DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 03/02/2023 has been received and entered. By the amendment, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2023 and 11/15/2024 was filed and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “total track length TTL”, “APE6”, “driving member” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submitted prior art, Wang et al., US 2020/0409073 A1.
Claims 1 is anticipated by Wang et al. figures 1, 5 and accompanying text which discloses an optical system 10/20 comprising:
. first to sixth lenses L1-L6
. the first lens having a positive refractive power [0018], wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is convex on the optical axis
. the third lens having negative refractive power [0028], and at least one of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the third lens includes an inflection point (fig. 5)
. the sixth lens having negative refractive power [0039], and at least one of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the sixth lens includes an inflection point (fig. 5)
. the optical system that satisfies the following Equation 1: 1 < TTL/BFL <3 (Table 5)
wherein TTL is Total Track Length (sum d1:d14, Table 5)
and BFL is Back Focal Length (sum d12:d14, Table 5).
Re claim 2, wherein an image-side surface of the first lens is concave on the optical axis (fig. 5).
Re claim 3, wherein the second lens has a negative refractive power [0025], and wherein the second lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (fig. 5).
Re claim 4, wherein the fourth lens has a negative refractive power [0031], and wherein the fifth lens has a positive refractive power [0035].
Re claim 5, wherein the fourth lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side (fig. 5).
Re claim 6, wherein the optical system 20 satisfies the following Equation 2:
1 < BFL/APE6 <2 (Table 5)
wherein APE6 means a distance in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis from the optical axis to an effective diameter of the image-side surface of the sixth lens.
Re claim 7, wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation 3:
<Img/APE6 <2 (Table 5 and fig 11)
wherein Img means a value of 1/2 of a diagonal length of an effective region of an image sensor
Re claims 8-10, Wang further disclose an application of the optical system over a camera module (Abstract) and a driving member inherently formed in the optical system for moving and adjusting lens distance therebetween (e.g., TTL, BFL) in off/on operation state(s).
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s submitted prior art, Wang et al., US 2020/0409073 A1.
Re claim 11, Wang et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for
the optical system satisfying the following Equation: 0.1 < T1-(T2+T4), wherein T1, T2, T4 are a center thicknesses of the first, second, fourth lens. Wang et al. does disclose the optical system in fig. 1 having T1-(T2+T4) ≈ -0.8 (Table 1) that closed to the claimed value of 0.1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Wang et al. optical system satisfies the equation 0.1 < T1-(T2+T4), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art
Re claim 12, wherein a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the first lens is L wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the first lens is L1R2, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 0 <L1R1/|L1R2|< 1 (Wang et al., Table 5).
Re claim 13, wherein a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens to an upper surface of an image sensor is a back focal length (BFL), wherein a distance in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis from the optical axis to an end of an effective region of the image-side surface of the sixth lens is APE6, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 1 < BFL/APE6 <2 (Wang et al., Table 5).
Re claim 14, wherein a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of the object-side surface of the first lens to an upper surface of an image sensor is a total track length (TTL), wherein 1/2 of a diagonal length of an effective region of the image sensor is Img, wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 0.5 < TTL/(Img*2) < 1.5 (Wang et al., Table 5).
Re claim 15, wherein a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of the object-side surface of the first lens to an upper surface of an image sensor is a total track length (TTL), wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis from an apex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens to an upper surface of an image sensor is a back focal length (BFL), wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 1 < TTL/BFL <3 (Wang et al., Table 5).
Re claim 16, wherein the second lens has a negative refractive power [0025], and wherein the second lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the object side (figs. 1, 5)
Re claim 17, wherein the fourth lens has a negative refractive power [0031], and wherein the fifth lens has a positive refractive power [0035].
Re claim 18, wherein the fourth lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side (fig. 5).
Re claim 19, wherein a total focal length of the optical system is F, wherein a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of the object-side surface of the first lens to an upper surface of an image sensor is a total track length (TTL), and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 0.5 < F/TTL < 1.5 (Wang et al., Tables 5 and 13).
Re claim 20, wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis from an apex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens to the upper surface of the image sensor is a back focal length (BFL), and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 1 < F/BFL <3 (Wang et al., Table 5 and 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871