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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
All values relied upon that are not explicitly listed in the cited references were calculated by way of a matrix calculator that utilizes the full Lens Maker's Equation.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 04/30/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 14-20 are amended, Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, and 18 are canceled/withdrawn, no Claims have been added, and Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the second to last paragraph of page 7, Applicant summarizes the limitations of claim 1 as presently amended and states that the new features are not disclosed by the citied references. No argument is made in this paragraph.
In the last paragraph of page 7, Applicant asserts that the flipping a lens orientation as suggested by Gross is non obvious. The Office disagrees with this assertion.
In the first paragraph of page 8, Applicant asserts that “Yoo does not disclose or suggest a structure that can be simply substituted into Baik. Rather, Yoo merely describes optional lens-shape possibilities in generalized terms.” In the second paragraph of page 8, Applicant asserts “It is well known that simply reversing the orientation of Baik's third lens would necessarily alter the paraxial power distribution, the principal plane position, the back focal length, and the rear-group ray convergence behavior.” Further, the third paragraph of page 8 argues that “Yoo does not disclose or suggest a "plug-and-play" replacement. Any such modification would require a systemic redesign of the entire lens system of Baik.”
This argument is not persuasive because it fails to take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP §2141.03(I).
In particular, Gross teaches (section 33.1.4 page 378) that bending a lens (i.e. changing the curvatures of the object-side surface and the image-side surface) and flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the typical operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would usually consider when trying to find a design with better optical performance. Gross teaches that bending a lens or flipping a lens into reverse orientation can be done without changing the refractive power of the lens or of the lens system, and is a change that can be made without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Not only is this evidence that the required changes are minor, but Gross is also teaching that performing an optimization of the lens parameters in one of the widely available, sophisticated, lens design programs, such as Zemax, after making a minor adjustment, is within the steps that an ordinary skilled artisan would normally perform. Thus, applicant’s assertion that the combinations of references do not suggest a plug and play replacement is not persuasive. In particular, this argument over-estimates the degree of perturbation to the system involved in bending a lens, and underestimates both the level of ordinary skill and the steps that would be considered commonplace in the art.
A for the parameters 1-4 as shown on page 8, Baik teaches al of the parameters except for “a meniscus third lens convex towards the image side.” With the motivation from Gross to freely alter a lens system without much protuberance in the system and the physical structure from Yoo showing a lens system with a third lens having a convex image side, one of ordinary skill would be free to make such a modification in the lens system.
In the fourth paragraph of page 9, Applicant asserts that “Even assuming, arguendo, that one were to attempt to modify Baik in view of Yoo, there is nothing in Baik or Yoo that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that such modification would produce a system that simultaneously satisfies the claimed semi- aperture ratio, the F/BFL range, and the TTL/BFL range. Accordingly, Baik fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features. Yoo and Gross do not cure the deficiencies.” The Office again stresses that Gross teaches (section 33.1.4 page 378) that bending a lens (i.e. changing the curvatures of the object-side surface and the image-side surface) and flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the typical operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would usually consider when trying to find a design with better optical performance. Further, Gross is also teaching that performing an optimization of the lens parameters in one of the widely available, sophisticated, lens design programs, such as Zemax, after making a minor adjustment, is within the steps that an ordinary skilled artisan would normally perform. Further optimization with common sophisticated tools like CodeV and Zemax are part of the routine experimentation usually employed.
No specific argument is made on pages 10 and 11 of the remarks.
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 1, 3, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US 20190179125 A1), previously presented, and further in view of Yoo (US 20190369361 A1), previously presented, and Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems” (hereinafter Gross), previously presented.
