DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed August 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-14 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended have been fully considered. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses the limitations as set forth below.
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 9 and 20.
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bong (KR 10-2014-0070875).
In regard to claim 1, Bong discloses an optical system comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a first lens group G1, a second lens group G2, and a third lens group G3 sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph) and
wherein each of the first to third lens groups G1, G2, G3 includes at least one lens (see e.g. Figure and page 4 last full paragraph), and wherein each lens has an object side and an image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and note the lenses have an object and image side);
wherein a refractive power sign of the first lens group and a refractive power sign of the second lens group are opposite to each other (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph for positive and negative refractive powers, respectively),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are fixed lens groups (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”),
wherein a driving member controls a position of the second lens group G2 (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the driving member moves the second lens group along the optical axis when a camera module changes between a first mode and a second mode (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are not moved when the second lens group moves along the optical axis (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”), wherein,
when the second lens group G2 moves along the optical axis, a total track length TTL of the optical system is maintained (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” and note G1 and G2 don’t move so the track length is maintained), and
wherein the first lens group G1, the second lens group G2, and the third lens group G3 satisfy condition 1 below: 0.6<|f_1/f_23|<1.4 (see e.g. data on pages 4-5 for example of Figure 1 and note that f_1 = 17.299 and f_23 is calculated based on the date to be ~ 24.06, giving |f_1/f_23| ~ 0.71, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
(In condition 1, f_1 is a focal length of the first lens group, f_23 is a combined focal length of the second lens group and the third lens group).
Bong fails to explicitly disclose
when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
Selecting the lenses and movement patterns to maintain a back focal length would result in a system that has a consistent image plane.
In regard to claim 2, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes a first lens 101, a second lens 201, and a third lens 301 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in a direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph),
wherein the second lens group G2 includes a fourth lens 401 and a fifth lens 501 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in the direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph), and
wherein the third lens group G3 includes a sixth lens 601 or 701 or 801 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in the direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph).
In regard to claim 3, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 has positive (+) refractive power (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph)., and
wherein the second lens group G2 has negative (-) refractive power (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph).
In regard to claim 4, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes at least one lens having a non-circular shape (see e.g. second to last full paragraph on page 4 and data table on page 5 of data for lens of Figure 1 and note asterisk surfaces are aspherical).
In regard to claim 5, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the third lens group includes at least one lens having a spherical surface shape (see e.g. second to last full paragraph on page 4 and data table on page 5 of data for lens of Figure 1 and note asterisk surfaces are aspherical and thus non asterisks indicate spherical).
In regard to claim 6, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below:
[condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1,
CAL6S1>CA_LS2
(In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens)
[condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1,
CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2
(In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CALiS1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens.)
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below: [condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1, CAL6S1>CA_LS2 (In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens) [condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1, CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2 (In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CALiS1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below: [condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1, CAL6S1>CA_LS2 (In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens) [condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1, CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2 (In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CA_L1S1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens).
Providing an optimized clear aperture would result in improved performance of the system by allowing a higher light throughput and enabling higher resolution.
In regard to claim 7, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 and
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 4 below:
[condition 4] 0<|P6|<|P1|,|P2|,|P3|,|P4|,|P5| (see e.g. Figure 1 and data on pages 4-5 for example of Figure 1 and note that because the lenses are not required to be in a specific order, the system of Bong will satisfy the limitation because there are not any identical lenses and one of the lenses must have the smallest refractive power).
In regard to claim 8, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies Equation 22 below:
[condition 22] 8 <TTL/mdl<12
(In condition 22, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), Total track length (TTL) refers to a distance in a direction of the optical axis OA direction from a vertex of the object side of the lens closest to an object among a plurality of lenses to an image surface of an image sensor unit).
However, Bong discloses TTL/mdl ~ 14.7, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. Figure 1 and data on pages 4-6 for Figure 1 and note that TTL =29.914 and mdl is calculated to be ~ 2.031).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies Equation 22 below: [condition 22] 8 <TTL/mdl<12 (In condition 22, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), Total track length (TTL) refers to a distance in a direction of the optical axis OA direction from a vertex of the object side of the lens closest to an object among a plurality of lenses to an image surface of an image sensor unit).
Optimizing the ratio of the track length to the distance moved by the moving group would minimize any misalignment that may be caused by movement of the lenses.
In regard to claim 11, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 5 below:
[condition 5] 0.6 < |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| < 0.7
(In condition 5, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, and f6 is a focal length of a sixth lens).
However, Bong discloses a value of |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| ~ 0.97, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (note |EFL_2| = ft= 17.299 is cited in the data on pages 4-5 and |EFL_1/f6| is calculated based on data on pages 4-5 to be 17.851)
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 5 below: [condition 5] 0.6 < |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| < 0.7 (In condition 5, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, and f6 is a focal length of a sixth lens).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
In regard to claim 12, Bond discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 6 below:
[condition 6] 1.0 < |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2|< 2.5
(In condition 6, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f34_ 1 is a complex focal length of a third lens and a fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f34_2 means a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
However, Bond discloses |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2| ~ 0.97, which is close to the claimed range (note EFL_2, EFL_1 are derived in the same way as claim 11, and f34_1 ~ -34.14, f34_2 ~ -34.19, calculated based on data on pages 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 6 below: [condition 6] 1.0 < |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2|< 2.5 (In condition 6, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f34_ 1 is a complex focal length of a third lens and a fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f34_2 means a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
In regard to claim 13, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 7 below:
[condition 7] 0.6 <|EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_||< 0.7
(In condition 7, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f56 1 is a complex focal length of a fifth lens and a sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f56_2 means a complex focal length of the fifth lens and the sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
However, Bong discloses |EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_| ~ 0.89, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (note EFL_2, EFL_1 are derived in the same way as claim 11, and f56_1 ~ -4.37, f56_2 ~ -4.75, calculated based on data on pages 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 7 below:
[condition 7] 0.6 <|EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_||< 0.7
(In condition 7, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f56 1 is a complex focal length of a fifth lens and a sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f56_2 means a complex focal length of the fifth lens and the sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
Claims 9, 10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bong (KR 10-2014-0070875) in view of Imaoka et al. (US 2012/0257100 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Bong discloses an optical module comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
an optical system (see e.g. Figure 1); and
a first lens group G1, a second lens group G2, and a third lens group G3 are sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph) and
wherein each of the first to third lens groups G1, G2, G3 includes at least one lens (see e.g. Figure and page 4 last full paragraph), and wherein each lens has an object side and an image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and note the lenses have an object and image side);
wherein a refractive power sign of the first lens group and a refractive power sign of the second lens group are opposite to each other (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph for positive and negative refractive powers, respectively),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are fixed lens groups (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”),
wherein a driving member controls a position of the second lens group G2 (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the driving member moves the second lens group along the optical axis when a camera module changes between a first mode and a second mode (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are not moved when the second lens group moves along the optical axis (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”), wherein,
when the second lens group G2 moves along the optical axis, a total track length TTL of the optical system is maintained (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” and note G1 and G2 don’t move so the track length is maintained), and
wherein the first lens group G1, the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 satisfy condition 4 below:
[condition 4] 0<|P6|<|P1|,|P2|,|P3|,|P4|,|P5| (see e.g. Figure 1 and data on pages 4-5 for example of Figure 1 and note that because the lenses are not required to be in a specific order, the system of Bong will satisfy the limitation because there are not any identical lenses and one of the lenses must have the smallest refractive power).
Bong fails to disclose
an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident,
when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
Selecting the lenses and movement patterns to maintain a back focal length would result in a system that has a consistent image plane.
Bong fails to disclose
an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident.
However, Imaoka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 13):
an image sensor unit 102 where light passing through the optical system 202 is incident (see e.g. Figure 13 and paragraph [0147]).
Given the teachings of Imaoka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ozaki et al. with an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident.
Using the optical system with an image sensor unit would allow the system to be used in a camera device, capable of recording images.
In regard to claim 10, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical module satisfies condition 23 below:
[condition 23] 0.1 <mdl/ImgH<0.3
(In condition 23, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), ImgH refers to a vertical distance of the optical axis OA from a 0 field area of the image sensor unit to a 1.0 field area of the image sensor unit that is, the ImgH refers to a diagonal length of an effective area of the image sensor unit).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical module satisfies condition 23 below: [condition 23] 0.1 <mdl/ImgH<0.3 (In condition 23, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), ImgH refers to a vertical distance of the optical axis OA from a 0 field area of the image sensor unit to a 1.0 field area of the image sensor unit that is, the ImgH refers to a diagonal length of an effective area of the image sensor unit), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical module satisfies condition 23 below: [condition 23] 0.1 <mdl/ImgH<0.3 (In condition 23, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), ImgH refers to a vertical distance of the optical axis OA from a 0 field area of the image sensor unit to a 1.0 field area of the image sensor unit that is, the ImgH refers to a diagonal length of an effective area of the image sensor unit).
Optimizing the height of the image and the moving distance of the focusing lens group would allow a high quality image to be produced at the desired height.
In regard to claim 14, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1, the second lens group G2, and the third lens group G3 satisfy condition 1 below: 0.6<|f_1/f_23|<1.4 (see e.g. data on pages 4-5 for example of Figure 1 and note that f_1 = 17.299 and f_23 is calculated based on the date to be ~ 24.06, giving |f_1/f_23| ~ 0.71, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
(In condition 1, f_1 is a focal length of the first lens group, f_23 is a combined focal length of the second lens group and the third lens group).
In regard to claim 15, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes a first lens 101, a second lens 201, and a third lens 301 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in a direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph),
wherein the second lens group G2 includes a fourth lens 401 and a fifth lens 501 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in the direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph), and
wherein the third lens group G3 includes a sixth lens 601 or 701 or 801 sequentially arranged along the optical axis in the direction from the object side to the image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph).
Bong fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below:
[condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1,
CAL6S1>CA_LS2
(In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens)
[condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1,
CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2
(In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CALiS1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens.)
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below: [condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1, CAL6S1>CA_LS2 (In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens) [condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1, CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2 (In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CALiS1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 2 and condition 3 below: [condition 2] CA_L6S1 > CA_LIS1, CAL6S1>CA_LS2 (In condition 2, CA L6S1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture (clear aperture; CA) on the object side of a sixth lens, CALS1 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the object side of a first CA_L1S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens) [condition 3] CA_L6S2 >CA_L1S1, CAL6S2 >CA_L1S2 (In condition 3, CA_L6S2 means a size of a maximum clear aperture on the image side of the sixth lens, CALiS1 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the object side of a-the first lens, CA_L1S2 means the size of the maximum clear aperture on the image side of the first lens).
Providing an optimized clear aperture would result in improved performance of the system by allowing a higher light throughput and enabling higher resolution.
In regard to claim 16, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 5 below:
[condition 5] 0.6 < |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| < 0.7
(In condition 5, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, and f6 is a focal length of a sixth lens).
However, Bong discloses a value of |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| ~ 0.97, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (note |EFL_2| = ft= 17.299 is cited in the data on pages 4-5 and |EFL_1/f6| is calculated based on data on pages 4-5 to be 17.851)
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 5 below: [condition 5] 0.6 < |EFL_2/f6| / |EFL_1/f6| < 0.7 (In condition 5, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, and f6 is a focal length of a sixth lens).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
In regard to claim 17, Bond discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 6 below:
[condition 6] 1.0 < |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2|< 2.5
(In condition 6, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f34_ 1 is a complex focal length of a third lens and a fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f34_2 means a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
However, Bond discloses |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2| ~ 0.97, which is close to the claimed range (note EFL_2, EFL_1 are derived in the same way as claim 11, and f34_1 ~ -34.14, f34_2 ~ -34.19, calculated based on data on pages 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 6 below: [condition 6] 1.0 < |EFL_2/f34_1| / |EFL_1/f34_2|< 2.5 (In condition 6, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f34_ 1 is a complex focal length of a third lens and a fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f34_2 means a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
In regard to claim 18, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies condition 7 below:
[condition 7] 0.6 <|EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_||< 0.7
(In condition 7, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f56 1 is a complex focal length of a fifth lens and a sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f56_2 means a complex focal length of the fifth lens and the sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
However, Bong discloses |EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_| ~ 0.89, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (note EFL_2, EFL_1 are derived in the same way as claim 11, and f56_1 ~ -4.37, f56_2 ~ -4.75, calculated based on data on pages 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies condition 7 below:
[condition 7] 0.6 <|EFL_2/f56_2| / |EFL_1/f56_||< 0.7
(In condition 7, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode, f56 1 is a complex focal length of a fifth lens and a sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in first mode, f56_2 means a complex focal length of the fifth lens and the sixth lens at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in second mode).
Selecting an optimized ratio of the effective focal lengths would provide an improved field of view.
In regard to claim 19, Bong discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optical system satisfies Equation 22 below:
[condition 22] 8 <TTL/mdl<12
(In condition 22, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), Total track length (TTL) refers to a distance in a direction of the optical axis OA direction from a vertex of the object side of the lens closest to an object among a plurality of lenses to an image surface of an image sensor unit).
However, Bong discloses TTL/mdl ~ 14.7, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. Figure 1 and data on pages 4-6 for Figure 1 and note that TTL =29.914 and mdl is calculated to be ~ 2.031).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with wherein the optical system satisfies Equation 22 below: [condition 22] 8 <TTL/mdl<12 (In condition 22, mdl means a moving distance of the second lens group G2 when changing from infinity mode (first mode) to short-distance mode (second mode) or from short-distance mode (second mode) to infinity mode (first mode), Total track length (TTL) refers to a distance in a direction of the optical axis OA direction from a vertex of the object side of the lens closest to an object among a plurality of lenses to an image surface of an image sensor unit).
Optimizing the ratio of the track length to the distance moved by the moving group would minimize any misalignment that may be caused by movement of the lenses.
In regard to claim 20, Bong discloses an camera module comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
an optical system (see e.g. Figure 1); and
a driving member that drives the optical system see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the optical system comprises a first lens group G1, a second lens group G2, and a third lens group G3 are sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph) and each lens group includes at least one lens (see e.g. Figure and page 4 last full paragraph),
wherein a refractive power sign of the first lens group and a refractive power sign of the second lens group are opposite to each other (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 4, last full paragraph for positive and negative refractive powers, respectively),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are fixed lens groups (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”),
wherein the driving member controls a position of the second lens group G2 (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the driving member controls a position of the second lens group along the optical axis when the camera module changes between a first mode and a second mode (see e.g. page, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” for movement of G2 and note that a driving member would be necessary to move G2),
wherein the first lens group G1 and the third lens group G3 are not moved when the second lens group moves along the optical axis (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments”), wherein,
when the second lens group G2 moves along the optical axis, a total track length TTL of the optical system is maintained (see e.g. page 2, 4th paragraph under “description-of-embodiments” and note G1 and G2 don’t move so the track length is maintained), and
wherein the first lens group G1, the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 satisfy condition 4 below:
[condition 4] 0<|P6|<|P1|,|P2|,|P3|,|P4|,|P5| (see e.g. Figure 1 and data on pages 4-5 for example of Figure 1 and note that because the lenses are not required to be in a specific order, the system of Bong will satisfy the limitation because there are not any identical lenses and one of the lenses must have the smallest refractive power).
Bong fails to disclose
an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident,
when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bong with when the second lens group moves along the optical axis a back focal length BFL of the optical system is maintained.
Selecting the lenses and movement patterns to maintain a back focal length would result in a system that has a consistent image plane.
Bong fails to disclose
an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident.
However, Imaoka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 13):
an image sensor unit 102 where light passing through the optical system 202 is incident (see e.g. Figure 13 and paragraph [0147]).
Given the teachings of Imaoka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ozaki et al. with an image sensor unit where light passing through the optical system is incident.
Using the optical system with an image sensor unit would allow the system to be used in a camera device, capable of recording images.
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights