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 6/29/2026.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Regarding claim 22, the limitations/terms of “the aperture stop is configured such
that a marginal ray bundle expands monotonically from the aperture stop toward the image-side surface of the first lens, and the aperture stop is positioned such that a chief ray bundle attains a maximum diameter at the image-side surface of the first lens” (lines 1-4) which are not described/defined in the specification disclosure. The claimed limitations/terms do not have corresponding parts specified in the specification disclosure. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, the specification in paragraph [0036], states that “the aperture stop may control the amount of light incident on the optical system 1000” and that “the aperture stop may be located in front of the first lens 110 or between two lenses selected from among the first to fifth lenses 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150.”. Although the specification includes ray-tracing diagrams, the specification does not describe or otherwise reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of an optical system having the claimed ray bundle characteristics. In particular, the specification does not disclose that: (1) the marginal ray bundle expands monotonically from the aperture stop toward the image-side surface of the first lens; and (2) the chief ray bundle attains a maximum diameter at the image-side surface of the first lens. The ray-tracing diagrams do not identify or explain the claimed marginal ray bundle, chief ray bundle, monotonic expansion, or maximum diameter condition. The specification also does not provide any corresponding description, optical analysis, or criteria demonstrating the claimed ray behavior. Accordingly, the specification fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
Therefore claim 22 lacks support by the written description.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, see above 112(a) rejection. as the limitations/terms of “the aperture stop is configured such that a marginal ray bundle expands monotonically from the aperture stop toward the image-side surface of the first lens, and the aperture stop is positioned such that a chief ray bundle attains a maximum diameter at the image-side surface of the first lens” (lines 1-4) is not taught in the specification disclosure, the claimed scope and structures are vague and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the specification does not identify: (1) which rays constitute the claimed “marginal ray bundle” and “chief ray bundle”; (2) how “expands monotonically” is measured or determined along the optical path; (3) how the “maximum diameter” of the chief ray bundle is determined; or (4) whether the claimed diameter refers to a ray height, beam diameter, bundle diameter, or another optical parameter. Although the specification includes ray-tracing diagrams, the diagrams do not label or identify the marginal ray bundle or chief ray bundle and do not provide an objective criterion for determining whether the claimed monotonic expansion and maximum diameter conditions are satisfied. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, claim 22 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Therefore, proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21-24 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US20220187578) in view of Kim (US20180180853).
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches an optical system (Yeh, figs.1-33, abstract, an optical image lens assembly includes five lens elements which are, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path: a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element. Each of the five lens elements has an object-side surface facing toward the object side and an image-side surface facing toward the image side) comprising:
first to fifth lenses sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (Yeh, figs.1-33, abstract, “an optical image lens assembly includes five lens elements which are, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path: a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element”),
wherein the first lens (Yeh, fig.5, lens 310) has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0159] “The first lens element 310 with positive refractive power”),
wherein the second lens (fig.5, lens 320) has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0160], “the second lens element 320 with positive refractive power”),
wherein each of the first (fig.5, lens 310) to fifth lenses (fig.4, lens 350) includes an object-side surface and an image-side surface (see Yeh, fig.5, each of the first lens 310 to fifth lens 350 includes an object-side surface and an image-side surface),
wherein an effective focal length of the optical system (Yeh, fig.5, paragraph [0007], a focal length of the optical image lens assembly is f) satisfies the following Equation 2: [Equation 2]
8 mm < EFL< 30 mm (21.26 mm; Yeh, paragraph [0166], f = EFL = 21.26 mm),
wherein EFL means the effective focal length of the optical system (Yeh, paragraph [0007], “a focal length of the optical image lens assembly is f”),
wherein an object-side surface (Yeh, fig.5, surface 331) of the third lens (Yeh, fig. 5, lens 330) serves as an aperture stop (see annotated image, Yeh, portion of fig. 5, object-side surface 331 of the third lens 330 serves as an aperture stop 300) for controlling an amount of light incident on the optical system (Yeh, paragraph [0104], “Said glare stop or said field stop is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof”; paragraph [0106], ”The aperture control unit may be a mechanical component or a light modulator”; “The mechanical component can include a movable member, such as a blade assembly or a light shielding sheet.”; “the aperture control unit controls the amount of incident light or exposure time to enhance the capability of image quality adjustment”).
(note: the limitations of “serves as … for controlling..” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
PNG
media_image1.png
586
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, it is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein the object-side surface of the first lens is concave in a region corresponding to the optical axis,
wherein at least one of the image-side surface of the first lens and the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the second to fifth lenses has a clear aperture larger than a clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens, and wherein the clear aperture of the image side surface of the first lens is largest among the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses.
However, Kim teaches the analogous optical system (Kim, fig.5, paragraph [0095], “the first lens 210 has a positive refractive power, and a first surface thereof is concave in the paraxial region and a second surface thereof is convex in the paraxial region.”; [0096] “The second lens 220 has a positive refractive power”; paragraph [0052] “a stop controlling an amount of light”), and further teaches wherein
the object-side surface (Kim, fig.5, paragraph [0095], “a first surface”) of the first lens (Kim, fig.5, the first lens 210) is concave in a region corresponding to the optical axis (Kim, fig.5, paragraph [0095], “the first lens 210 has a positive refractive power, and a first surface thereof is concave in the paraxial region”),
wherein at least one of the image-side surface of the first lens and the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the second to fifth lenses has a clear aperture larger than a clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, the image-side surface of the first lens 210 has a clear aperture larger than a clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens 210), and
wherein the clear aperture of the image side surface of the first lens is largest among the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, the clear aperture of the image side surface of the first lens 210 is largest among the object-side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first 210 to fifth lens 250).(note: as evidenced by Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems”, hereafter called Gross, Gross teaches in page 378 , “Zero Power Operations” that amongst the typical operations which help in finding a design with better performance, there are ones which do not introduce any change in the refractive power amongst which is “8. Moving the stop position”)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yeh with the specific positions as taught by Kim for the purpose to have a small size and high image quality (Kim, paragraph [0004]).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein a size of the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the first lens is larger than a size of the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, a size of the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the first lens 210 --- the size is about 1.36--- is larger than a size of the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens 210 --- the size is about 1.34). (note: as evidenced by Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems”, hereafter called Gross, Gross teaches in page 378, “Zero Power Operations” that amongst the typical operations which help in finding a design with better performance, there are ones which do not introduce any change in the refractive power amongst which is “8. Moving the stop position”)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yeh with the specific positions as taught by Kim for the purpose to have a small size and high image quality (Kim, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Yeh further teaches wherein the image-side surface (Yeh, fig.5, surface 312) of the first lens (Yeh, fig.5, lens 310) is convex in a region corresponding to the optical axis (Yeh, paragraph [0159], “an image-side surface 312 being convex in a paraxial region thereof.”).
Regarding claim 4, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 3 and Kim further teaches wherein the first lens satisfies the following Equation: 0.95<L1S1_CA/L1S2_CA<1 (0.98; see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, L1S1_CA/L1S2_CA = 1.34/1.36 )(In Equation 1, L1S1_CA means the size of the clear aperture (CA) of the object side of the first lens (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, the lens 210, L1S1_CA is approximately 1.34), and L1S2_CA means the size of the effective aperture (CA) of the image side of the first lens (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, the lens 210, L1S2_CA is approximately 1.36).
(note: as evidenced by Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems”, hereafter called Gross, Gross teaches in page 378, “Zero Power Operations” that amongst the typical operations which help in finding a design with better performance, there are ones which do not introduce any change in the refractive power amongst which is “8. Moving the stop position”)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yeh with the specific positions as taught by Kim for the purpose to have a small size and high image quality (Kim, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Kim further teaches wherein a size of the clear aperture of the object side surface of the first lens is next largest to the size of the clear aperture of the image side surface of the first lens among the object- side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, referring to the scale in the image, a size of the clear aperture of the object side surface of the first lens 210 is next largest to the size of the clear aperture of the image side surface of the first lens 210 among the object- side surfaces and the image-side surfaces of the first 210 to fifth lens 250).
(note: as evidenced by Gross “Handbook of Optical Systems”, hereafter called Gross, Gross teaches in page 378, “Zero Power Operations” that amongst the typical operations which help in finding a design with better performance, there are ones which do not introduce any change in the refractive power amongst which is “8. Moving the stop position”)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yeh with the specific positions as taught by Kim for the purpose to have a small size and high image quality (Kim, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Kim further teaches wherein F-number of the optical system is less than 3 2 (2.06; see Kim, paragraph [094],”an Fno, a constant indicating brightness of the optical imaging system, thereof is 2.06”).
The motivation to combine Yeh and Kim as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and Yeh further teaches wherein
a light path changing member (Yeh, fig.30, the reflective element LF) disposed between an object of the object side and the first to fifth lenses (Yeh, fig.30, paragraph [0102], The reflective element LF is a prism disposed between the imaged object and the lens group LG of the optical image lens assembly)
wherein the light path changing member (fig.30, the LF) changes a path of a light (see fig.30, a path of a light from OA1) incident on the light path changing member (fig.30, the LF) in a first direction (the OA1 direction) to a second direction (fig.30, direction of OA2) that is an arrangement direction of the first to fifth lenses (see Yeh, fig.30, LG, the first to fifth lenses).
Regarding claim 21, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Yeh further teaches wherein the aperture stop (Yeh, fig. 5, stop 300) is configured to define a position of an entrance pupil between the second lens (Yeh, ,fig. 5, lens 320) and the third lens (lens 330; see described in claim 1, and see Yeh’s fig. 5, as recognized in the optical arts, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop as viewed from object space. Since Yeh’s aperture stop is positioned immediately in front of the third lens, the entrance pupil formed by the preceding optical elements is likewise located between the second lens and the third lens).
Regarding claim 22, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 21, and Kim further teaches wherein the aperture stop (Kim, fig. 5, stop ST) is configured such that a marginal ray bundle (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, having a marginal ray bundle) expands monotonically from the aperture stop (stop ST) toward the image-side surface of the first lens (the image-side surface of the first lens 210), and the aperture stop (ST) is positioned such that a chief ray bundle (see annotated image, Kim, fig.5, having a chief ray bundle) attains a maximum diameter at the image-side surface of the first lens (see described in claim 1, and referring to the scale in the annotated image, Kim, fig.5, having a maximum diameter at the image-side surface of the first lens 210).
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV). The motivation to combine Yeh and Kim as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 23, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the clear aperture of the image-side
surface of the first lens is larger than clear apertures of all other object-side and image-side surfaces of the first to fifth lenses (described in claim 1, and referring to the scale in the annotated image, Kim, fig.5, the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the first lens 210 is larger than clear apertures of all other object-side and image-side surfaces of the first 210 to fifth lenses 220, 230, 240 and 250), and
wherein the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens is smaller than the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the first lens and larger than clear apertures of all remaining surfaces (referring to the scale in the annotated image, Kim, fig.5, the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens 210 is smaller than the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the first lens 210 and larger than clear apertures of all remaining surfaces).
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV). The motivation to combine Yeh and Kim as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 24, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the image-side surface of the first lens
has a clear aperture larger than the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (referring to the scale in the annotated image, Kim, fig.5, the image-side surface of the first lens 210 has a clear aperture larger than the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens 210), and
wherein the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens is larger than a clear aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens (referring to the scale in the annotated image, Kim, fig.5, the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens 210 is larger than a clear aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens 220).
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV). The motivation to combine Yeh and Kim as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 31, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Yeh further teaches wherein a center interval between the first lens (Yeh, fig. 5, lens 310) and the second lens (fig. 5, lens 320) is d12 (see paragraph [0165] data of table 5, d12 = 0.08), wherein a center interval between the second lens (lens 320) and the third lens (lens 330) is d23 (see paragraph [0165] data of table 5, d23 = 0.03+0.272= 0.302), and wherein the optical system satisfies following Equation:
< d12 / d23 < 0.4 (0.265; described above, d12/d23 = 0.08/0.302).
Regarding claim 32, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Yeh further teaches wherein a center interval between the second lens (Yeh, fig. 5, lens 320)
and the third lens (lens 330) is d23 (see paragraph [0165] data of table 5, d23 = 0.03+0.272= 0.302), wherein a center interval between the third lens (lens 330) and the fourth lens (lens 340) is d34 (see paragraph [0165] data of table 5, d34 =2), and wherein the optical system satisfies following Equation:
3.5 < d34 / d23 < 7 (6.62; described above, d34/d23= 2/0.302).
Claims 25-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US20220187578) in view of Kim (US20180180853), and further in view of Shin et al. (US20210063688).
Regarding claim 25, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein the object-side surface of the first lens, the image-side surface of the first lens, and the object-side surface of the second lens each has a non-circular shape (paragraph [0086] “at least three lens elements of the optical image lens assembly can also be non-circular lens elements”).
However, Shin teaches the analogous lenses (Shin, abstract, an optical imaging system includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system), and further teaches wherein
the object-side surface of the first lens (see Shin, fig. 17, and paragraph [0162], data of table 17, the object-side surface of the first lens 910), the image-side surface of the first lens (see Shin, fig. 17, and paragraph [0162], data of table 17, the image-side surface of the first lens 910), and the object-side surface of the second lens (see Shin, fig. 17, and paragraph [0162], data of table 17, the object-side surface of the second lens) each has a non-circular shape (see Shin, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, and paragraph [0192] “the second lens has a non-circular shape that is the same as or similar to the non-circular shape of the first lens L1”).
Thus, 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 Yeh to have the specific shape as taught by Shin for the purpose to mount a telephoto optical system having a long focal length in a thin portable electronic device (Shin, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, combination Yeh-Kim-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 25, and Shin further teaches wherein each of the object-side surface of the first lens, the image-side surface of the first lens, and the object-side surface of the second lens has a D-cut shape including two curved edges facing each other and two straight edges facing each other (see Shin, fig. 17, fig. 23 and 24, and paragraph [0162], data of table 17, having each of the object-side surface of the first lens 910, the image-side surface of the first lens 910, and the object-side surface of the second lens 910has a D-cut shape including two curved edges facing each other and two straight edges facing each other). The motivation to combine Yeh and Shin as provided in claim 25 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 27, combination Yeh-Kim-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 25, and Shin further teaches wherein the object-side surface of the first lens, the image-side surface of the first lens, and the object-side surface of the second lens have a same minimum clear height (see Shin, paragraph [0191] “Although only the first lens L1 is shown in FIG. 23, one or more of second to fifth or sixth lenses may have a non-circular shape that is the same as the non-circular shape of the first lens L1”; thus, the object-side surface of the first lens, the image-side surface of the first lens, and the object-side surface of the second lens have a same minimum clear height). The motivation to combine Yeh and shin as provided in claim 25 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 28, combination Yeh-Kim-Shin discloses the invention as described in Claim 25, and Shin further teaches wherein the object-side surface of the first lens satisfies following Equation:
0.52<L1S1_CH/L1S1_CA<0,98 (0.97; see Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CH = 4.577, L1S1_CA = 4.7),
wherein L1S1_CA represents a maximum clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CA = Long Axis Effective Radius of the first lens = L1S1_CA = 4.7) , and L1S1_CH represents a minimum clear height of the object-side surface of the first lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CH = short Axis Effective Radius of the first lens = L1S1_CH = 4.577).
Regarding claim 29, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein the first lens and the second lens satisfy following Equation:
1<L1S1_CA/L2S1_CA<1.2,
wherein LISI_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens, and L2S1_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens.
