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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-6,11-13,18-20 in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 of this title, 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) 1,3,5,11-13,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANAHASHI (WO 2014132796, of record, as evidenced by the translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, TANAHASHI teaches (Fig. 8, Table 4) A system consisting of a front lens group (L1-L5) and a negative lens Gn (L6) on an image side of the front lens group,
wherein the negative lens Gn includes a first lens surface, and the first lens surface is a lens surface that satisfies the following inequality:
45°<|Θ|<65° (e.g., image-side as the 1st lens surface, the angle~50° measured at the effective diameter of the surface in Fig. 8 which is considered as substantially drawn-to-scale),
where Θ is an opening angle at an effective diameter,
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
where R_R0 is a reflectance in reflecting a light ray with a wavelength of 700 nm that is vertically incident on a position on an optical axis of the first lens surface, R_R45 is a reflectance in reflecting a light ray with a wavelength of 700 nm that is vertically incident on a position at an opening angle of 45 degrees on the first lens surface, and R_G45 is a reflectance in reflecting a light ray with a wavelength of 530 nm that is vertically incident on the position at an opening angle of 45 degrees on the first lens surface.
TANAHASHI does not explicitly teach the first lens surface is provided with an antireflection film, and
R_R45 < 1.5%, R_G45 < 1.5%, and R_R0 < 1.0%.
However R_R45 R_G45 and R_R0 are “result-effective variables” because they confer stray light intensities. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first lens surface is provided with an antireflection film and R_R45 < 1.5%, R_G45 < 1.5%, and R_R0 < 1.0%, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the first lens surface is provided with an antireflection film and R_R45 < 1.5%, R_G45 < 1.5%, and R_R0 < 1.0% for the purposes of improving image quality by reducing stray light intensities.
Regarding claim 3, the modified TANAHASHI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The system according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.0<Rmax_R45/Rmax_G45< 4.0 ,
where Rmax_G45 is a maximum value of a reflectance in reflecting a light ray vertically incident on the position at an opening angle of 45 degrees on the first lens surface in a wavelength range of 450 nm to 550 nm, and Rmax_R45 is a maximum value of a reflectance in reflecting a light ray vertically incident on the position at an opening angle of 45 degrees on the first lens surface in a wavelength range of 650 nm to 750 nm.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having 0.0<Rmax_R45/Rmax_G45< 4.0 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Fig. 9 of TANAHASHI for the purposes of reducing stray light.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of TANAHASHI by having 0.0<Rmax_R45/Rmax_G45< 4.0 for the purposes of reducing stray light.
Regarding claim 5, the modified TANAHASHI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The system according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.0<Rmin_R0/Rmin_G0<3.0 ,
where Rmin_G0 is a minimum value of a reflectance in reflecting a light ray vertically incident on the position on the optical axis of the first lens surface in a wavelength range of 480 nm to 550 nm, and Rmin_R0 is a minimum value of a reflectance in reflecting a light ray vertically incident on the position on the optical axis of the first lens surface in a wavelength range of 650 nm to 850 nm.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having 0.0<Rmin_R0/Rmin_G0<3.0 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by TANAHASHI (Fig. 9, the square symbol curve) for the purposes of reducing the stray light.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of TANAHASHI by having 0.0<Rmin_R0/Rmin_G0<3.0 for the purposes of the stray light.
Regarding claim 11, the modified TANAHASHI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The system according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.3<R_R45/R_R0 <3.0.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having 0.3<R_R45/R_R0 <3.0 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of easy manufacturing (common antireflection method includes vapor deposition which is considered a uniform layer deposition and the ratio should be close to 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of TANAHASHI by having 0.3<R_R45/R_R0 <3.0 for the purposes of easy manufacturing.
Regarding claim 12, the modified TANAHASHI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The system according to claim 1,
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.27λ<dn < 0.40λ ,
where dn (nm) is an optical thickness of an uppermost layer of the antireflection film with respect to a light ray with a wavelength λ of approximately 587.56 nm, the uppermost layer being a layer closest to or in contact with air.
However dn is “a result-effective variable” because it confers antireflection effects over the entire wavelength band. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.27λ<dn < 0.40λ, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have 0.27λ<dn < 0.40λ for the purposes of having desired effects in reducing the stray light.
Regarding claim 13, TANAHASHI teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not teach The system according to claim 1, wherein the antireflection film includes at least seven layers.
However the number of layers in the antireflection film is “a result-effective variable” because it confers antireflection effects. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the antireflection film includes at least seven layers, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the antireflection film includes at least seven layers for the purposes of having desired antireflection effects.
Regarding claim 18, TANAHASHI further teaches An apparatus comprising:
the system according to claim 1; and
a sensor (at I in Fig. 8) configured to receive an image formed by the system.
Regarding claim 20, mutatis mutandis, the further modified TANAHASHI further teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 3 rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2,4,6,19 is/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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding each of claims 2,4,6,19, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including the additional limitations in the claim, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234