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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,877,244; hereinafter – “Chen”) in view of Tsunashima (U.S. Patent No. 6,169,637).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an imaging lens comprising:
a single catadioptric lens (110) containing light transmitting material, and emitting light, that is incident from an object side, to an image side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16); and
a lens group (120, 130, and/or 140) comprising a plurality of lenses for transmitting the light emitted from the single catadioptric lens to an image surface (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48-63; C. 12, L. 17-48),
wherein the single catadioptric lens comprises:
an incident surface (111) on which light is incident from the object side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16);
a second mirror surface (112) which is formed concave toward the object side, and reflects the light incident on the incident surface to a first mirror surface (113) in the object side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16);
the first mirror surface (113) which is formed, at a central portion of the incident surface, convex toward the image side, and reflects the light reflected from the second mirror surface toward the image side, wherein the first mirror surface (113) is located closer to the object side than the second mirror surface (112) (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16); and
an exit surface (114) through which the light reflected from the first mirror surface is emitted (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16),
wherein all of the lens group is disposed between the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface, based on an optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 6, L. 11-26: “the aforementioned lens element can be located fully inside the recess structure”; See also e.g. Table 1 for the 1st Embodiment which shows the required distances – e.g. the distance from surface 113 to surface 142 is 4.9 mm while the thickness of element 110 is 5.5 mm, and, as such, the entire lens group must be located between the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface),
wherein a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the first mirror surface facing the object side is greater than a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the second mirror surface facing the object side (See e.g. Table 1 for the 1st embodiment where the curvature radius of the first mirror surface is greater than that of the second mirror surface, i.e. -7.855 > -15.833),
wherein the first mirror surface (113) and the second mirror surface (112) are surfaces formed on the single catadioptric lens (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16),
wherein the lens group comprises a first lens (120), a second lens (130), and a third lens (140), wherein the first lens and the second lens are an aspherical lens having at least one aspherical surface, and wherein the third lens is a Meniscus lens convex to the image side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 11, L. 48-63; C. 12, L. 17-48; See also Table 1 for the 1st embodiment).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose that an absolute value of a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the first mirror surface facing the object side is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the second mirror surface facing the object side.
However, Tsunashima teaches a catadioptric system and optical device comprising a single catadioptric lens (10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 110, 130, L1) and a lens group (L2) wherein the catadioptric lens comprises a second mirror surface (R1) which is formed concave toward the object side, and reflects the light incident on the incident surface to a first mirror surface (R2) in the object side; and the first mirror surface (R2) which is formed, at a central portion of the incident surface, convex toward the image side, and reflects the light reflected from the second mirror surface toward the image side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13; C. 4, L. 18-48; C. 5, L. 28-67; C. 6, L. 46 – C. 8, L. 34), wherein the first mirror surface is located closer to the object side than the second mirror surface, and an absolute value of a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the first mirror surface facing the object side is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of a concave surface of the second mirror surface facing the object side (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13; C. 3, L. 20-32; C. 4, L. 18-48; C. 5, L. 28-67; C. 6, L. 1-38; C. 6, L. 46 – C. 8, L. 34; See Tables 2, 4, 6, and 7).
Tsunashima teaches this range on the curvature radii of the mirror surfaces such that “a sufficient quantity of light can…be obtained in image plane 14” and “a compact catadioptric lens can…be achieved” (C. 6, L. 1-38) to provide “a sufficiently high imagewise telecentricity” and a system that “can be assembled with high precision” (C. 2, L. 51-56).
Therefore, 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 such that the absolute value of the curvature radius of the first mirror surface is greater than the absolute value of the curvature radius of the second mirror surface as suggested by Tsunashima such that “a sufficient quantity of light can…be obtained in image plane 14” and “a compact catadioptric lens can…be achieved” to provide “a sufficiently high imagewise telecentricity” and a system that “can be assembled with high precision,” as taught by Tsunashima (C. 2, L. 51-56; C. 6, L. 1-38), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and 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).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the exit surface (114) is formed in a planar or aspherical curved shape (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 12, L. 11-16).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 2, as above.
Chen further teaches that a stop surface is located between the exit surface and a lens located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses, on the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 17-18; C. 6, L. 27 – C. 7, L. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 2, as above.
Chen further teaches that the exit surface (114) is formed between the first mirror surface (113) and the second mirror surface (112), based on an optical axis, wherein the second mirror surface comprises a circular transmission area (YM1i) centered on an optical axis, wherein the catadioptric lens further comprises a side surface (S1) connecting a boundary of the transmission area and a boundary of the exit surface, wherein all of the lens group is disposed in a recess formed by the exit surface and the side surface (See e.g. Figs. 17-18; C. 6, L. 11 – C. 7, L. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 4, as above.
Chen further teaches that an absorption film is coated, or a diffuse pattern is formed on the side surface (See e.g. Figs. 17-18; C. 6, L. 11 – C. 7, L. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 4, as above.
Chen further teaches that a central point of the transmission area 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, on the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 6, L. 11-26: “the aforementioned lens element can be located fully inside the recess structure”; See also e.g. Table 1 for the 1st Embodiment which shows the required distances – e.g. the distance from surface 113 to surface 142 is 4.9 mm while the thickness of element 110 is 5.5 mm, and, as such, the entire lens group must be located between the first mirror surface and the second mirror surface).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the catadioptric lens is formed of a material having an Abbe number of 50 or more (See e.g. Table 1 for the 1st embodiment where the Abbe number of lens 110 is 55.9, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the catadioptric lens is formed of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 7 x 10-6/°C, or a material having a mass per unit volume of 3 g/cm3 or less (See e.g. Table 1 for the 1st embodiment where the values for lens 110 correspond to a cyclic olefin polymer known to have a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.0 to 7.0 × 10-6/°C and a density of 1.02 g/cm3, both within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that a diameter D1 (YM2) of the first mirror surface is smaller than a diameter D2 (YM1i) of a transmission area of the second mirror surface (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 4, L. 28-50; C. 14, L. 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the lens group comprises a first lens (120) located closest to the object side, wherein a diameter DL1 of the first lens is the smallest among diameters of lenses comprised in the lens group and is smaller than a diameter D1 of the first mirror surface (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 6, L. 11-55; C. 8, L. 31-43).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that when a diameter of the incident surface is D0 (YR1o) and a distance from the incident surface to the image surface is TTL (TL), a conditional expression of 0 < TTL/D0 ≤ 0.7 is satisfied (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 14, L. 19-22 teaches a value of TTL/D0 = 0.7, within Applicant’s claimed range; See also, e.g., Table 8 for the 4th embodiment in C. 25 where TTL/D0 is given to be 0.57, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Additionally, Chen teaches a broader range on TTL/D0 of 0.5 < TTL/D0 < 2.0 (C. 7, L. 61 – C. 8, L. 3) “so that the optical photographing system can meet the dimension requirement while achieving optical specifications.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify any of the embodiments of Chen to satisfy 0 < TTL/D0 ≤ 0.7 as suggested by Chen “so that the optical photographing system can meet the dimension requirement while achieving optical specifications,” as in Chen (C. 7, L. 61 – C. 8, L. 3), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and 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).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the second mirror surface comprises a circular transmission area centered on an optical axis, and when an entrance pupil diameter of the imaging lens is EPD and a diameter of transmission area of the second mirror surface is D2 (Ym1i), a conditional expression of D2/EPD ≤ 0.8 is satisfied (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 13, L. 3-10; C. 14, L. 1-3 – Chen teaches that EPD = 7.05 mm and D2 = 2.70 mm, resulting in D2/EPD = 0.36, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that a shape of the second mirror surface (112) is in a shape of a Fresnel lens surface (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, and 18; C. 10, L. 64 – C. 11, L. 10; C. 11, L. 48 – C. 12, L. 16).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches a camera module comprising: an imaging lens according to claim 1, a filter (150) which selectively transmits light passed through the imaging lens according to a wavelength; and an image sensor (160, 170) which receives the light passed through the filter (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 11, L. 48-63).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the camera module of claim 16, as above.
Chen further teaches an electronic device comprising the camera module of claim 16 (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 15-16; C. 11, L. 48-63; C. 35, L. 52 – C. 36, L. 56).
Claim(s) 3 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tsunashima, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ryu (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2014/0049841).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 2, as above.
Chen further teaches that a stop surface is located between the exit surface and a lens located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses, on the optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 17-18; C. 6, L. 27 – C. 7, L. 7).
Additionally, Ryu teaches a reflective type telephoto lens including a catadioptric lens with an exit surface and a plurality of lenses wherein a stop surface is located between the exit surface and a lens located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses, on the optical axis (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0021 and 0051-0057).
Ryu teaches this stop surface 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” (Paragraph 0089).
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 such that the stop surface is between the exit surface and a lens located closest to an image side among the plurality of lenses as taught by Ryu 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,” as in Ryu (Paragraph 0089), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 8 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Tsunashima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida (PCT Pub No. WO 2018/066313 A1). All citations to Uchida are directed toward the U.S. Publication of the national stage entry (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0219804), provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Tsunashima teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, as above.
Chen further teaches that the catadioptric lens is formed of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 7 x 10-6/°C, or a material having a mass per unit volume of 3 g/cm3 or less (See e.g. Table 1 for the 1st embodiment where the values for lens 110 correspond to a cyclic olefin polymer known to have a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.0 to 7.0 × 10-6/°C and a density of 1.02 g/cm3, both within Applicant’s claimed range).
Additionally, Uchida teaches a catadioptric system and optical device comprising a catadioptric lens (LS(1)) formed of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 7 x 10-6/°C and having a mass per unit volume of 3 g/cm3 or less (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0061-0064 and 0079).
Uchida teaches using a material having this coefficient of thermal expansion and mass per unit volume as a choice of known materials “so that deformation of the catadioptric system LS accompanying temperature change can be suppressed, and the catadioptric system LS can be used even in a harsh environment where a temperature becomes high or low” (Paragraphs 0061-0062) and to “lighten the catadioptric system LS, so that the catadioptric system LS can be preferably mounted also on a small unmanned flying device, for example” (Paragraph 0063).
Therefore, even if Chen did not disclose a material having the required properties, 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 with the material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than or equal to 7 x 10-6/°C and having a mass per unit volume of 3 g/cm3 or less taught by Uchida “so that deformation of the catadioptric system LS accompanying temperature change can be suppressed, and the catadioptric system LS can be used even in a harsh environment where a temperature becomes high or low” and to “lighten the catadioptric system LS, so that the catadioptric system LS can be preferably mounted also on a small unmanned flying device, for example,” as in Uchida (Paragraphs 0061-0064), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen fails to teach that the lens group comprises a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens, wherein the first lens and the second lens are an aspherical lens having at least one aspherical surface, and wherein the third lens is a Meniscus lens convex to the image side because “Chen explicitly describes this lens as a biconcave lens, not a meniscus lens” in reference to the third lens 140. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, no special definition of “meniscus lens” is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a meniscus lens”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “a meniscus lens,” which states/seems to imply that the meniscus lens must have one spherical convex surface and one spherical concave surface; the specification does not prohibit such an interpretation; therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art. Rather, given that Chen teaches a lens that is formed to have aspherical curved surfaces, such a shape reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “meniscus lens.”
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the lens 140 is not a meniscus lens convex to the image side because it is a “biconcave lens,” Examiner respectfully notes that Chen explicitly teaches that “The image-side surface 142 of the fourth lens element 140 has one inflection point and has one critical point in an off-axis region thereof” (See e.g. Fig. 1 and C. 12, L. 37-47). Thus, Chen teaches a third lens which has a concave region on the object side and a convex region on the image side, reading on the claimed “meniscus lens convex to the image side.”
PNG
media_image1.png
570
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Chen shows a third lens that is a meniscus lens convex to the image side.
Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to include that the image side is convex on an optical axis or in a paraxial region, or amending the claims in a similar manner consistent with the specification, to indicate that a convex region is specifically formed to be on the optical axis of the lens. Alternatively, if Applicant intends for the third lens to be a meniscus lens with spherical surfaces, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to include that the third lens has an image-side surface that is a spherical surface and is convex.
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 Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights