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.
The use of strikethroughs in the rejection below is used to indicate claim language that is not present in the reference but would inhibit understanding of the rejection if removed.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/20/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-20 are amended, no Claims are canceled/withdrawn, no Claims have been added, and Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited references Huang (US 20190121059 A1) and Jung (US 20120194921 A1) have been cited below to remedy the deficiencies of the previous refences in view of the new amendments.
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 20 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.
Claim 20 presents a range of numbers without a corresponding unit or identification. Claim 20 states “second lens made of a plastic material and having a range of 1.6 to 1.7.” It is unknown what these numbers are in reference to and the claim is therefore indefinite. For examination purposes it will be assumed that the numbers are in reference to index of refraction. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 6-8, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180011286 A1), previously cited, in view of Huang (US 20190121059 A1), newly cited, and Jung (US 20120194921 A1), newly cited, and as evidenced by Gross (Handbook of Optical systems, 2007), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Bone teaches in Fig. 10 and 12: an optical system (“optical lens assembly 10”; [0064]) comprising:
a first lens (3), a second lens (4), a third lens (5), and a fourth lens (6) disposed along an optical axis (I) from an object side toward a sensor side (100),
wherein the first lens (3) includes an object-side first surface (31) and a sensor-side second surface (32) on the optical axis,
wherein the second lens (4) includes an object-side third surface (41) and a sensor-side fourth surface (42),
wherein the third lens (5) includes an object-side fifth surface (51) and a sensor-side sixth surface (52),
wherein the fourth lens (6) includes an object-side seventh surface (61) and a sensor-side eighth surface (62),
wherein the first lens (3) has a negative refractive power (“first lens element 3 has negative refracting power”; [0067]), wherein the third lens (5) has a positive refractive power (“third lens element 5 has refracting power, e.g. positive refracting power”; [0069]),
wherein the fourth lens (6) has a negative refractive power (“fourth lens element 6 has negative refracting power”; [0070]),
wherein the first lens (3) and the fourth lens (6) include a plastic material (“the first lens element 3, … and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117]),
wherein the third lens (5) includes a glass material (“third lens element 5 is made of glass”; [0117]).
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Bone, demonstrates that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses are sufficiently close to the claimed limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses is insubstantial. The thickness of the second lens is 1.543 whereas the distance between the third and fourth lenses is 1.506, therefore representing only a 2.43% difference while the difference in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed scenario than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens.”
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed scenario of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious because the difference between the two values is insubstantial.
However, Bone fails to explicitly teach the third lens having a refractive index of 1.65 or more, and wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis.
In a related invention in the field of lens system comprising four lenses, Huang (US 20190121059 A1) teaches in Fig. 1 and Table 1: the first lens (L1) has the first surface concave on the optical axis (“an object-side surface S1 of the first lens L1 is a concave surface”; [0074]), and wherein the fourth lens (L4) has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis (“an object-side surface S7 of the fourth lens L4 is a convex surface”; [0077]).
Further, Gross motivates this modification (page 378 section 33.1.4) such 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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bone in view of Huang such that “the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis” because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
However, the combination of Bone and Huang fails to teach: the third lens having a refractive index of 1.65 or more.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems comprising four lenses, Jung (US 20120194921 A1) teaches in Table 1 and Fig. 1: the third lens (L3) having a refractive index of 1.65 or more (see table 1 in which n3 = 1.84).
Further, Jung teaches this configuration such that “In order to maintain the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system, conventionally, eight sheets of lenses must be used, and the optical system may be constituted by glass lens having high optical transmittance and refractive index” (Jung, [0008]).
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 Bone and Huang to incorporate the teachings of Jung to provide a device in which the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, for the purpose of maintaining the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system (Jung, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Bone teaches, in Fig. 10: an optical system (“optical lens assembly 10”; [0064]) comprising:
a first lens (3), a second lens (4), a third lens (5), and a fourth lens (6) disposed along an optical axis (I) from an object side toward a sensor side (100),
wherein the first lens (3) includes an object-side first surface (31) and a sensor-side second surface (32) on the optical axis (I),
wherein the second lens (4) includes an object-side third surface (41) and a sensor-side fourth surface (42),
wherein the third lens (5) includes an object-side fifth surface (51) and a sensor-side sixth surface (52),
wherein the fourth lens (6) includes an object-side seventh surface (61) and a sensor-side eighth surface (62),
wherein the first lens (3) has a negative refractive power (“first lens element 3 has negative refracting power”; [0067]), wherein the third lens (5) has a positive refractive power (“third lens element 5 has refracting power, e.g. positive refracting power”; [0069]),
wherein the fourth lens (6) has a negative refractive power (“fourth lens element 6 has negative refracting power”; [0070]),
wherein the first (3) to fourth lenses (6) have a ratio of a plastic material to a glass material of 3:1 (“in this embodiment, the third lens element 5 is made of glass having an Abbe number greater than 60, and the first lens element 3, the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117], therefore the ratio is 3:1).
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Bone, demonstrates that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses are sufficiently close to the claimed limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses is insubstantial. The thickness of the second lens is 1.543 whereas the distance between the third and fourth lenses is 1.506, therefore representing only a 2.43% difference while the difference in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed scenario than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens.”
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed scenario of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious because the difference between the two values is insubstantial.
However, Bone fails to teach: wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis, and wherein a refractive index of the third lens is 1.65 or more.
In a related invention in the field of lens system comprising four lenses, Huang (US 20190121059 A1) teaches in Fig. 1 and Table 1: the first lens (L1) has the first surface concave on the optical axis (“an object-side surface S1 of the first lens L1 is a concave surface”; [0074]), and wherein the fourth lens (L4) has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis (“an object-side surface S7 of the fourth lens L4 is a convex surface”; [0077]).
Further, Gross motivates this modification (page 378 section 33.1.4) such 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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bone in view of Huang such that “the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex on the optical axis” because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
However, the combination of Bone and Huang fails to teach: the third lens having a refractive index of 1.65 or more.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems comprising four lenses, Jung (US 20120194921 A1) teaches in Table 1 and Fig. 1: the third lens (L3) having a refractive index of 1.65 or more (see table 1 in which n3 = 1.84).
Further, Jung teaches this configuration such that “In order to maintain the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system, conventionally, eight sheets of lenses must be used, and the optical system may be constituted by glass lens having high optical transmittance and refractive index” (Jung, [0008]).
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 Bone and Huang to incorporate the teachings of Jung to provide a device in which the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, for the purpose of maintaining the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system (Jung, [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10:
wherein the first lens (3) has the second surface concave on the optical axis (“image-side surface 32 of the first lens element 3 is a concave”; [0067]), wherein
the second lens (4) has (“image-side surface 42 of the second lens element 4 is a convex”; [0068]), wherein
the third lens (5) has the (“image-side surface 52 of the third lens element 5 is a convex surface”; [0069]),
…
wherein a distance between the sixth surface, (from Fig. 12: the distance between lenses 3 and 4 is 1.506) is larger than a distance between the second surface(from Fig. 12: distance between lenses 1 and 2 is 0.915) , and wherein the distance between the third (5) and fourth (6) lenses is the largest among distances between two adjacent lenses on the optical axis (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 in which the distance between lenses 5 and 6 is the largest).
However, Bone fails to teach: the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to distribute the focal power of the lenses amongst the lens surfaces and to optimize the Petzval curvature of the lens assembly (2) there are only three curvatures that a lens could have, flat, convex or concave (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … the sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
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.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the lenses such that the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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 7, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 6. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10: the center thickness of the second lens (4) has a larger thickness than center thicknesses of each of the first and third lenses (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 which shows the center thickness of lens 4 is larger than the first and third lenses).
Regarding claim 8, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10 and the Table in Fig. 12:
wherein the center thickness of the second lens (4) is the thickest among center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 which shows that lens 4 is the thickest), and wherein the distance between the third (5) and fourth (6) lenses on the optical axis is the largest among distances between two adjacent lenses (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 10, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10: comprising an aperture stop (“aperture stop 2”; [0172]) disposed around a circumference between the second lens (4) made of a plastic material (“the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117]), “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto”; [0066]) and the third lens (5) (“disposed between the second lens element 4 and the third lens element 5”; [0172]) made of the glass material (“the third lens element 5, … made of a plastic material”; [0066], “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto”; [0066]).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would be obvious to select a glass material for the third lens of the device. Bone teaches this flexibility in material choices in para [0066]: “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto.”
Further, Bone teaches this configuration such that “the design process involves material properties, and actual issues on the production line such as assembly yield also needs to be considered” (Bone, [0005]).
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 Bone to provide a device in which the second lens is made of plastic, for the purpose of selecting known materials in order to consider production assembly yield needs (Bone, [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10:
wherein the first lens (3) has the second surface concave on the optical axis (“image-side surface 32 of the first lens element 3 is a concave”; [0067]), wherein
the second lens (4) has (“image-side surface 42 of the second lens element 4 is a convex”; [0068]), wherein
the third lens (5) has the (“image-side surface 52 of the third lens element 5 is a convex surface”; [0069]),
…
wherein a distance between the sixth surface, (from Fig. 12: the distance between lenses 3 and 4 is 1.506) is larger than a distance between the second surface(from Fig. 12: distance between lenses 1 and 2 is 0.915) , and wherein the distance between the third (5) and fourth (6) lenses is the largest among distances between two adjacent lenses on the optical axis (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 in which the distance between lenses 5 and 6 is the largest).
However, Bone fails to teach: the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to distribute the focal power of the lenses amongst the lens surfaces and to optimize the Petzval curvature of the lens assembly (2) there are only three curvatures that a lens could have, flat, convex or concave (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the lenses such that the second lens has the third surface convex … the third lens has the fifth surface convex … sixth surface is convex … the seventh surface is convex … the second surface is concave … and wherein the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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 18, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10 and the Table in Fig. 12:
wherein the center thickness of the second lens (4) is the thickest among center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 which shows that lens 4 is the thickest), and wherein the distance between the third (5) and fourth (6) lenses on the optical axis is the largest among distances between two adjacent lenses (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12).
Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180011286 A1), previously cited, in view of Huang (US 20190121059 A1), newly cited, and Jung (US 20120194921 A1), newly cited, as evidenced by Gross (Handbook of Optical systems, 2007), previously cited, as in claims 1 and 2, and further in view of Cheng (US 7518810 B1), newly cited.
Regarding claim 3, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10:
the second lens (4) is made of a plastic material (“the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117]), and
wherein the second lens (4) has a positive refractive power (“second lens element 4 has positive refracting power”; [0068]).
However, Bone fails to teach: the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems containing four lenses Cheng teaches in Table 1: the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7 (see Table 1 in which the refractive index of lens 2 is 1.67).
Furthermore, Cheng teaches this configuration such that “the lenses 10 - 40 is spherical glass lenses to obtain a wide-angle lens with high resolution but low cost” (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32). One of ordinary skill would understand that the index of refraction is result effective variable which would contribute to the resolution of the device.
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 Bone, Huang, and Jung to incorporate the teachings of Cheng to provide a device in which the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7, for the purpose of obtaining a wide angled lens with high resolution (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 4, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone teaches in Fig. 10: a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3 (“in this embodiment, the object-side surfaces 31 and 51 and the image-side surface 52 are spherical surfaces, and the object-side surfaces 41 and 61 and the image-side surfaces 32, 42, and 62 are aspheric surfaces”; [0117], thus a ratio would be 1:2).
However, in an alternate embodiment of Bone as depicted in Fig. 6, Bone teaches: a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3 (“in the present embodiment, the six surfaces of the object-side surfaces 31, 51, and 61 and the image-side surfaces 32, 52, and 62 of the first lens element 3, the third lens element 5, and the fourth lens element 6 are all aspheric surfaces”; [0073], therefore the ratio of 1:3 is non obvious).
Furthermore, Bone teaches this configuration such that “to prevent reduction in photographic effects and quality, when the length of the optical lens assembly is reduced, good optical performance still needs to be achieved” (Bone, [0003]). An ordinary skilled artisan can appreciate that an aspherical lens would increase the optical performance of the device.
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 the embodiments of Bone to provide a device in which a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3, for the purpose of maintaining optical performance (Bone, [0003]).
However, the embodiments of Bone fail to teach: wherein the refractive indices of the second lens and the fourth lens are in a range of 1.6 to 1.7.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems containing four lenses Cheng teaches in Table 1: wherein the refractive indices of the second lens and (see Table 1 in which n2 = 1.67).
Further, Cheng discloses the claimed invention except for “the fourth lens having a refractive index of in a range of 1.6 – 1.7.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a fourth lens with a refractive index in the range of 1.6-1.7, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in Cheng because a refractive index of the forth lens of 1.72 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.7 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
Furthermore, Cheng teaches this configuration such that “the lenses 10 - 40 is spherical glass lenses to obtain a wide-angle lens with high resolution but low cost” (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32). One of ordinary skill would understand that the index of refraction is result effective variable which would contribute to the resolution of the device.
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 Bone, Huang, and Jung to incorporate the teachings of Cheng to provide a device in which the fourth lens having a refractive index of in a range of 1.6 – 1.7, for the purpose of obtaining a wide angled lens with high resolution (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 13, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10:
the second lens (4) is made of a plastic material (“the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117]), and
wherein the second lens (4) has a positive refractive power (“second lens element 4 has positive refracting power”; [0068]).
However, Bone fails to teach: the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems containing four lenses Cheng teaches in Table 1: the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7 (see Table 1 in which the refractive index of lens 2 is 1.67).
Furthermore, Cheng teaches this configuration such that “the lenses 10 - 40 is spherical glass lenses to obtain a wide-angle lens with high resolution but low cost” (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32). One of ordinary skill would understand that the index of refraction is result effective variable which would contribute to the resolution of the device.
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 Bone, Huang, and Jung to incorporate the teachings of Cheng to provide a device in which the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7, for the purpose of obtaining a wide angled lens with high resolution (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 14, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone teaches in Fig. 10: a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3 (“in this embodiment, the object-side surfaces 31 and 51 and the image-side surface 52 are spherical surfaces, and the object-side surfaces 41 and 61 and the image-side surfaces 32, 42, and 62 are aspheric surfaces”; [0117], thus a ratio would be 1:2).
However, in an alternate embodiment of Bone as depicted in Fig. 6, Bone teaches: a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3 (“in the present embodiment, the six surfaces of the object-side surfaces 31, 51, and 61 and the image-side surfaces 32, 52, and 62 of the first lens element 3, the third lens element 5, and the fourth lens element 6 are all aspheric surfaces”; [0073], therefore the ratio of 1:3 is non obvious).
Furthermore, Bone teaches this configuration such that “to prevent reduction in photographic effects and quality, when the length of the optical lens assembly is reduced, good optical performance still needs to be achieved” (Bone, [0003]). An ordinary skilled artisan can appreciate that an aspherical lens would increase the optical performance of the device.
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 the embodiments of Bone to provide a device in which a ratio of a spherical surface to an aspherical surface on the optical axis among the first to eighth surfaces of the first to fourth lenses is 1:3, for the purpose of maintaining optical performance (Bone, [0003]).
However, the embodiments of Bone fail to teach: wherein the refractive indices of the second lens and the fourth lens are in a range of 1.6 to 1.7.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems containing four lenses Cheng teaches in Table 1: wherein the refractive indices of the second lens and (see Table 1 in which n2 = 1.67).
Further, Cheng discloses the claimed invention except for “the fourth lens having a refractive index of in a range of 1.6 – 1.7.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a fourth lens with a refractive index in the range of 1.6-1.7, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in Cheng because a refractive index of the forth lens of 1.72 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.7 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
Furthermore, Cheng teaches this configuration such that “the lenses 10 - 40 is spherical glass lenses to obtain a wide-angle lens with high resolution but low cost” (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32). One of ordinary skill would understand that the index of refraction is result effective variable which would contribute to the resolution of the device.
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 Bone, Huang, and Jung to incorporate the teachings of Cheng to provide a device in which the fourth lens having a refractive index of in a range of 1.6 – 1.7, for the purpose of obtaining a wide angled lens with high resolution (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 20, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10: comprising an aperture stop (“aperture stop 2”; [0172], “disposed between the second lens element 4 and the third lens element 5”; [0172]) disposed around a circumference between the second lens (4) made of a plastic material (“the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117], “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto”; [0066]) (“the third lens element 5, … made of a plastic material”; [0066], “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto”; [0066]).
Further, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Therefore, it would be obvious to select a plastic material for the second lens of the device and a glass material for the third lens of the device. Bone teaches this flexibility in material choices in para [0066]: “the materials of the first lens element 3 to the fourth lens element 6 are not limited thereto.”
Further, Bone teaches this configuration such that “the design process involves material properties, and actual issues on the production line such as assembly yield also needs to be considered” (Bone, [0005]).
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 the embodiments of Bone to provide a device in which the second lens is made of plastic, for the purpose of selecting known materials in order to consider production assembly yield needs (Bone, [0005]).
However, Bone fails to teach that: the second lens has a range of 1.6 – 1.7 and the third lens has a has a refractive index of 1.65 or more.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems containing four lenses Cheng teaches in Table 1: the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7 (see Table 1 in which the refractive index of lens 2 is 1.67).
Furthermore, Cheng teaches this configuration such that “the lenses 10 - 40 is spherical glass lenses to obtain a wide-angle lens with high resolution but low cost” (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32). One of ordinary skill would understand that the index of refraction is result effective variable which would contribute to the resolution of the device.
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 Bone to incorporate the teachings of Cheng to provide a device in which the second lens has a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to 1.7, for the purpose of obtaining a wide angled lens with high resolution (Cheng, col 2 lines 31-32).
However, the combination of Bone and Cheng fail to teach that: the third lens has a has a refractive index of 1.65 or more.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems comprising four lenses, Jung (US 20120194921 A1) teaches in Table 1 and Fig. 1: the third lens (L3) having a refractive index of 1.65 or more (see table 1 in which n3 = 1.84).
Further, Jung teaches this configuration such that “In order to maintain the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system, conventionally, eight sheets of lenses must be used, and the optical system may be constituted by glass lens having high optical transmittance and refractive index” (Jung, [0008]).
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 Bone and Cheng to incorporate the teachings of Jung to provide a device in which the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, for the purpose of maintaining the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system (Jung, [0008]).
Claims 5, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180011286 A1), previously cited, in view of Huang (US 20190121059 A1), newly cited, and Jung (US 20120194921 A1), newly cited, as evidenced by Gross (Handbook of Optical systems, 2007), previously cited, as in claims 1 and 2 and further in view of Tseng (US 20200310082 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 5, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 1. Bone further teaches:
a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (31) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (100), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (from the table in Fig. 12: “System Length = 6.5886”).
However, Bone fails to explicitly teach: F number is 2 to 2.3 and wherein the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis.
However, in a related invention in the field of four lens systems, Tseng teaches in embodiment 1 and Table 1: a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (111) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (160), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (calculated from table 1: TTL = 3.391), and
the F number is 2 to 2.3 (from table 1: “Fno = 2.04”), and
wherein the fourth (140) lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis (“an image-side surface 142 being concave in a paraxial region thereof”; [0084]).
Furthermore, Tseng teaches this configuration such that “the aperture control unit can be the aperture stop of the present disclosure, which changes the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed” (Tseng, [0078]).
Further, Gross motivates this modification of concavity (page 378 section 33.1.4) such 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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bone in view of Tseng such that “the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis” because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
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 Bone to incorporate the teachings of Tseng to provide a device in which the F number is 2 to 2.3, for the purpose of changing the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed (Tseng, [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 2. Bone further teaches:
a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (31) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (100), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (from the table in Fig. 12: “System Length = 6.5886”).
However, Bone fails to explicitly teach: F number is 2 to 2.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of four lens systems, Tseng teaches in embedment 1 and Table 1: a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (111) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (160), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (calculated from table 1: TTL = 3.391), and
the F number is 2 to 2.3 (from table 1: “Fno = 2.04”),
wherein the fourth (140) lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis (“an image-side surface 142 being concave in a paraxial region thereof”; [0084]), and
wherein a radius of curvature of the seventh surface of the fourth lens on the optical axis (curvature of surface seven is |1.424|) is greater than a radius of curvature of the eighth surface (curvature of eighth surface is |0.895|).
Further, Gross motivates this modification of concavity (page 378 section 33.1.4) such 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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bone in view of Huang such that “wherein the fourth lens has the eighth surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein a radius of curvature of the seventh surface of the fourth lens on the optical axis is greater than a radius of curvature of the eighth surface” because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
Furthermore, Tseng teaches this configuration such that “the aperture control unit can be the aperture stop of the present disclosure, which changes the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed” (Tseng, [0078]).
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 Bone and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Tseng to provide a device in which the F number is 2 to 2.3, for the purpose of changing the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed (Tseng, [0078]).
Regarding claim 17, Bone, Huang, Jung, and Gross teach the optical system of claim 6. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10 and Fig. 12: the center thickness of the second lens (4, t = 1.543) has a larger thickness than center thicknesses of the first (3, t = 0.600) and third lenses (5, t = 0.748) (see Fig. 10 and the table in Fig. 12 which shows the center thickness of lens 4 is larger than the first and third lenses) and is larger than a distance between the second surface which is concave (“image-side surface 32 of the first lens element 3 is a concave surface”; [0067]), and the third surface (distance between surfaces 2 and 3 is 0.915 which is smaller than the thickness of the second lens).
However, Bone fails to teach: the third surface is convex.
However, in a related invention in the field of four lens systems, Tseng teaches in embodiment 1 and Table 1: the third surface is convex (“object-side surface 121 being convex”; [0082]).
Further, Gross motivates this modification of concavity (page 378 section 33.1.4) such 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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bone in view of Tseng such that “the third surface is convex” because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
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 Bone to incorporate the teachings of Tseng to provide a device in which the third surface is convex, because bending a lens 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180011286 A1), in view of Kim (US-20180039043-A1), previously cited, and Jung (US 20120194921 A1), newly cited, as evidenced by Gross (Handbook of Optical systems, 2007), previously cited.
Regarding claim 11, Bone teaches in Fig. 10: a camera module (“optical lens assembly 10”; [0064]) comprising:
an image sensor (“an image sensor at the image plane 100”; [0064]) … ;
a cover glass (“cover glass 9”; [0064]) … ;
an optical system including a first lens (3), a second lens (4), a third lens (5), and a fourth lens (6) disposed along an optical axis from an object side toward a sensor side (100); and
an aperture stop (“aperture stop 2”; [0172]) disposed around a circumference between the second lens (4) and the third lens (5) (“disposed between the second lens element 4 and the third lens element 5”; [0172]), wherein
an effective diameter of the first lens (3) is larger than an effective diameter of each of the second (4) and third lenses (5) (see Fig. 10),
wherein the third lens (5) includes a glass material (“third lens element 5 is made of glass”; [0117]), …
wherein the first lens (3) has a negative refractive power (“first lens element 3 has negative refracting power”; [0067]),
wherein the second (4) and third lenses (5) have a positive refractive power (“second lens element 4 has positive refracting power”; [0068], “third lens element 5 has refracting power, e.g. positive refracting power”; [0069]),
wherein the fourth lens (6) has a negative refractive power (“fourth lens element 6 has negative refracting power”; [0070]), and …
wherein the aperture stop (2) is disposed (“disposed between the second lens element 4 and the third lens element 5”; [0172]) between the second lens made of plastic (“the second lens element 4, and the fourth lens element 6 are made of plastic material”; [0117]) material and the third lens made of the glass material (“third lens element 5 is made of glass”; [0117]).
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Bone, demonstrates that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses are sufficiently close to the claimed limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses is insubstantial. The thickness of the second lens is 1.543 whereas the distance between the third and fourth lenses is 1.506, therefore representing only a 2.43% difference while the difference in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed scenario than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the limitation of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens.”
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of that the center thickness of the second lens and the distance between the third and fourth lenses, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed scenario of “a distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis is larger than a center thickness of the second lens” to render it obvious because the difference between the two values is insubstantial.
The second embodiment of Bone fails to explicitly teach: an optical filter on the image sensor; a cover glass disposed between the optical filter and the image sensor, and the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, and wherein an object-side surfaces and a-sensor-side surfaces of each of the first, second, and fourth lenses are aspherical surfaces, and wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the object-side surface convex and the sensor-side surface concave on the optical axis.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens systems, Kim teaches in Fig. 1: an optical filter (“a filter 150”; [0044]) on the image sensor (“element 170 may be an image sensor”; [0045]; a cover glass (“ a cover glass 160”; [0044]) disposed between the optical filter (150) and the image sensor (170) (see Fig. 1) … an object-side surface and a-sensor-side surface of each of the first, second, and fourth lenses are aspherical surfaces (“At least one surface of the first to fourth lenses 110 to 140 may be aspherical”; [0051]).
Furthermore, Kim teaches this configuration such that “a filter allowing light passed through the imaging lens to be selectively transmitted therethrough according to a wavelength, and a light receiving element configured to receive the light transmitted through the filter” (Kim, [0027]). Further, Kim teaches the advantage in aspherical surfaces such that “[w]hen at least one surface of the lenses is formed as an aspherical surface, the lenses may be excellent in correcting various aberrations, for example, spherical aberration, coma aberration and distortion” (Kim, [0051]).
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 Bone to incorporate the teachings of Kim to provide a device in which a cover glass disposed between the optical filter and the image sensor and wherein an object-side surface and a-sensor-side surface of each of the first, second, and fourth lenses are aspherical surfaces, for the purpose of allowing light to be selectively transmitted therethrough according to a wavelength (Kim, [0027] and [0051]).
However, the combination of Bone and Kim fails to explicitly teach: the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, and wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the object-side surface convex and the sensor-side surface concave on the optical axis.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems comprising four lenses, Jung (US 20120194921 A1) teaches in Table 1 and Fig. 1: the third lens (L3) having a refractive index of 1.65 or more (see table 1 in which n3 = 1.84).
Further, Jung teaches this configuration such that “In order to maintain the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system, conventionally, eight sheets of lenses must be used, and the optical system may be constituted by glass lens having high optical transmittance and refractive index” (Jung, [0008]).
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 Bone and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Jung to provide a device in which the third lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more, for the purpose of maintaining the high resolution and wide angle of the optical system (Jung, [0008]).
However, the combination of Bone, Kim, and Jung fail to teach: the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the object-side surface convex and the sensor-side surface concave on the optical axis.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to distribute the focal power of the lenses amongst the lens surfaces and to optimize the Petzval curvature of the lens assembly (2) there are only two conditions that a lens could have, spheric or aspheric (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the object-side surface convex and the sensor-side surface concave on the optical axis because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a device such that wherein the first lens has the first surface concave on the optical axis, and wherein the fourth lens has the object-side surface convex and the sensor-side surface concave on the optical axis, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bone (US 20180011286 A1), in view of Kim (US-20180039043-A1), previously cited, and Jung (US 20120194921 A1), newly cited, as evidenced by Gross (Handbook of Optical systems, 2007), previously cited, as in claim 11, and further in view of Miyano (US 20130235176 A1), previously cited, and Tseng (US 20200310082 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 12, Bone, Kim, Jung and Gross teach the optical system of claim 11. Bone further teaches: … a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (31) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (100), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (from the table in Fig. 12: “System Length = 6.5886”).
Bone fails to explicitly teach: a lens barrel having the first to fourth lenses is made of a metal, wherein the lenses in the lens barrel consist of first to fourth lenses, and F number is 2 to 2.3.
However, in a related in invention the field of imaging optical systems, Miyano teaches in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5: a lens barrel (12) having the first to fourth (G1, G2, G3, G4, see Fig. 5) lenses is made of a metal (“imaging device 3 is composed of a metal barrel body 12, an imaging optical system 15”; [0045]),
wherein the lenses in the lens barrel consist of first to fourth lenses (“The imaging optical system 15 has a lens construction composed of five lenses in four groups”; [0077], see Fig. 5),
wherein a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens to a surface of the image sensor is TTL, and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (see Table 1: total length [TL] = 3.351).
Furthermore, Miyano teaches this configuration such that “The imaging optical system 15 and the image sensor 16 are incorporated in the barrel body 12” (Miyano, [0045]).
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 Bone to incorporate the teachings of Miyano to provide a device in which a lens barrel houses the first to fourth lenses and is made of a metal, for the purpose of housing the lens components within a system (Miyano, [0045]).
However, the combination of Bone and Miyano fails to teach: the F number is 2 to 2.3.
However, in a related invention in the field of four lens systems, Tseng teaches in embodiment 1 and Table 1: a distance on the optical axis from a center of the object-side first surface of the first lens (111) to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (160), and
wherein the TTL is 11 mm or less (calculated from table 1: TTL = 3.391), and
the F number is 2 to 2.3 (from table 1: “Fno = 2.04”).
Furthermore, Tseng teaches this configuration such that “the aperture control unit can be the aperture stop of the present disclosure, which changes the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed” (Tseng, [0078]).
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 Bone and Miyata to incorporate the teachings of Tseng to provide a device in which the F number is 2 to 2.3, for the purpose of changing the f-number to obtain different image effects, such as the depth of field or lens speed (Tseng, [0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the closest prior art, Bone, teaches the optical system of independent claims 1 and 2. Bone further teaches in Fig. 10:
the third lens (5) has … the sixth surface convex (“image-side surface 52 of the third lens element 5 is a convex surface”; [0069]) on the optical axis.
However, Bone fails to explicitly teach: the first lens has the second surface convex on the optical axis, wherein the second lens has the third surface convex and the fourth surface concave on the optical axis, wherein the third lens has the fifth surface convex, and the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis, wherein a center thickness of the first lens is the thickest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses in the optical system, wherein a distance between the second and third lenses and the distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis each is 1 mm or more and is larger than the center thickness of the first lens, and wherein a focal length of the fourth lens in longest among absolute values of focal lengths of the first to fourth lenses.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to distribute the focal power of the lenses amongst the lens surfaces and to optimize the Petzval curvature of the lens assembly (2) there are only three curvatures that a lens could have, flat, convex or concave (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the first lens has the first surface concave and the second surface convex on the optical axis, wherein the second lens has the third surface convex and the fourth surface concave on the optical axis, wherein the third lens has the fifth surface convex, and the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
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.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the lenses such that the first lens has the first surface concave and the second surface convex on the optical axis, wherein the second lens has the third surface convex and the fourth surface concave on the optical axis, wherein the third lens has the fifth surface convex, and the fourth lens has the seventh surface convex and the eighth surface concave on the optical axis, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
However, Gross fails to explicitly teach: wherein a center thickness of the first lens is the thickest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses in the optical system, wherein a distance between the second and third lenses and the distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis each is 1 mm or more and is larger than the center thickness of the first lens, and wherein a focal length of the fourth lens in longest among absolute values of focal lengths of the first to fourth lenses.
However, in a related in invention in the field of lens systems with four lenses, Bone (US 20180011287 A1), hereinafter Bone 287, teaches in Fig. 6 and Fig. 8: wherein a center thickness of the first lens is the thickest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses in the optical system (see Fig. 6 and the table in Fig. 8 in which the thickness of the first lens is the largest).
However, Bone 287 fails to teach: wherein a distance between the second and third lenses and the distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis each is 1 mm or more and is larger than the center thickness of the first lens, and wherein a focal length of the fourth lens in longest among absolute values of focal lengths of the first to fourth lenses.
Therefore, it would be improper hindsight to modify the prior art of record to provide wherein a distance between the second and third lenses and the distance between the third and fourth lenses on the optical axis each is 1 mm or more and is larger than the center thickness of the first lens, and wherein a focal length of the fourth lens in longest among absolute values of focal lengths of the first to fourth lenses. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
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