However, Shin teaches the analogous lenses (Shin, abstract, An optical imaging system includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system), and further teaches
wherein the first lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 910) and the second lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 920) satisfy following Equation:
1<L1S1_CA/L2S1_CA<1.2 (1.07; Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CA = 4.7; L2S1_CA = 4.385),
wherein LISI_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CA = Long Axis Effective Radius of the first lens = L1S1_CA = 4.7), and L2S1_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L2S1_CA = Long Axis Effective Radius of second lens = L2S1_CA = 4.385).
Thus, 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 Yeh to have the specific shape as taught by Shin for the purpose to mount a telephoto optical system having a long focal length in a thin portable electronic device (Shin, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 30, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein he first lens and the second lens satisfy following Equation:
1<LIS1_CA/L282_CA< 1.35 (1.16; Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CA = 4.7; L2S2_CA = 4.049),
wherein L1S1_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens, and L2S2_CA represents the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens.
However, Shin teaches the analogous lenses (Shin, abstract, An optical imaging system includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system), and further teaches
wherein the first lens and the second lens satisfy following Equation:
1<LIS1_CA/L2S2_CA< 1.35 (1.16; ),
wherein L1S1_CA represents the clear aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L1S1_CA = Long Axis Effective Radius of the first lens = L1S1_CA = 4.7), and L2S2_CA represents the clear aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens (Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, L2S2_CA = Long Axis Effective Radius of second lens = L2S2_CA = 4.049).
Thus, 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 Yeh to have the specific shape as taught by Shin for the purpose to mount a telephoto optical system having a long focal length in a thin portable electronic device (Shin, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 33, combination Yeh-Kim discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio between a distance from the third lens to the fourth lens and a distance from the fourth lens to the fifth lens satisfies:
0.5 < d34 / d45 < 2,
wherein d34 represents a center interval between the third lens and the fourth lens, and d45 represents a center interval between the fourth lens and the fifth lens.
However, Shin teaches the analogous lenses (Shin, abstract, An optical imaging system includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system), and further teaches
wherein a ratio between a distance from the third lens (see Shin, fig. 17, lens 930) to the fourth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 940) and a distance from the fourth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 940) to the fifth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 950) satisfies:
0.5 < d34 / d45 < 2 (1.1; see Shin, fig. 17, paragraph [0162], data of table 17, d34 = 0.59, d45 = 0.534),
wherein d34 represents a center interval between the third lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 930) and the fourth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 940), and d45 represents a center interval between the fourth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 940) and the fifth lens (Shin, fig. 17, lens 950).
Thus, 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 distance of lens of Yeh to have the specific shape as taught by Shin for the purpose to mount a telephoto optical system having a long focal length in a thin portable electronic device (Shin, paragraph [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see Remarks Page. 7-10 with respect to the 35 U.S.C.&103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Yeh does not disclose that the object-side surface of the third lens element serves as an aperture stop. Rather, Yeh discloses a stop that is disposed between the second lens element and the third lens element. Moreover, Yeh's marginal ray bundle is constrained by the separate stop before reaching the object-side surface 331 of the third lens element. Accordingly, surface 331 cannot be regarded as the structure that defines the aperture stop.
In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
wherein an object-side surface (Yeh, fig.5, surface 331) of the third lens (Yeh, fig.5, lens 330) serves as an aperture stop (see annotated image, Yeh, portion of fig. 5, object-side surface 331 of the third lens 330 serves as an aperture stop 300) for controlling an amount of light incident on the optical system (Yeh, paragraph [0104], “Said glare stop or said field stop is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof”; paragraph [0106], ”The aperture control unit may be a mechanical component or a light modulator”; “The mechanical component can include a movable member, such as a blade assembly or a light shielding sheet.”; “the aperture control unit controls the amount of incident light or exposure time to enhance the capability of image quality adjustment”).
(note: the limitations of “serves as … for controlling..” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
Further, it is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
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, 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 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
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights