Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
All values relied upon that are not explicitly listed in the cited references were calculated by way of a matrix calculator that utilizes the full Lens Maker's Equation.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/29/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12-17, and 19-22 are amended, Claims 2 and 18 are canceled/withdrawn, Claims 23 and 24 have been added, and Claims 1, 3-4, 7-17, and 19-24 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments of 01/29/2026 introduce amendments to the claims. Although no new art was cited in the Final Rejection below, new combinations of obviousness were made using previously cited references.
In regards to independent claims 1 and 14, previously cited refences Wu, Chen, and Gross, where newly utilized in the rejection of claim 1 to anticipate the newly added limitations. Similarly, in claim 9, Wu and Gross were newly utilized to rejection the amended limitation of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 14-17, and 19-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20190129136 A1), previously presented, Wu (US 20180299647 A1), previously presented, Chen (US 20170336603 A1), previously presented, and as evidenced by Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" (hereafter Gross), previously presented.
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches in Fig. 1: an optical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first lens (10), a second lens (20), a third lens (30), a fourth lens (40), a fifth lens (50), and a sixth (60) lens disposed along an optical axis (110) in a direction from an object side (101) to a sensor side (80),
wherein the first lens (10) includes an object-side first surface convex (101) (“first surface 101 is aspheric and convex around the axis 110”; [0020]) and a sensor-side second surface (102) concave on the optical axis (“second surface 102 is concave around the axis 110”; [0020]),
wherein the second lens (20) includes a third surface on the object side (201) and a fourth surface on the sensor side (202),
wherein the third lens includes (30) a fifth surface convex (“fifth surface 301 is aspheric and is convex”; [0022]) on the object side (301) and
wherein the fourth lens (40) includes a seventh surface on the object side (401) and an eighth surface on the sensor side (402),
wherein the fifth lens (50) includes a ninth surface on the object side (501) and a tenth surface on the sensor side (502),
wherein the sixth lens (60) includes an object-side eleventh surface (601) convex (“eleventh surface 601 is convex around the axis 110”; [0026]) and a sensor-side twelfth surface (602) concave on the optical axis (“twelfth surface 602 is concave around the axis 110”; [0026]),
wherein an effective diameter of the first lens (10) is larger than an effective diameter of each of the second to sixth lenses (see Fig. 1 in which the effective diameter of lens 10 is the largest),
wherein the first lens has negative refractive power (“The first lens element 10 has negative power”; [0020]),
wherein the sixth lens has negative refractive power (“The sixth lens element 60 has negative power”; [0026]),
…
wherein the eleventh (601) and twelfth surfaces (602) of the sixth lens have aspheric surfaces (“eleventh surface 601 and the twelfth surface 602 are aspherical surfaces”; [0028]) and …
wherein a distance between the first (10) and second lenses (20) on the optical axis is a largest among distances between adjacent lenses (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which the distance between lenses 10 and 20 is the largest),
and wherein a center thickness of the fifth lens (50) is a thickest among center thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses (see Table 1 in which lens 50 has a thickness of 0.39 mm which is only slightly smaller than lens 20 which has a thickness of 0.41 mm).
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the limitation of “a center thickness of the fifth lens is a thickest among center thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses” since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Lai discloses the claimed invention except for “the second lens having a refractive index of 1.7 or more.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a device with a refractive index of 1.7 or more, 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 Lia because a refractive index of 1.64 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.7 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
However, Lai fails to explicitly teach: wherein the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave, and wherein the first lens includes a glass material, and the second lens is made of glass, the sixth lens is made of plastic material, and wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems with six lenses, Wu teaches in Fig. 1A: the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave (“an image-side surface 132 being concave in a paraxial region thereof”; [0070]. See Fig. 1A).
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 modify Lai in view of Wu to bend third lens such that a sensor side surface is concave as shown in Wu, because 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 as demonstrated by Gross (see 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).
Lai and Wu fail to teach: the first lens includes a glass material, and the sixth lens is made of plastic material, and wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic
However, in a related invention in the field of six lens systems, Chen teaches: the second lens is made of glass, the first lens includes a glass material, the sixth lens is made of plastic material, wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic. The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission”; [0058]).
Furthermore, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai, Wu, and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the second lens is made of glass, the first lens includes a glass material, the sixth lens is made of plastic material, and wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or high transmission (Chen, [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Lai teaches in Fig. 1: an optical system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first lens (10), a second lens (20), a third lens (30), a fourth lens (40), a fifth lens (50), and a sixth lens (60) disposed along an optical axis (110) in a direction from an object side (101) to a sensor side (80), wherein
the first lens (10) includes an object-side surface (101) convex (“first surface 101 is aspheric and convex around the axis 110”; [0020]) and a sensor-side surface (102) concave on the optical axis (“second surface 102 is concave around the axis 110”; [0020]), wherein
the sixth lens (60) includes an object-side surface (601) convex (“eleventh surface 601 is convex around the axis 110”; [0026]) and a sensor-side surface (602) concave on the optical axis (“twelfth surface 602 is concave around the axis 110”; [0026]), wherein
an effective diameter of the first lens (10) is larger than an effective diameter of each of the second to sixth lenses (see Fig. 1 in which the effective diameter of lens 10 is the largest), wherein
wherein the first lens has negative refractive power (“The first lens element 10 has negative power”; [0020]),
…
an object-side surface (601) and a sensor-side surface (602) of the sixth lens (60) are aspheric surfaces (“eleventh surface 601 and the twelfth surface 602 are aspherical surfaces”; [0028]), wherein
…
the fifth lens (50) has a positive refractive power (“fifth lens element 50 has positive power”; [0025]), wherein
the sixth lens has negative refractive power (“The sixth lens element 60 has negative power”; [0026]), wherein
an object-side surface of the fifth lens (501) has a convex shape on the optical axis (“ninth surface 501 is convex around the axis 110”; [0025]), wherein
a center thickness of the fifth lens (50) is greater than a center thickness of the sixth lens (60) (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which the thickness of lens 50 is larger than that of lens 60), wherein
at least one of a distance between the first (10) and second lenses (20) and a distance between the second (20) and third lenses (30) on the optical axis is greater than a distance between the fifth lens (50) and the sixth lens (60) on the optical axis (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which the distance between the first and second lens is larger than that of the fifth and six lens. see also Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which the distance between the second and third lens is larger than that of the fifth and six lens), and
wherein a refractive index of the first lens (10) is smaller than a refractive index of the second lens (20) and is less than 1.55 (see Table 1 in which the refractive index of the first lens (n1 = 1.54) is smaller than a refractive index of the second lens (n2 = 1.64) and is less than 1.55).
Further, Lai discloses the claimed invention except for “the second lens having a refractive index of 1.7 or more.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a device with a refractive index of 1.7 or more, 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 Lia because a refractive index of 1.64 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.7 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
Lai fails to explicitly teach: wherein the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave, the first lens includes a glass material, and wherein the sixth lens is made of a plastic material.
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems with six lenses, Wu teaches in Fig. 1A: the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave (“an image-side surface 132 being concave in a paraxial region thereof”; [0070]. See Fig. 1A).
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 modify Lai in view of Wu to provide a device in which “the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave”, because 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 as demonstrated by Gross (see 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).
Lai and Wu fail to explicitly teach: the first lens includes a glass material, and wherein the sixth lens is made of a plastic material.
However, in a related invention in the field of six lens systems, Chen teaches: the first lens includes a glass material, and wherein the sixth lens is made of a plastic material (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic; [0058]).
Furthermore, Chen teaches this configuration such that “The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission” (Chen, [0058]).
Additionally, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai, Wu, and Gross to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the first lens includes a glass material, and wherein the sixth lens is made of a plastic material, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, high temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or high transmission (Chen, [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. The first embodiment as shown in Table 1 of Lia teaches to a configuration in which n1 and n5 are equal, rather than the preferred embodiment in which n1 is less than n5 .
Therefore, the first embodiment of Lai fails to explicitly teach: the refractive index of the first lens is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fifth and sixth lenses, and wherein the first lens has the lowest refractive index among lenses in the optical system.
However, the second embodiment of Lia as shown in Table 3, teaches to a configuration such that: the refractive index of the first lens (10, n1 = 1.53) is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fifth (50, n5 = 1.54) and sixth (60, n6 = 1.64) lenses.
Furthermore, Lai teaches this configuration such that “Nowadays, an optical system with compact size, low optical aberration and good tolerance endurance are needed for the optical lens” (Lai, [0004]). One of ordinary skill would know that the index of refraction of the lenses needs to be selected in order to optimize the optical functions of the system.
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 first and second embodiment of Lai to provide a device in which the refractive index of the first lens is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fifth and sixth lenses, for the purpose of low aberration and good tolerance endurance (Lai, [0004]).
However, none of the embodiments of Lai teach to a configuration such that: the first lens has the lowest refractive index among lenses in the optical system.
Wu teaches in Table 15: the first lens has the lowest refractive index among lenses in the optical system (see Table 15 in which the first lens has the lowest index of refraction in the system at n = 1.517).
Wu further teaches this configuration such that “Properties of the image correcting element, such as curvature, thickness, refractive index, position, surface shape (convex/concave, spherical/aspheric, diffractive/Fresnel etc.) can be adjusted according to the requirements of the imaging apparatus.” (Wu, [0064]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the first lens has the lowest refractive index among lenses in the optical system, for the purpose of adjusting the properties of the optical elements according to the requirements of the imaging apparatus (Wu, [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1 and Table 1: a center thickness of the second lens (20, t1 = 0.41) is greater than a center thickness of the fifth lens (50, t5 = 0.39), wherein
the second lens (20) includes an object-side surface (“fourth surface 202 is aspheric and is convex around the axis 110 and toward the image side”; [0021]), wherein
a sensor-side surface of the fifth lens (502) has a convex shape on the optical axis (“tenth surface 502 is convex around the axis 110”; [0025]), and
wherein a distance between the first (10) and second lenses (20) on the optical axis is a largest among distances between adjacent lenses (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which a distance between the first and second lenses on the optical axis is a largest among distances between adjacent lenses).
However, Lai does not teach: the second lens includes an object-side surface convex.
Wu teaches in Fig. 1: the second lens (120) includes an object-side surface convex (“object-side surface 121 being convex in a paraxial region thereof”; [0069]).
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 modify Lai in view of Wu to provide a device in which the second lens includes an object-side surface convex, because 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 as demonstrated by Gross (see 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 17, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. The first embodiment as shown in Table 1 of Lia teaches to a configuration in which n1 and n5 are equal, rather than the preferred embodiment in which n1 is less than n5 .
Therefore, the first embodiment of Lai fails to explicitly teach: the refractive index of the first lens is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fourth to sixth lenses and wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is the largest among lenses in the optical system.
However, the second embodiment of Lia as shown in Table 3, teaches to a configuration such that: the refractive index of the first lens (10, n1 = 1.53) is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fourth to sixth lenses (n4 = 1.67, n5 = 1.54, n6 = 1.64).
Furthermore, Lai teaches this configuration such that “Nowadays, an optical system with compact size, low optical aberration and good tolerance endurance are needed for the optical lens” (Lai, [0004]). One of ordinary skill would know that the index of refraction of the lenses needs to be selected in order to optimize the optical functions of the system.
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 Lai to provide a device in which the refractive index of the first lens is smaller than a refractive index of each of the fourth to sixth lenses, for the purpose of low aberration and good tolerance endurance (Lai, [0004]).
However, the embodiments of Lai do not teach: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is the largest among lenses in the optical system.
Wu teaches in Table 9: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is the largest among lenses in the optical system (see table 9 in which V1 is the largest among lenses in the optical system).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which an Abbe number of the first lens is the largest among lenses in the optical system, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 17. Lai fails to explicitly teach: the fourth and sixth lenses are made of a plastic material, and wherein the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
However, Chen teaches in Fig. 1 and Table: the fourth and fifth lenses are made of a plastic material (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic”; [0058]).
Furthermore, Chen teaches this configuration such that “The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission” (Chen, [0058]).
Furthermore, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the fourth to sixth lenses are made of a plastic material, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or transmission (Chen, [0058]).
However, the combination of Lai and Chen fails to teach: the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
Wu teaches in Table 9: the Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens (V3 = 22.5).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Regarding claim 20, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1 and Table 1: the center thickness of the fifth lens (50, t5 = 0.39) is greater than a center thickness of each of the first (10, t1 = 0.25) and second lenses (20, t2 = 0.41) (see Table 1 in which lens 50 has a thickness of 0.39 mm which is only slightly smaller than lens 20 which has a thickness of 0.41 mm).
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the limitation of “the center thickness of the fifth lens is greater than a center thickness of each of the first and second lenses” since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05.
However, Lai fails to teach: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
Wu teaches in Table 9: the Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens (V3 = 22.5).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Regarding claim 21, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1 and Table 1: a center thickness of the second lens (20, t2 = 0.41) is greater than a center thickness of each of the first (10, t1 = 0.25) and fifth lenses (50, t5 = 0.39).
However, Lai fails to teach: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
Wu teaches in Table 9: the Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens (V3 = 22.5).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Regarding claim 22, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 14. Lai fails to explicitly teach: a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1, and wherein the third lens has a negative refractive power.
However, Chen teaches in Fig. 1 and Table: a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1 (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic”; [0058]).
Furthermore, Chen teaches this configuration such that “The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission” (Chen, [0058]).
Furthermore, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or transmission (Chen, [0058]).
However, the combination of Lai and Chen fails to explicitly teach that: the third lens has a negative refractive power.
Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance.
It is a well-established proposition that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP $2144.04(VI)(A).
Lai Fig. 1 teaches to a configuration of L3 and L4 being positive-negative. A mere reversal of these components would teach to a configuration of L3 and L4 being negative-positive. Further, the claim language of the instant application from which claim 22 depends is silent on the sign of the power of the fourth lens such that a reversal of L3 and L4 would still read on the limitations of the claimed device.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the order of the signs of the focusing group of L3 and L4 as taught by Lai in Fig. 1, such that group consists of a third lens unit with a negative refractive power, a fourth lens unit with a positive refractive power, arranged in order from the object side to the image side. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gross teaches that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance as evidenced by Gross (See Gross page 378 section 33.1.4). Furthermore, such a reversal of the order of the signs of L3 and L4 would also be considered to be an obvious modification since it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding claim 23, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 1. Lai further teaches in Table 1: wherein the sixth lens has the eleventh surface convex and the twelfth surface concave on the optical axis (“The eleventh surface 601 is convex around the axis 110 and toward the object side. The twelfth surface 602 is concave around the axis 110 and toward the image side”; [0026]).
Lai fails to explicitly teach: the optical system of wherein the third lens has negative refractive power … and wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
However, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance.
It is a well-established proposition that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP $2144.04(VI)(A).
Lai Fig. 1 teaches to a configuration of L3 and L4 being positive-negative. A mere reversal of these components would teach to a configuration of L3 and L4 being negative-positive. Further, the claim language of the instant application from which claim 23 depends is silent on the sign of the power of the fourth lens such that a reversal of L3 and L4 would still read on the limitations of the claimed device.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the order of the signs of the focusing group of L3 and L4 as taught by Lai in Fig. 1, such that group consists of a third lens unit with a negative refractive power, a fourth lens unit with a positive refractive power, arranged in order from the object side to the image side. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance as evidenced by Gross (See Gross page 378 section 33.1.4). Furthermore, such a reversal of the order of the signs of L3 and L4 would also be considered to be an obvious modification since it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(A).
However, Lai fails to explicitly teach: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
Wu teaches in Table 9: the Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens (V3 = 22.5).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Regarding claim 24, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 1. Lai further teaches in Table 1: wherein the fifth lens has positive refractive power (“The fifth lens element 50 has positive power”; [0025]), wherein the fifth lens has the ninth surface convex toward the object (“The ninth surface 501 is convex around the axis 110 and toward the object side”; [0025]) and the tenth surface convex on the optical axis (“The tenth surface 502 is convex around the axis 110 and toward the image side”; [0025]).
Lai fails to teach: wherein an Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens.
However, Wu teaches in Table 9: the Abbe number of the first lens (V1 = 61.3) is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens (V3 = 22.5).
Furthermore, Wu teaches this configuration such that selection of the Abbe number “can reduce chromatic aberrations to reduce color casts and properly dispose the materials in order to correct other types of aberrations” (Wu, [0058]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which the Abbe number of the first lens is twice or more than an Abbe number of the third lens, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberrations (Wu, [0058]).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (US 20190129136 A1),previously presented, Chae (US 20200209529 A1), previously presented, Chen (US 20170336603 A1), previously presented, Wu (US 20180299647 A1), previously presented, and as evidenced by Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" (hereafter Gross), previously presented.
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches in Fig. 1: a camera module (Fig. 1) comprising:
an image sensor (“sensor 80”; [0018]);
an optical filter (“optical filter 70”; [0027]) on the image sensor (80);
…
an optical system (Fig. 1) including a first lens (10), a second lens (20), a third lens (30), a fourth lens (40), a fifth lens (50), and a sixth lens (60) disposed along an optical axis (110) in a direction from an object side (101) to a sensor side (80); …
wherein the first lens has negative refractive power (“The first lens element 10 has negative power”; [0020]), wherein
the first lens (10) includes an object-side first surface (101) convex (“first surface 101 is aspheric and convex around the axis 110”; [0020]) and a sensor-side second surface (102) concave on the optical axis (“second surface 102 is concave around the axis 110”; [0020]), wherein
the sixth lens (60) includes an object-side eleventh surface (601) convex (“eleventh surface 601 is convex around the axis 110”; [0026]) and a sensor-side twelfth surface (602) concave on the optical axis (“twelfth surface 602 is concave around the axis 110”; [0026]), wherein
an effective diameter of the first lens (10) is larger than an effective diameter of each of the second to sixth lenses (see Fig. 1 in which the effective diameter of lens 10 is the largest),
…
wherein the sixth lens has negative refractive power (“The sixth lens element 60 has negative power”; [0026]),
the eleventh (601) and twelfth surfaces (602) of the sixth lens are aspheric and the sixth lens is made of plastic material (“eleventh surface 601 and the twelfth surface 602 are aspherical surfaces”; [0028]), wherein
…
a center thickness of the second (20) or fifth lens is a thickest among center thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses (see Table 1 in which lens 50 has a thickness of 0.39 mm which is only slightly smaller than lens 20 which has a thickness of 0.41 mm), and wherein a distance between the first (10) and second lenses (20) on the optical axis is a largest among distances between adjacent lenses (see Fig. 1 and Table 1 in which the distance between lenses 10 and 20 is the largest).
Further, Lai discloses the claimed invention except for “the second lens having a refractive index of 1.7 or more.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a device with a refractive index of 1.7 or more, 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 Lia because a refractive index of 1.64 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.7 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
However, Lai fails to explicitly teach: a cover glass disposed between the optical filter and the image sensor; … and an aperture stop disposed around a sensor-side surface of the third lens or around an object- side surface of the third lens, wherein the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave, … wherein the first and second lenses include a glass material, wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic, and wherein a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1.
However, in a related invention in the field lens configurations comprising six lenses, Chae teaches in Fig. 1: a cover glass (“a cover glass 180”; [0091]) disposed between the optical filter (“filter 170”; [0091]) and the image sensor (“imaging plane 190”; [0091], see Fig. 1) … and an aperture stop (ST) disposed around a sensor-side surface of the third lens or around an object-side surface of the third lens (see Fig. 1 in which aperture ST is disposed around the object side of 130).
Furthermore, Chae teaches this configuration such that “The image capturing lens system includes a filter and a cover glass. For example, the filter may be disposed between the sixth lens and the image sensor to filter components decreasing resolution, and the cover glass may block foreign objects” (Chae, [0081]).
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 Lai to incorporate the teachings of Chae to provide a device in which a cover glass is disposed between the optical filter and the image sensor, for the purpose of blocking foreign objects (Chae, [0081]).
However, the combination of Lai and Chae fails to explicitly teach: wherein the first and second lenses include a glass material, wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic, and wherein a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1.
However, Chen teaches in Fig. 1: wherein the first (L1) and second lenses (L2) include a glass material, wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic, and wherein a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1 (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic”; [0058]).
Furthermore, Chen teaches this configuration such that “The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission” (Chen, [0058]).
Additionally, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai and Chae to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the first and second lenses include a glass material, wherein at least three of the second to sixth lenses are made of plastic, and wherein a ratio of plastic lenses to glass lenses among the first to sixth lenses is 1:1 to 2:1, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, high temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or high transmission (Chen, [0058]).
However, the combination of Lia, Chae, and Chen fails to teach “wherein the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave.”
In an alternate invention in the field of lens systems with six lenses, Wu teaches in Fig. 1A: the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave (“an image-side surface 132 being concave in a paraxial region thereof”; [0070]. See Fig. 1A).
Furthermore, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai, Chae, Chen, Wu, and Gross to provide a device in which the third lens includes a sensor side surface concave as taught by Wu, because 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 as demonstrated by Gross (see Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 10, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 9. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1: the center thickness of the second lens (20) is the thickest among center thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses (see Fig. 1 and table 1 in which the thickness of lens 20 is 0.41 which is the thickest lens in the system).
However, Lai fails to explicitly teach: the first to third lenses are made of glass material, and wherein the fourth to sixth lenses are made of plastic material.
Chen teaches: the first to third lenses are made of glass material, and wherein the fourth to sixth lenses are made of plastic material (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic”; [0058]).
Furthermore, Chen teaches this configuration such that “The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission” (Chen, [0058]).
Additionally, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the first to third lenses are made of glass material, and wherein the fourth to sixth lenses are made of plastic material, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, high temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or high transmission (Chen, [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 10. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1: a distance between a vertex of the first surface of the first lens (101) and the image sensor (80) is 40 mm or less (see Table 1 and [0042] in which TTL = 3.41 mm).
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 9. Lai further teaches in Fig. 1: the first lens (10) has a negative refractive power (“first lens element 10 has negative power”; [0020]) and a refractive index of less than 1.55 (see Table 1 in which the refractive index of lens 10 is 1.54) … wherein the third lens (n3 = 1.54) and the fourth lens (n4 = 1.64) have a refractive index of 1.6 or more.
Further, Lai discloses the claimed invention except for “the third lens having a refractive index of 1.6 or more.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a device with a refractive index of 1.6 or more, 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 Lia because a refractive index of 1.54 (see Table 1) is sufficiently close to 1.6 such that the workable range would only requite routine optimization of the lens system.
Lai fails to explicitly disclose that the third lens has a negative refractive power.
However, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance.
It is a well-established proposition that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP $2144.04(VI)(A).
Lai Fig. 1 teaches to a configuration of L3 and L4 being positive-negative. A mere reversal of these components would teach to a configuration of L3 and L4 being negative-positive. Further, the claim language of the instant application from which claim 12 depends is silent on the sign of the power of the fourth lens such that a reversal of L3 and L4 would still read on the limitations of the claimed device.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the order of the signs of the focusing group of L3 and L4 as taught by Lai in Fig. 1, such that group consists of a third lens unit with a negative refractive power, a fourth lens unit with a positive refractive power, arranged in order from the object side to the image side. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because Gross teaches that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the zero power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ when trying to find a lens design with better optical performance as evidence by Gross (see Gross page 378 section 33.1.4). Furthermore, such a reversal of the order of the signs of L3 and L4 would also be considered to be an obvious modification since it has been held that a mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification, In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Lai teaches the optical system of claim 9. Lai further teaches: the fifth lens (50) has a positive refractive power (“fifth lens element 50 has positive power”; [0025]), and wherein the fifth lens has -an object side surface (501) convex (“ninth surface 501 is convex around the axis 110”; [0025]) and a sensor side surface (502) convex on the optical axis (“tenth surface 502 is convex around the axis 110”; [0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art, Lai (US 20190129136 A1), teaches the optical system of claim 1. Lai teaches: wherein the fourth lens has negative refractive power (“fourth lens element 40 has negative power”; [0024]) and has a refractive index of 1.6 or more (see Table 1 in which n4 = 1.64).
Lai fails to explicitly teach: wherein a ratio of lenses made of plastic to lenses made of glass is 2:1 in the optical system, … wherein the third lens has negative refractive power and has a refractive index of 1.6 or more.
However, in a related invention in the field of six lens systems, Chen (US 20170336603 A1) teaches: wherein a ratio of lenses made of plastic to lenses made of glass is 2:1 in the optical system (“The first lens L1, the second lens L2, the third lens L3, the fourth lens L4, the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 may be made of glass and/or plastic. The plastic material provides an advantage of having reduced production costs, whereas the glass material features advantages of having high temperature endurance, scratch resistant and high transmission”; [0058]).
Furthermore, glass and plastic are known materials and have known properties for use in lens systems, and the use thereof would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lai to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a device in which the second lens is made of glass, and wherein a ratio of the lenses made of plastic to a lenses made of glass is 2: 1 in the optical system, for the purpose of selecting lens materials to optimize for reduction in production cost, high temperature endurance, scratch resistance, or high transmission (Chen, [0058]).
The combination of Lai and Chen fails to teach: wherein the third lens has negative refractive power and has a refractive index of 1.6 or more.
Furthermore, Lai teaches to a lens configuration of - + + - + - whereas the instant application teaches to a configuration of - + - - + -. Based on the configuration of Lai it would be improper to anticipate that the third lens would be negative or that the lens system of Lai could be altered to produce the lens system of the instant application.
Therefore, Based on the configuration of Lai it would be improper to modify Chen to provide a device in which the third lens has negative refractive power and has a refractive index of 1.6 or more. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art, Lai (US 20190129136 A1), teaches the optical system of claim. Lai further teaches: a distance between a vertex of the first surface of the first lens (101) and an image sensor (80) in the optical axis is TTL, wherein the TTL in the optical system is 40 mm or less (“TTL = 3.41”; [0042]),
Lai fails to explicitly teach so a configuration such that: an F number is 1.7 to 2.2 and that the distance between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis is 5 times or more of a center thickness of the first lens.
However, in a related invention in the field of lens systems containing six lenses, Wu teaches in Table 17: a distance between a vertex of the first surface of the first lens and an image sensor in the optical axis is TTL of, wherein the TTL in the optical system is 40 mm or less (TTL = 14.774), and F number is 1.7 to 2.2 (from Table 17: Fno = 2.14).
Furthermore, Wu (US 20180299647 A1) teaches this configuration such that “it can further reduce astigmatism and field curvature and compress the back focal length in order to shorten the total track length of the optical image capturing lens assembly” (Wu, [0057]).
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 Lai and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a device in which an F number is 1.7 to 2.2, for the purpose of compressing the back focal length in order to shorten the total track length of the optical image capturing lens assembly (Wu, [0057]).
However, Lai and Wu fail to teach: the distance between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis is 5 times or more of a center thickness of the first lens.
Therefore, Based on the configuration of Lai it would be improper to modify Wu to provide a device in which the distance between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis is 5 times or more of a center thickness of the first lens. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art, Lai (US 20190129136 A1), teaches the optical system claim 1. Lai fails to explicitly teach: an Abbe number of the first lens is a largest among lenses in the optical system and is 70 or more, and wherein an absolute value of a focal length of the first lens is greater than that of the second, fourth, and fifth lenses.
However, in related invention in the field of lens systems containing six lenses, Ning (US 10437021 B1) teaches in Table 2: an Abbe number of the first lens (Abbe# = 75.50) is a largest among lenses in the optical system and is 70 or more (see Table 2 in which the Abbe number of the first lens is the largest in the system).
Furthermore, Ning (US 10437021 B1) teaches this configuration such that “selected lens elements made of materials with high refractive index and Abbe numbers and coefficient of thermal expansion that provide stable high performance across wide and rapid temperature changes” (Ning, Abstract).
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 Lai and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Ning to provide a device in which an Abbe number of the first lens is a largest among lenses in the optical system and is 70 or more, for the purpose of selecting the lens materials and elements in order to optimize performance of the lens device across wide and rapid temperature changes (Ning, Abstract).
However, Lai and Ning fail to teach that: an absolute value of a focal length of the first lens is greater than that of the second, fourth, and fifth lenses.
Therefore, Based on the configuration of Lai it would be improper to modify Ning to provide a device in which an absolute value of a focal length of the first lens is greater than that of the second, fourth, and fifth lenses. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claim 8 would be allowable for its dependance on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11467374 B2: six lens imaging system
US 20200132966 A1: six lens imaging system
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