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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/29/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 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.
Regarding claim 6, the term “the fourth lens has a positive refractive power” (lines 3-4) is vague and renders the claim indefinite. According to applicant’s specification, it is unclear how the fourth lens would be a positive refractive power. Based on fig.3 and the specification in paragraph [0028], table 1a, shows the parameters of fourth lens 40, the value of the focal length of fourth lens 40 is -5.5, means that get the limitations/terms of “the fourth lens has a negative refractive power”, thus, it is impossible for “the fourth lens has a positive refractive power”.
For the purposes of examination, the above ratio will be treated broadly such that the fourth lens has a refractive power. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Regarding claim 15 has same undefined issues as that of claim 6 in lines 3-4.
Claims 7-9 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 6 through their dependency from claim 6.
Claims 16-18 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 6 through their dependency from claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US20220236530).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a lens module (Lin, figs.1-23) having an optical axis, the lens module comprising:
a plurality of lenses consisting of a first lens (fig.1, lens 110), a second lens (fig.1, lens 120), a third lens (fig.1, lens 130), a fourth lens (fig.1, lens l40), and a fifth lens (fig.1, lens 150) arranged in sequence from an object side to an image side along the optical axis (fig.1, abstract, an optical photographing lens assembly includes five lens elements which are, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path),
wherein the fifth lens is a freeform lens (paragraph [0098], the fifth lens element 150 is made of plastic material and has the object-side surface 151 being aspheric and the image-side surface 152 being a freeform surface), the freeform lens comprises an object-side surface facing the object side and an image-side surface facing the image side (see Lin, fig.1, the freeform lens 150 comprises an object-side surface facing the object side and an image-side surface facing the image side), at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the freeform lens is a freeform surface (paragraph [0098], the fifth lens element 150 has the image-side surface 152 being a freeform surface), the lens module further comprises an image surface (fig.1, an imaging surface 170), an X-axis and a Y-axis are defined as two axes perpendicular to each other and parallel to the image surface, and
the freeform surface is described by an equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z is a sag of the freeform surface, Rx is a radius of curvature along X-axis, and Ry is a radius of curvature along Y-axis, kx and ky are conic coefficients, αi, βi are polynomial coefficients, Ai is a polynomial coefficient, ρ is a radial coordinate, φ is an angular coordinate, and N is a number of summation terms.
(see Lin, paragraph [0107], a surface type expression of the free-form lens is
PNG
media_image2.png
247
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0110]-[0116], where, z is a displacement in parallel with the optical axis from an intersection point between the freeform surface and the optical axis to a point at (x, y) on the freeform surface;[0109] r(x, y) is a vertical distance from the point on the freeform surface to the optical axis, and r(x, y)=sqrt(x2+y2); [0110] x is the x-coordinate of the point on the freeform surface; [0111] y is the y-coordinate of the point on the freeform surface; [0112] Rx is the paraxial curvature radius of the freeform surface in the X-axis direction; Ry is the paraxial curvature radius of the freeform surface in the Y-axis direction; [0113] kx is the conic coefficient in the X-axis direction; [0114] ky is the conic coefficient in the Y-axis direction; [0115] Axi is the i-th freeform coefficient in the X-axis direction, and in the embodiments, i may be, but is not limited to, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26; and [0116] Ayi is the i-th freeform coefficient in the Y-axis direction, and in the embodiments, i may be, but is not limited to, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26).
note: The preceding claim is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method/process of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process; thus, it is expect the freeform surface processes provided by Lin has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. thus, Lin teaches the same structure and the same function).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Lin further teaches wherein the freeform lens is symmetrical with respect to a first plane, and the freeform lens is further symmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first plane is defined by the X-axis and the optical axis, and the second plane is defined by the Y-axis and the optical axis (see Lin, paragraph [0050], thus, the freeform lens is symmetrical with respect to a first plane, and the freeform lens is further symmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first plane is defined by the X-axis and the optical axis, and the second plane is defined by the Y-axis and the optical axis).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Lin further teaches wherein each of the X-axis and the Y-axis extends through a center of the image surface and parallel to each of a long side and a short side of the image surface (see Lin, fig.25, paragraph [0050], thus, having each of the X-axis and the Y-axis extends through a center of the image surface and parallel to each of a long side and a short side of the image surface).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches a terminal device (Lin, figs.1-23, the device) comprising: a lens module (the lenses) having an optical axis, the lens module comprising:
a plurality of lenses consisting of a first lens (fig.1, lens 110), a second lens (fig.1, lens 120), a third lens (fig.1, lens 130), a fourth lens (fig.1, lens l40), and a fifth lens (fig.1, lens 150) arranged in sequence from an object side to an image side along the optical axis (fig.1, abstract, an optical photographing lens assembly includes five lens elements which are, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path),
wherein the fifth lens is a freeform lens (paragraph [0098], the fifth lens element 150 is made of plastic material and has the object-side surface 151 being aspheric and the image-side surface 152 being a freeform surface), the freeform lens comprises an object-side surface facing the object side and an image-side surface facing the image side (see Lin, fig.1, the freeform lens 150 comprises an object-side surface facing the object side and an image-side surface facing the image side), at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the freeform lens is a freeform surface (paragraph [0098], the fifth lens element 150 has the image-side surface 152 being a freeform surface), the lens module further comprises an image surface (fig.1, an imaging surface 170), an X-axis and a Y-axis are defined as two axes perpendicular to each other and parallel to the image surface, and
the freeform surface is described by an equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
z is a sag of the freeform surface, Rx is a radius of curvature along X-axis, and Ry is a radius of curvature along Y-axis, kx and ky are conic coefficients, αi, βi are polynomial coefficients, Ai is a polynomial coefficient, ρ is a radial coordinate, φ is an angular coordinate, and N is a number of summation terms.
(see Lin, paragraph [0107], a surface type expression of the free-form lens is
PNG
media_image2.png
247
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0110]-[0116], where, z is a displacement in parallel with the optical axis from an intersection point between the freeform surface and the optical axis to a point at (x, y) on the freeform surface;[0109] r(x, y) is a vertical distance from the point on the freeform surface to the optical axis, and r(x, y)=sqrt(x2+y2); [0110] x is the x-coordinate of the point on the freeform surface; [0111] y is the y-coordinate of the point on the freeform surface; [0112] Rx is the paraxial curvature radius of the freeform surface in the X-axis direction; Ry is the paraxial curvature radius of the freeform surface in the Y-axis direction; [0113] kx is the conic coefficient in the X-axis direction; [0114] ky is the conic coefficient in the Y-axis direction; [0115] Axi is the i-th freeform coefficient in the X-axis direction, and in the embodiments, i may be, but is not limited to, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26; and [0116] Ayi is the i-th freeform coefficient in the Y-axis direction, and in the embodiments, i may be, but is not limited to, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26).
note: The preceding claim is a product-by-process claim and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method/process of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process; thus it is expect the freeform surface processes provided by Lin has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. thus, Lin teaches the same structure and the same function).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Lin further teaches wherein the freeform lens is symmetrical with respect to a first plane, and the freeform lens is further symmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first plane is defined by the X-axis and the optical axis, and the second plane is defined by the Y-axis and the optical axis (see Lin, paragraph [0050], thus, the freeform lens is symmetrical with respect to a first plane, and the freeform lens is further symmetrical with respect to a second plane, the first plane is defined by the X-axis and the optical axis, and the second plane is defined by the Y-axis and the optical axis).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 10 and Lin further teaches wherein each of the X-axis and the Y-axis extends through a center of the image surface and parallel to each of a long side and a short side of the image surface (see Lin, fig.25, paragraph [0050], thus, having each of the X-axis and the Y-axis extends through a center of the image surface and parallel to each of a long side and a short side of the image surface).
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 6-9 and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20220236530), and further in view of Lin et al. (US20160187624, hereafter call Lin’624’).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power (paragraph [0094], the first lens element 110 with negative refractive power), the second lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0095], The second lens element 120 with positive refractive power), the third lens has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens has a refractive power (paragraph [0097], The fourth lens element 140 with positive refractive power).
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the third lens has a positive refractive power, and the fifth lens has a positive refractive power.
However, Lin’624’ teaches the analogous lens (Lin’624’,fig.13, fig.30, abstract, an optical imaging lens set includes a first lens element to a plastic fifth lens element from an object side toward an image side along an optical axis), and further teaches wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power, the second lens has a positive refractive power, the third lens has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens has a refractive power, and the fifth lens has a positive refractive power (see Lin’624’,fig.13 and fig.30, the first lens 10 has a negative refractive power, the second lens 20 has a positive refractive power, the third lens 30 has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens 40 has a refractive power, and the fifth lens 50 has a positive refractive power).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lenses of Lin to have the specific lens refractive power as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 6, and Lin further teaches a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens (fig.1, the lens 120) is greater than 1 and less than 10 mm (2.38mm, see paragraph [0144], data of table 1, a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens is 2.38 mm), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens (fig.1, lens 120) is greater than -10 mm and less than -1 mm (see paragraph [0144], data of table 1, a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens is -1.6183),
and further, Lin’624’ further teaches wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Lin’624’, fig.13, lens 10) is greater than 1 mm (2.665, see fig.30, a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens 10 is 2.665 mm), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (the lens 10) is less than 10 mm (2.027, see fig.30, 2.027),
a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens (Lin’624’, fig.13, lens 30) is less than -10 mm (fig.30,data of table, -1.352), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens (fig.13, lens 30) is less than -1 mm (-0.744, fig.30, data of paragraph [0187], data of table, is -0.744), a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens (fig.13, lens 40) is greater than 1 mm (fig.30, is 2.13), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fourth lens (fig.13, lens 40) is less than 10 mm (fig.30, is 0.704), and
a radius of curvature of an object-side surface or an image-side surface of the
fifth lens (fig.13, lens 50) is less than 1000 mm (fig.30, the data shows a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of lens 50 is 0.667).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lens of Lin to have the specific lens shape as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 6, and Lin further teaches wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens are made of transparent plastic or glass (see Lin, fig.1, and paragraph [0144], all lenses are made of transparent plastic).
Regarding claim 9, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 6, and Lin’624’ further teaches wherein distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the image surface on the optical axis is TTL, an effective focal length of the lens module is EFL, and TTL/EFL<2 (1.88; see Lin’624’, fig.30, TTL = 3.885, EFL = 2.07).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the effective focal length of the lens module of Lin to have the specific range as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses the invention as described in Claim 10, and further teaches wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power (paragraph [0094], the first lens element 110 with negative refractive power), the second lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0095], The second lens element 120 with positive refractive power), the third lens has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens has a refractive power (paragraph [0097], The fourth lens element 140 with positive refractive power).
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the third lens has a positive refractive power, and the fifth lens has a positive refractive power.
However, Lin’624’ teaches the analogous lens (Lin’624’,fig.13, fig.30, abstract, an optical imaging lens set includes a first lens element to a plastic fifth lens element from an object side toward an image side along an optical axis), and further teaches wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power, the second lens has a positive refractive power, the third lens has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens has a refractive power, and the fifth lens has a positive refractive power (see Lin’624’, fig.13 and fig.30, the first lens 10 has a negative refractive power, the second lens 20 has a positive refractive power, the third lens 30 has a positive refractive power, the fourth lens 40 has a refractive power, and the fifth lens 50 has a positive refractive power).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lenses of Lin to have the specific lens refractive power as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 15, and Lin further teaches a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens (fig.1, the lens 120) is greater than 1 and less than 10 mm (2.38mm, see paragraph [0144], data of table 1, a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens is 2.38 mm), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens (fig.1, lens 120) is greater than -10 mm and less than -1 mm (see paragraph [0144], data of table 1, a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens is -1.6183),
and further, Lin’624’ further teaches wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Lin’624’, fig.13, lens 10) is greater than 1 mm (2.665, see fig.30, a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens 10 is 2.665 mm), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (the lens 10) is less than 10 mm (2.027, see fig.30, 2.027),
a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens (Lin’624’, fig.13, lens 30) is less than -10 mm (fig.30,data of table, -1.352), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens (fig.13, lens 30) is less than -1 mm (-0.744, fig.30, data of paragraph [0187], data of table, is -0.744), a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens (fig.13, lens 40) is greater than 1 mm (fig.30, is 2.13), and a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fourth lens (fig.13, lens 40) is less than 10 mm (fig.30, is 0.704), and
a radius of curvature of an object-side surface or an image-side surface of the
fifth lens (fig.13, lens 50) is less than 1000 mm (fig.30, the data shows a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of lens 50 is 0.667).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lens of Lin to have the specific lens shape as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 15, and Lin further teaches wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens are made of transparent plastic or glass (see Lin, fig.1, and paragraph [0144], all lenses are made of transparent plastic).
Regarding claim 18, combination Lin-Lin’624’ discloses the invention as described in Claim 15, and Lin’624’ further teaches wherein distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the image surface on the optical axis is TTL, an effective focal length of the lens module is EFL, and TTL/EFL<2 (1.88; see Lin’624’, fig.30, TTL = 3.885, EFL = 2.07).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the effective focal length of the lens module of Lin to have the specific range as taught by Lin’624’ for the purpose to develop an optical imaging lens set of a shorter length with uncompromised good quality (Lin’624’, paragraph [0003]).
Response to argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872