Regarding claim 1, Baik teaches, in Fig. 1: an optical system (“optical imaging system 100”; [0055]) comprising:
first to seventh lenses sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (Fig. 1; lenses 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170),
wherein the first lens (110) has a positive refractive power (“first lens 110 has a positive refractive power”; [0056]),
wherein the second lens (120) has a negative refractive power (“second lens 120 has a negative refractive power”; [0056]),
wherein an object-side surface of the first lens (110) is convex (“first lens 110 has … a convex object-side surface”; [0056]),
wherein an image-side surface of the second lens (120) is concave (“second lens 120 has … a concave image-side surface”; [0056]),
wherein an image-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is concave (“sixth lens 160 has … a concave image-side surface”; [0056]), and …
wherein the first lens (110) satisfies the following condition 1:
0.5< f1/F < 1.1 (from Table 1: f1/f = 3.203/3.49 = 0.92);
wherein F is an effective focal length of the optical system, and f1 means a focal length of the first lens,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition 1-1:
4.5<F/BFL<7 (from Table 1: f/BFL = 3.49/ (0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024) = 5.37);
wherein F is an effective focal length of the optical system (f = 3.49), and BFL is a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of an image-side surface of the seventh lens to an upper surface of an image sensor (BFL = (0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024)),
wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is convex (“The third lens 130 has a positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface”; [0056]),
wherein the first and third lenses satisfy the following condition 2:
0.6 <(SD L3S1) / (SD L1S1) <0.95 (from annotated Figure 1 below: (1.78/1.95) = 0.91282),
wherein SD L1S1 is an effective radius of an object-side surface of the first lens (110) (Semi- aperture), and SD L3S1 is an effective radius of the object-side surface of the third lens (130),
wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis from an apex of the object-side surface of the first lens to the upper surface of the image sensor is TTL (from Table 1: TTL = 4.200), and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 6 < TTL / BFL <7.5 (4.2 / (0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024) = 6.462). The Office notes that Applicant does not specify from which apex the BFL is to be measured. The image-side surface of lens 7 contains a central apex and an upper and lower apex which are essentially touching the image surface. Additionally, the language of Claim 1, “in a direction of the optical axis,” suggests that the BFL may be measured from a surface that is not “on” the optical axis but rather “in the direction” of the optical axis. Therefore, the Office calculates the BFL from the upper apex that is essentially touching the image sensor. All further calculations of the BFL in the Office Action will be calculated based on the same logic as above.
Baik fails to explicitly teach: the third lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configuration comprising seven lenses, Yoo teaches in Fig. 3: the third lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side (“The third lens 230 has a positive refractive power, and a paraxial region of each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface thereof is convex”; [0223]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (pages 378-379 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Gross teaches that such flipping of a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to flip lens 130 of Baik such that the third lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side as taught by Yoo.
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and Gross to provide a device in which the third lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side as taught by Yoo, because Gross teaches, that such a modification can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
859
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: annotated Fig.1 to illustrate the semi-apertures of lenses 110 and 130.
Regarding claim 3, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: the third lens (130) has a positive refractive power (“third lens 130 has a positive refractive power”; [0056]).
Baik fails to explicitly teach: wherein an image-side surface of the third lens is convex.
However, in a related patent in the field of lens configurations comprising seven lenses, Yoo teaches in Fig. 3: the third lens has a positive refractive power, wherein an image-side surface of the third lens is convex (“The third lens 230 has a positive refractive power, and a paraxial region of each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface thereof is convex”; [0223]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (pages 378-379 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Gross teaches that such flipping of a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to flip lens 130 of Baik such that the image-side surface of the third lens is convex as taught by Yoo.
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and Gross to provide a device in which the third lens has a convex image side surface, because Gross teaches, that such a modification can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 7, Baik teaches, in Fig. 1: an optical system (“optical imaging system 100”; [0055]) comprising:
first to seventh lenses sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (Fig. 1; lenses 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170),
wherein the first lens has a positive refractive power (“first lens 110 has a positive refractive power”; [0056]),
wherein the second lens has a negative refractive power (“second lens 120 has a negative refractive power”; [0056]) …
wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is convex (“first lens 110 has … a convex object-side surface”; [0056]),
wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is convex (“third lens 130 has … a convex object-side surface”; [0056]) …
wherein an image side of the second lens is concave (“second lens 120 has … a concave image-side surface”; [0056]),
wherein the sixth lens (160) has a meniscus shape (Fig. 1) convex toward the object side (“sixth lens 160 has … a convex object-side surface”; [0056]), and
wherein the sixth lens includes a first inflection point disposed on an object-side surface and a second inflection point disposed on an image-side surface (“sixth lens 160 includes inflection points formed on opposing surfaces”; [0056]),
wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition 1-1:
4.5 < F/BFL < 7 (from Table 1: f/BFL = 3.49/ (0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024) = 5.37);
wherein F is an effective focal length of the optical system (f = 3.49), and BFL (Back focal length) is a distance in a direction of the optical axis from an apex of an image-side surface of the seventh lens to an upper surface of the image sensor (BFL = 0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024),
the first inflection point is disposed at a position of 35% to 65% with respect to a direction perpendicular to the optical axis when the optical axis is a starting point and an end of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is an end point (see annotated Figure 2 below which approximates the position of the inflection point. Using the ruler, the position of the inflection point can be calculated: (2.7/4.9)* 100 = 55%),
PNG
media_image2.png
300
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: annotated Fig.1 of Baik illustrating the first inflection point of the object side of lens 160.
the second inflection point is disposed at a position of 33% to 63% with respect to a direction perpendicular to the optical axis when the optical axis is a starting point and an end of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is an end point (see annotated Figure 3 below which approximates the position of the inflation point. Using the ruler, the position of the inflection point can be calculated: (2/4.9)* 100 = 40.8%),
PNG
media_image3.png
300
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: annotated Fig.1 of Baik illustrating the first inflection point of the image side of lens 160.
and wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis from an apex of the object-side surface of the first lens to the upper surface of the image sensor is TTL (from Table 1: TTL = 4.200), and wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 6 < TTL / BFL < 7.5 (4.2 / (0.1100 + 0.5424 – 0.0024) = 6.462).
Baik fails to explicitly teach: wherein the sixth lens has a positive refractive power and wherein the third lens has a meniscus shape convex towards the image side.
However, in a related patent in the field of lens configurations comprising seven lenses, Yoo teaches in Fig. 3: wherein the sixth lens has a positive refractive power (“The sixth lens 260 has a positive refractive power”; [0226]) and wherein the third lens has a meniscus shape convex towards the image side (“The third lens 230 has a positive refractive power, and a paraxial region of each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface thereof is convex”; [0223]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (page 378) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that flipping a lens or lens group into reverse orientation is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Additionally, primary reference Baik teaches a configuration where the sixth lens is negative and the seventh lens is positive (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 of Baik). A mere reversal of these two lenses as motivated by Gross would result in the configuration of Yoo in which the sixths lens is positive and the seventh lens is negative (see Fig. 3 and paras [0226]-[0227]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (pages 378-379 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Gross teaches that such flipping of a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to flip lens 130 of Baik such that the third lens has a meniscus shape convex towards the image side as taught by Yoo.
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and Gross to provide a device in which the sixth lens has a positive refractive power and wherein the third lens has a meniscus shape convex toward the image side as taught by Yoo, because Gross teaches, that such a modification can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 10, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 7. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: at least one of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the fifth lens (150) includes an inflection point (“The fifth lens has an aspherical surface. In an embodiment, both surfaces of the fifth lens are aspherical” ; [0043], see also Fig. 1 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 7. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: the seventh lens (170) includes a third inflection point disposed on an object-side surface and a fourth inflection point disposed on an image-side surface (“The seventh lens may have an inflection point. For example, the seventh lens includes one or more inflection points formed on opposing surface”; [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 11. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: a distance between the optical axis and the fourth inflection point in a vertical direction of the optical axis is greater than a distance between the optical axis and the third inflection point (see annotated Figure 4 in which a distance between the optical axis and the position of the fourth inflection point is greater than a distance between the optical axis and the position of the third inflection point).
PNG
media_image4.png
327
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: annotated Fig. 1 illustrating the positions of the 3rd and 4th inflection points.
Claims 4-6, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US 20190179125 A1), Yoo (US 20190369361 A1), and Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems” (hereinafter Gross), as applied to independent Claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Jhang (US 2019/0204555 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 4, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: … the sixth (160) and seventh lenses (170) satisfy the following condition 3:
0.75 < (SD L6S2) / (SD L7S1) < 0.95 (from annotated Figure 5: (2.35/3) = 0.78);
wherein SD L6S2 is an effective radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (160), and SD L7S1 is an effective radius of the object-side surface of the seventh lens (170).
Baik fails to explicitly teach: an object side surface of the seventh lens is concave.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configuration comprising seven lenses, Jhang teaches in Figs. 6 and 20: an object side surface of the seventh lens is concave (“An optical axis region 73 of the object-side surface 71 facing toward the object side 2 is concave”; [0090]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Jhang and Gross to bend the object side of the seventh lens into a concave surface, because Gross teaches, that such a modification can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross, page 378 section 33.4.2).
PNG
media_image5.png
304
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5: annotated Figure 1 illustrating the effective radii of lenses 160 and 170.
Regarding claim 5, Baik, Yoo, Jheng, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 4. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: an object-side surface of the sixth lens is convex (“The sixth lens 160 has … a convex object-side surface”; [0056]).
However Baik fails to explicitly teach that: the sixth lens has a positive refractive power.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Jhang teaches in Figs. 6 and 20: wherein the sixth (60) lens has a positive refractive power (“The sixth lens element 60 has positive refracting power”; [0089]), and wherein an object-side surface (61) of the sixth lens is convex (“optical axis region 63 of the object-side surface 61 facing toward the object side 2 is convex”; [0089]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (page 378) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that flipping a lens or lens group into reverse orientation is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Primary reference Baik teaches a configuration where the sixth lens is negative and the seventh lens is positive (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 of Baik). A mere reversal of these two lenses as motivated by Gross would result in the configuration of Jhang in which the sixths lens is positive and the seventh lens is negative (see Figs. 6 and 20 of Jhang).
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Jhang and Gross to provide a device in which the sixth lens has a positive refractive power, because Gross teaches that flipping the orientation of a lens group is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross pages 377-378). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that reversing a lens group does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 6, Baik, Yoo, Jheng, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 4. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: and wherein an image-side surface of the seventh lens (170) is concave (“a concave image-side surface”; [0056], Fig. 1).
Baik fails to explicitly teach: the seventh lens has a negative refractive power.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Jhang teaches in Fig. 6 and 20: the seventh lens (70) has a negative refractive power (“The seventh lens element 70 has negative refracting power”; [0090]).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (page 378) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that flipping a lens or lens group into reverse orientation is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Primary reference Baik teaches to a configuration where the sixth lens is negative and the seventh lens is positive (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 of Baik). A mere reversal of these two lenses as motivated by Gross would result in the configuration of Jhang in which the sixths lens is positive and the seventh lens is negative (see Figs. 6 and 20 of Jhang).
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Jhang and Gross to provide a device in which the seventh lens has a negative refractive power, because Gross teaches that flipping the orientation of a lens group is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross pages 377-378). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that reversing a lens group does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 20, Baik, Yoo, Jhang, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Baik fails to explicitly teach: a center interval between the sixth lens and the seventh lens is d67, wherein a center thickness of the sixth lens is L6_CT, wherein a center thickness of the seventh lens is L7_CT, wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equations: Equations: 0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95, and 0.9<d67/L7_CT<1.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Jhang teaches in Fig. 24:
a center interval between the sixth lens (60) and the seventh lens (70) is d67 (d67 = 0.444), wherein a center thickness of the sixth lens (60) is L6_CT (L6_CT = 0.477), wherein a center thickness of the seventh lens (70) is L7_CT (L7_CT = 0.445), wherein the optical system satisfies the following conditions:
0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95 (from the Third Example in Fig. 24: (0.444/0.477) = 0.93), and
0.9<d67/L7_CT<1.3 (from the Third Example in Fig. 24: (0.444/0.445) = 0.9977 ≈ 1.0).
Furthermore, Jhang teaches this configuration such that “In order to diminish the total length of the optical imaging lens, the present invention proposes to properly reduce the lens thickness and air gaps between adjacent lens elements. Taking both the assembly fabrication and imaging quality into consideration, the lens thickness and the air gaps should be coordinated with each other, or to adjust the ratio of particular optical parameters to a specific combination of lens groups” (Jhang, [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baik in view of Jhang in order to achieve the limitations of 0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95 and 0.9<d67/L7_CT<1.3, for the purpose of diminishing the total length of the imaging lens by coordinating the ratios of the lens thickens and the air gaps (Jhang, [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 7, Baik and Yoo fail to explicitly teach: a center interval between the sixth lens and the seventh lens is d67, wherein a center thickness of the sixth lens is L6_CT, and wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Jhang teaches in Fig. 24: a center interval between the sixth lens (60) and the seventh lens (70) is d67 (d67 = 0.444),
wherein a center thickness of the sixth lens (60) is L6_CT (L6_CT = 0.477), and
wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95 (from the Third Example in Fig. 24: (0.444/0.477) = 0.93).
Furthermore, Jhang teaches this configuration such that “In order to diminish the total length of the optical imaging lens, the present invention proposes to properly reduce the lens thickness and air gaps between adjacent lens elements. Taking both the assembly fabrication and imaging quality into consideration, the lens thickness and the air gaps should be coordinated with each other, or to adjust the ratio of particular optical parameters to a specific combination of lens groups” (Jhang, [0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baik and Yoo in view of Jhang in order to achieve the limitation of 0.75 < d67 / L6_CT < 0.95, for the purpose of diminishing the total length of the imaging lens by coordinating the ratios of the lens thickens and the air gaps (Jhang, [0140]).
Regarding claim 17, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 16. Baik and Yoo fail to explicitly teach: a center thickness of the seventh lens is L7_CT wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: Equation: 0.9 < d67 / L7_CT < 1.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Jhang teaches in Fig. 24: a center thickness of the seventh lens (70) is L7_CT (L7_CT = 0.445) wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 0.9 < d67 / L7_CT < 1.3 (from the Third Example in Fig. 24: (0.444/0.445) = 0.9977 ≈ 1.0).
Furthermore, Jhang teaches this configuration such that “In order to diminish the total length of the optical imaging lens, the present invention proposes to properly reduce the lens thickness and air gaps between adjacent lens elements. Taking both the assembly fabrication and imaging quality into consideration, the lens thickness and the air gaps should be coordinated with each other, or to adjust the ratio of particular optical parameters to a specific combination of lens groups” (Jhang, [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baik and Yoo in view of Jhang in order to achieve the limitation of 0.9<d67/L7_CT<1.3, for the purpose of diminishing the total length of the imaging lens by coordinating the ratios of the lens thickens and the air gaps (Jhang, [0102]).
Claims 14-15 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik (US 20190179125 A1), Yoo (US 20190369361 A1), and Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems” (hereinafter Gross), as in independent Claims 1 and 7, and further in view of Huang (US 10394002 B2), previously cited.
Regarding claim 19, Baik, Yoo, and Gross the optical system of claim 1. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is L6R1,
wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is L6R2,
wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the seventh lens (170) is L7R2,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equations:
3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 (from Table 1: 5.2102/1.3586 = 3.83).
Baik and Yoo fail to explicitly teach: 1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Huang teaches in the Third Embodiment shown in Table 5 and Fig. 5: a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (360) is L6R1, wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the seventh lens (370) is L7R2, wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3 (from Table 5: (2.897/1.360) = 2.130)
3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 (from Table 5: (4.161/1.360) = 3.0595).
Furthermore, Huang teaches this configuration such that the curvature of the sixth lens is “favorable for effectively correcting the astigmatism and reducing the back focal length of the photographing optical lens assembly” (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40) and that the curvature of the seventh lens is “favorable for correcting the astigmatism of the photographing optical lens assembly and keeping a compact size” (Huang, col 5 lines 64-67 and col 6 lines 1-3). Therefore, a relationship between the two curvatures as described in the instant application would obvious due to the importance of the curvatures as described by Huang.
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 modified Baik to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide a device in which the limitations of 1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3 and 3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 are satisfied for the purpose of effectively correcting the astigmatism, correcting the back focal length, and keeping the size of the lens system compact (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40, col 5 lines 64-67, col 6 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim of claim 7. Baik fails to explicitly teach: a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the sixth lens is L6R1, wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the seventh lens is L7R2, wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation: 1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens configurations, Huang teaches in the Third Embodiment shown in Table 5 and Fig. 5:
a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (260) is L6R1,
wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the seventh lens (270) is L7R2,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
Equation: 1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3 (from Table 5: (2.897/1.360) = 2.130).
Furthermore, Huang teaches this configuration such that the curvature of the sixth lens is “favorable for effectively correcting the astigmatism and reducing the back focal length of the photographing optical lens assembly” (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40) and that the curvature of the seventh lens is “favorable for correcting the astigmatism of the photographing optical lens assembly and keeping a compact size” (Huang, col 5 lines 64-67 and col 6 lines 1-3). Therefore, a relationship between the two curvatures as described in the instant application would obvious due to the importance of the curvatures of the two lenses.
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 modified Baik, Yoo, and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide a device in which the limitation of 1.9 < L6R1 / L7R2 < 2.3 is satisfied for the purpose of effectively correcting the astigmatism, correcting the back focal length, and keeping the size of the lens system compact (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40, col 5 lines 64-67, col 6 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Baik, Yoo, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 14. Baik further teaches in Fig. 1: a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (160) is L6R2,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
Equation: 3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 (from Table 1: 5.2102/1.3586 = 3.83).
Additionally, Huang teaches in the Third Embodiment shown in Table 5 and Fig. 5: a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (260) is L6R2,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equation:
Equation: 3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 (from Table 5: (4.161/1.360) = 3.0595).
Furthermore, Huang teaches this configuration such that the curvature of the sixth lens is “favorable for effectively correcting the astigmatism and reducing the back focal length of the photographing optical lens assembly” (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40) and that the curvature of the seventh lens is “favorable for correcting the astigmatism of the photographing optical lens assembly and keeping a compact size” (Huang, col 5 lines 64-67 and col 6 lines 1-3). Therefore, a relationship between the two curvatures as described in the instant application would obvious due to the importance of the curvatures of the two lenses.
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 modified Baik, Yoo, and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide a device in which the limitation of 3 < L6R2 / L7R2 < 4.3 is satisfied for the purpose of effectively correcting the astigmatism, correcting the back focal length, and keeping the size of the lens system compact (Huang, col 7 lines 34-40, col 5 lines 64-67, col 6 lines 1-3).
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 RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (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 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights