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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to at least independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 20, 22, 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda US 2014/0029117.
Regarding claim 11, Noda discloses an optical system, in at least figs.2, 3 and 5 and tables 1, 2 and 4, comprising:
first to fifth lenses (L1-L5) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see figs.2, 3 and 5),
wherein each of the first to fifth lenses includes an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see figs.2, 3 and 5),
wherein an effective aperture on the image-side surface of the first lens is larger than an effective aperture on the object-side surface of the first lens (see figs.2, 3 and 5),
wherein a center thickness of the first lens is thinner than a center thickness of the second lens (see figs.2, 3 and 5),
wherein the object-side surface of the first lens has a negative (-) radius of curvature (see figs.2, 3 and 5),
wherein the image-side surface of the first lens has a convex shape (see figs.2, 3 and 5), and
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape (see figs.2, 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Noda discloses the second lens has positive (+) refractive power (see figs.2, 3 and 5), wherein the object-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape (see figs.2, 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 20, Noda discloses the center thickness of the first lens is smaller than a center thickness of the third lens (L3), and thicker than center thicknesses of the fourth lens (L4) and the fifth lens (L5) (see tables 1 and 2),
Wherein the center thickness of the second lens (L2) is thicker than the center thickness of the third lens (see tables 1 and 2), and
wherein the image-side surface of the first lens has the largest effective aperture among the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (see figs.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 22, Noda discloses the fourth lens and the fifth lens have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (see figs.2 and 3).
Regarding claim 24, Noda discloses the image-side surface of the first lens has the largest effective aperture among object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (see figs.2, 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 26, Noda discloses a center thickness of the first lens is TH_L1,
wherein a center thickness of the second lens is THL2, and wherein the first and second lenses satisfies the following Equation:
0.2 < TH_L1 / TH_L2 < 0.65 (see tables 1, 2 and 4).
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamotsu JP 2009151046A (see document of 18020574_2025-11-07_JP_2009151046_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 11, Tamotsu discloses an optical system, in at least figs.1-7, comprising:
first to fifth lenses (L1-L5 of figs.3 and 7, or L1, L3, L4, L5 and L6 of figs.2-7) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see figs.2-7),
wherein each of the first to fifth lenses includes an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see figs.2-7),
wherein an effective aperture on the image-side surface of the first lens is larger than an effective aperture on the object-side surface of the first lens (see figs.2-7),
wherein a center thickness of the first lens is thinner than a center thickness of the second lens (see figs.2-7),
wherein the object-side surface of the first lens has a negative (-) radius of curvature (see figs.2-7),
wherein the image-side surface of the first lens has a convex shape (see figs.2-7), and
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 13, Tamotsu discloses the second lens has positive (+) refractive power (see figs.2-7), wherein the object-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 14, Tamotsu discloses the center thickness of the first lens is smaller than a distance between the first lens (L1) and the second lens (L3) in a direction of the optical axis (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 15, Tamotsu discloses the center thickness of the second lens is thicker than a center thickness of each of the third lens (L4), the fourth lens (L5), and the fifth lens (L6) (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 21, Tamotsu discloses the third lens (L4) has a negative refractive power,
wherein the fourth lens (L5) has a positive refractive power, and
wherein the fifth lens (L6) has a positive refractive power.
Regarding claim 22, Tamotsu discloses the fourth lens and the fifth lens have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 23, Tamotsu discloses the third to fifth lenses have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 24, Tamotsu discloses the image-side surface of the first lens has the largest effective aperture among object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (see figs.2-7).
Regarding claim 25, Tamotsu discloses a distance from the image side surface of the fifth lens (L5) to an image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is BFL, wherein 1/2 of a diagonal length of an effective region of the image sensor is ImgH, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
2 < BFL / ImgH < 5 (see at least tables 6 and 7 teach 7.33/3.197=2.3).
Regarding claim 26, Tamotsu discloses a center thickness of the first lens is TH_L1,
wherein a center thickness of the second lens is THL2, and wherein the first and second lenses satisfies the following Equation:
0.2 < TH_L1 / TH_L2 < 0.65 (see tables 1-6).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura US 20140104707.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses an optical system, in at least fig.15 comprising:
first to fifth lenses (see fig.15) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see fig.15),
wherein each of the first to fifth lenses includes an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see fig.15),
wherein an effective aperture on the image-side surface of the first lens is larger than an effective aperture on the object-side surface of the first lens (see fig.15),
wherein a center thickness of the first lens is thinner than a center thickness of the second lens (see fig.15),
wherein the object-side surface of the first lens has a negative (-) radius of curvature (see fig.15),
wherein the image-side surface of the first lens has a convex shape (see fig.15), and
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape (see fig.15 and para.118).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses the first lens has positive (+) refractive power (see fig.15), and wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape convex in an image-side direction (see fig.15).
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura discloses the fourth lens and the fifth lens have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (see fig.15).
Regarding claim 23, Nakamura discloses the third to fifth lenses have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (see fig.15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US 2014/0029117 as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 25, Noda discloses a distance from the image side surface of the fifth lens to an image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is BFL, wherein 1/2 of a diagonal length of an effective region of the image sensor is ImgH, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: BFL / ImgH = 0.396.
Noda does not explicitly disclose 2 < BFL / ImgH < 5. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2 < BFL / ImgH < 5 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2 < BFL / ImgH < 5 for the purpose of having high quality image.
Regarding claim 27, Noda discloses a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is a total track length (TTL), wherein a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens to the image sensor in the direction of the optical axis is BFL, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: TTL/BFL=5.1964/0.884=5.878.
Noda does not explicitly disclose 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 for the purpose of having high quality image.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US 2014/0029117 as applied to claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 30, Noda discloses a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens to an image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is BFL, wherein 1/2 of a diagonal length of an effective region of the image sensor is ImgH, wherein a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is a total track length (TTL), and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equations:
BFL / ImgH = 0.396
TTL/BFL=5.1964/0.884=5.878.
Noda does not explicitly disclose 2 < BFL / ImgH <5 and 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 2 < BFL / ImgH <5 and 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2 < BFL / ImgH <5 and 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 for the purpose of having high quality image.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamotsu JP 2009151046A as applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 27, Tamotsu discloses a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image sensor in a direction of the optical axis is a total track length (TTL), wherein a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens to the image sensor in the direction of the optical axis is BFL, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: TTL/BFL (see tables 1-6).
Tamotsu does not explicitly disclose 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.5 <TTL/BFL<2.5 for the purpose of having high quality image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18, 28 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record (includes Tamotsu JP 2009151046A, Noda US 20140029117, Nakamura US 20140104707) does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “first lens has a positive (+) refractive power, wherein the object-side surface of the second lens has an effective aperture smaller than the effective aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 17 and 18 are depended on claim 16 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record (includes Tamotsu JP 2009151046A, Noda US 20140029117, Nakamura US 20140104707) does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “the first lens has a positive (+) refractive power, and wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side”, along with other claim limitations. Claim 29 is depended on claim 28 so it is allowable for the same reason.
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 JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 H 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871