filter is located in the transmission area of the rear mirror (c. 10; see FIG. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17 showing a lens located in the transmission area of the rear mirror 112).
Regarding Claim 21, as best understood, Chen discloses: A camera module (FIGS. 15-16 & c. 36: image capturing unit is a front-facing camera) comprising: an imaging lens comprising: a rear mirror comprising a reflection area for reflecting light incident from an object side to the object side, and a transmission area formed with a hollow space in a center of the rear mirror to allow light to pass through; a front mirror for reflecting the light reflected from the reflection area of the rear mirror to an image side, wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side; and a lens group comprising a plurality of lenses for transmitting the light reflected from the front mirror to an image surface, wherein the lens group is all disposed between the rear mirror and the front mirror based on an optical axis (see rejection of claim 1 supra); a filter which selectively transmits light that passed through the imaging lens depending on a wavelength (c. 12: filter 150); and an image sensor for receiving the light that passed through the filter (c. 10-11: image sensor 70).
Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror.
Singer is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (¶0038, 0047, 0052; FIG. 4), and Singer teaches: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror (¶0038, 0050-52: The optical transmission system 4 comprises an object-side subsystem 4a and an intermediate image-side subsystem 4b, each having a plurality of lenses. The catadioptric assembly has lens L1…a mirror element S4 [rear mirror]; ¶0052: surface 1 [front mirror] is reflection-coated which is denoted in both FIG. 4 by the shading; see Table 2 disclosing front mirror has a flat object-side surface (R_front (S1) (flat) = inf.) and rear mirror has a convex image-side surface (R_rear (S4) = -38.74); the Examiner notes that R_front is infinity as is commonly known in the art of optics that any flat lens possesses infinite radius of curvature; thus R_front>R_rear).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the imaging lens of Chen in view of Singer to satisfy the claimed condition because such a radius of curvature condition is known and would be selected to eliminate the need for special corrections of chromatic aberrations because the light is reflected, and allows for a sharp reduction in the length of the construction of an apparatus for imaging applications, thereby resulting in out-of-focus volume area being imaged virtually without optical aberrations so that even oblique object planes located in a large area outside of the focus can be imaged correctly, as taught in ¶0016, ¶0058 of Singer.
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Chen discloses: An electronic device (FIGS. 15-16 & c.3, 25: an electronic device 10 is a smartphone including an image capturing unit which includes the optical photographing system disclosed in the 1st embodiment) comprising: a camera module comprising: an imaging lens comprising: a rear minor comprising a reflection area for reflecting light incident from an object side to the object side, and a transmission area formed with a hollow space in a center of the rear mirror to allow light to pass through; a front minor for reflecting the light reflected from the reflection area of the rear mirror to an image side, wherein the front mirror is a convex mirror that is convex toward the image side; and a lens group comprising a plurality of lenses for transmitting the light reflected from the front minor to an image surface, wherein the lens group is all disposed between the rear mirror and the front minor based on an optical axis; a filter which selectively transmits light that passed through the imaging lens depending on a wavelength; and an image sensor for receiving the light that passed through the filter (see rejection of claims 1 & 21 supra).
Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror.
Singer is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (¶0038, 0047, 0052; FIG. 4), and Singer teaches: wherein a radius of curvature of the front mirror is greater than a radius of curvature of the rear mirror (¶0038, 0050-52: The optical transmission system 4 comprises an object-side subsystem 4a and an intermediate image-side subsystem 4b, each having a plurality of lenses. The catadioptric assembly has lens L1…a mirror element S4 [rear mirror]; ¶0052: surface 1 [front mirror] is reflection-coated which is denoted in both FIG. 4 by the shading; see Table 2 disclosing front mirror has a flat object-side surface (R_front (S1) (flat) = inf.) and rear mirror has a convex image-side surface (R_rear (S4) = -38.74); the Examiner notes that R_front is infinity as is commonly known in the art of optics that any flat lens possesses infinite radius of curvature; thus R_front>R_rear).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the imaging lens of Chen in view of Singer to satisfy the claimed condition because such a radius of curvature condition is known and would be selected to eliminate the need for special corrections of chromatic aberrations because the light is reflected, and allows for a sharp reduction in the length of the construction of an apparatus for imaging applications, thereby resulting in out-of-focus volume area being imaged virtually without optical aberrations so that even oblique object planes located in a large area outside of the focus can be imaged correctly, as taught in ¶0016, ¶0058 of Singer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10,877,244 B1) in view of Singer et al. (US 2016/0131884 A1), and further in view of Ryu (US 2014/0049841 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen-Singer discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 4, as above.
Although Chen discloses a stop may be positioned anywhere between the object to be image and the object-side surface of the first lens, which includes between the front mirror and said lens (c. 11: “According to the present disclosure, an aperture stop can be configured as a front stop disposed between an imaged object and the first lens element”), Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a stop surface is positioned between the front mirror and an object-side surface of the first lens.
However, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the court upheld that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly rearrange Chen’s stop to satisfy the claimed condition, since such a stop “is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof” and “can provide a longer distance between an exit pupil of the optical photographing system and the image surface to produce a telecentric effect, and thereby improves the image-sensing efficiency of an image sensor (for example, CCD or CMOS)”, as taught in col. 11 of Chen, and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
The Examiner further submits Ryu, which is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (See e.g., Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0021 and 0051-0057), and Ryu teaches: a stop surface is positioned between the front mirror and an object-side surface of the first lens (¶0021; FIG. 1: ST).
Therefore, even if Chen did not disclose the claimed stop surface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Chen in view of Ryu to satisfy the claimed condition such that “the reflective type telephoto lens may be compact by using two mirrors, and may reduce power consumption and perform a high speed focusing by using a simple focusing lens group” and “a bright optical system may be realized” (¶0089), as taught by Ryu.
Claims 8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10,877,244 B1) in view of Singer et al. (US 2016/0131884 A1), and further in view of Lu (US 10,133,043 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen-Singer discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 4, as above. Chen further discloses: further comprising a front lens which transmits the light incident from the object side, and positioned in the front mirror to the object side, and when a diameter of the front lens is D0 and a distance from the object-side surface of the front lens to an image surface is TTL, a conditional expression 0<TTL/D0≤0.7 is satisfied (see FIGS. 1 & 17; c.13: When the axial distance between the second reflective surface 113 and the image surface 160 is TL, the following condition is satisfied: TL=5.70 [mm]…when an outer effective radius of the first refractive surface 111 is YR1o, the following condition is satisfied: YR1o=4.25 mm [D0 = 4.25*2 = 8.5; thus TTL/D0 (1st Embod.) = 5.7/8.5 = 0.67).
Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: has both surfaces that are flat.
However, Chen teaches in a related embodiment a front lens having both surfaces that are flat (FIG. 7 & c. 24: The first lens element 410 has refractive surface 411 being planar; see FIG. 7 annotated and reproduced below showing both peripheral surfaces “S1” and “S2” of front lens 410 are flat; the Examiner notes that the present claim language directed to “both surfaces” allows Chen’s two peripheral object side lens surfaces to satisfy claimed condition, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of the specification).
PNG
media_image2.png
842
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Chen via a simple substitution of both flat surfaces to satisfy the claimed condition, because such surfaces are known and selected for providing a compact configuration, thereby reducing the required quantity of components, manufacturing costs, and assembly tolerance, as taught in col. 4 of Chen.
The Examiner further submits Lu, which is related to Chen with respect to an imaging lens comprising a front and rear mirror, and a group of lenses as claimed (c. 6-8; FIGS. 1-4 & 6) and Lu teaches: a front lens which transmits the light incident from the object side, has both surfaces that are flat, and positioned in the front mirror to the object side (c. 6: a first lens 101 at one longitudinal side thereof which defines the aperture 126 for admitting incident light; c.6: lens 101 with a planar surface on an outer—object side thereof, which receives incident light rays that enter the camera 100. The other—inner side of the first lens 101 may also have a planar surface; col. 6: A center portion of the other-inner side of the lens 101 may be formed with or have connected thereto a second or secondary mirror 112 [positioned in the front mirror]; see FIGS. 1-4 & 6 showing front lens 101 positioned in the front mirror 112 to the object side), and when a diameter of the front lens is D0 and a distance from the object-side surface of the front lens to an image surface is TTL, a conditional expression 0<TTL/D0≤0.7 is satisfied (c. 7, 11: “the aperture 126 defined by the first lens 101…the fixed aperture 126 at 10 mm in outer diameter” [D0]; c.8: “the total thickness 187 of the camera will need to be about 4-5 mm [TTL], or less”; thus, TTL/D0 ≤ 0.4-0.5 which satisfies claimed condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s display system in view of Lu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a front lens with both flat surfaces is known and selected “for aberration correction”, with the function of “transmitting incident light rays toward a first or primary mirror 111 of the mirror arrangement”, as taught in col. 6 of Lu.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen-Singer discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the front mirror is an aspherical mirror that has a negative power.
Lu is related to Chen (see rejection of claim 8 supra) and Lu further discloses: wherein the front mirror is an aspherical mirror that has a negative power (c.8, 14: secondary mirror 112/212 is a convex mirror, and specifically a hyperbolic mirror; the Examiner notes that it is commonly known in the art of optics that hyperbolic mirrors are aspherical mirrors, and since Lu’s mirror 111 has a convex image-side surface, the light diverges away from the reflective surface (the focal point is located behind the mirror) and the power is therefore negative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s display system in view of Lu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a front mirror is known and would be selected to compress and redirect light rays in a manner that magnifies the image corresponding to the light rays, and provides the beneficial result of reducing the longitudinal thickness of the camera, as taught in cols. 8 & 11 of Lu.
Regarding Claim 14, Chen-Singer discloses the imaging lens according to Claim 1, as above. Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the rear mirror is an aspherical mirror that has a positive power, and has a concave object-side surface.
Lu is related to Chen (see rejection of claim 8 supra) and Lu further discloses: wherein the rear mirror is an aspherical mirror that has a positive power, and has a concave object-side surface (c.7, 13: the first mirror 111/211 is a concave mirror with a parabolic shape; c.8,13: the focal point 111F of the first mirror 111/211 is made to be away from the central axis 180 of the camera [positive focus]; see FIGS. 1-4, 6 showing concave object-side surface of rear mirror 111 ; the Examiner notes that it is commonly known in the art of optics that off-axis parabolic mirrors are aspherical mirrors, and since Lu’s mirror 111 has a concave object-side surface, the focal point converges at a location in front of mirror and the power is therefore positive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s display system in view of Lu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a rear mirror is known and would be selected to help correct chromatic aberration, and compress and redirect light rays in a manner that magnifies the image corresponding to the light rays, thereby desirably permitting an image size to be enlarged towards the image sensor while achieving a very small thickness for the camera, as taught in cols. 7 & 12 of Lu.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872