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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification in Paragraphs [146]-[149] defines Equation 7 to be “|R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10| < |R5|, 2 < |R2/R5| < 7.” However, the example described in Tables 1 and 3 do not include any value such that “|R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10| < |R5|.” As such, the example does not meet Equation 7, while the specification indicates that it does.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 includes a period in the limitation: “wherein the second lens group includes a fourth lens and a fifth lens sequentially arranged along the optical axis in the direction from the object side to the image side.” Further, claim 11 includes additional limitations after the period. As such, claim 11 is not a single, complete sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “In Equation 8, T34_1 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a first mode, T34_2 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a second mode.” However, as claim 1 does not define “a third lens” or “a fourth lens,” it is unclear that the claim should positively require third or fourth lenses. Moreover, it is unclear how T34_1 and T34_2 should be defined for a system that does not require a third or fourth lens.
Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a first mode” or “a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a second mode.” Specifically, it is unclear how the “modes” are being defined, and if the lens is in a “mode” it is unclear that the second lens group should be moving at all, and thus there would be no “maximum moving distance.” Additionally, it is unclear how the first mode and the second mode should be different, or if the moving distance should be different.
For the purposes of examination, T34_1 will be interpreted as a distance between a last surface of the first lens group and a first surface of the second lens group in a first focal length position (e.g. wide-angle or telephoto) and T34_2 will be interpreted as a distance between a last surface of the first lens group and a first surface of the second lens group in a second focal length position different from the first (e.g. telephoto or wide-angle).
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claims 12-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “In Equation 13, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, and EFL_2 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode.” However, it is unclear how the “effective focal length” of the second lens group can be different between the first mode and the second mode. Specifically, as the second lens group does not change between the modes, the effective focal length of the second lens group will remain constant and EFL_1/EFL_2 would be 1, which is not included in the claimed range. It is unclear if the “effective focal length” is intended to refer to an effective focal length of the entire optical system or some additional combination of lenses. For the purposes of examination, EFL_1 will be interpreted as an effective focal length of the optical system when in the first focal length position and EFL_2 will be interpreted as an effective focal length of the optical system when in the second focal length position.
Claim 5 recites “In Equation 2, P3, P4, P5 mean refractive powers of the third lens, the fourth lens, and a fifth lens, respectively.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the third lens” or “the fourth lens,” and it is unclear if the claim is intended to positively require a “fifth lens,” as claim 5 depends upon claim 1 which does not recite third, fourth, or fifth lenses. For the purposes of examination, “the third lens” and “the fourth lens” will be interpreted as “a third lens” and a “fourth lens,” and Equation 2 will be interpreted as being required only when the optical system has a third, fourth, and a fifth lens.
Claims 6 and 16 recite that the optical system satisfies Equation 3 below: [Equation 3] 0.3 < EFL_2/f5/EFL_1/f5 < 0.9 (In Equation 3, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode, and f5 means a focal length of a fifth lens). However, as f5 is present in the numerator and the denominator of the equation, it is not in simplest form and is equivalent to 0.3 < EFL_2/EFL_1 < 0.9. As such, it is unclear why f5 is included in the equation. Moreover, it is unclear how the “effective focal length” of the second lens group can be different between the first mode and the second mode. Specifically, as the second lens group does not change between the modes, the effective focal length of the second lens group will remain constant and EFL_1/EFL_2 would be 1, which is not included in the claimed range. It is unclear if the “effective focal length” is intended to refer to an effective focal length of the entire optical system or some additional combination of lenses. For the purposes of examination, EFL_1 will be interpreted as an effective focal length of the optical system when in the first focal length position and EFL_2 will be interpreted as an effective focal length of the optical system when in the second focal length position.
Claims 7 and 17 recite that “the optical system satisfies Equation 6 below: [Equation 6] |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R5|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R10| < |R9|, 20 < |R9/R10| < 30 (In Equation 6, R1 is a radius of curvature of a first surface of a first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of a second surface of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of a third surface of a second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of a fourth surface of the second lens, R5 is a radius of curvature of a fifth surface of the third lens, R6 is a radius of curvature of a sixth surface of the third lens, R7 is a radius of curvature of a seventh surface of the fourth lens, R8 is a radius of curvature of a eighth surface of the fourth lens, R9 is a radius of curvature of a ninth surface of a fifth lens, R10 is a radius of curvature of a tenth surface of the fifth lens).” However, “|R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R5|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R10| < |R9|, 20 < |R9/R10| < 30” is not a single equation and it is unclear how such an expression should be interpreted. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is requiring for each of “|R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R5|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R10|” to be less than |R9| or if the expression is met if any single value is less than |R9|. Moreover, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require 20 < |R9/R10| < 30 in addition to the other expressions, or as an alternative. Furthermore, as each lens only has a first or a second surface, it is unclear how to define a third surface of a second lens, a fourth surface of a second lens, a fifth surface of a third lens, a sixth surface of a third lens, a seventh surface of a fourth lens, an eighth surface of a fourth lens, a ninth surface of a fifth lens, or a tenth surface of a fifth lens. Additionally, as the claim does not positively require five lenses, it is unclear if any optical system having less than five lenses would necessarily meet the claimed condition. Further, as no lenses are defined in any specific order, any surface of the optical system could be defined to be any of the values R1-R10.
For the purposes of examination, any optical system with R9 being greater than another R value, or satisfying 20 < |R9/R10| < 30 will be interpreted as meeting the claimed limitations.
Claims 8 and 18 recite that “the optical system satisfies Equation 7 below [Equation 7] |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10| < |R5|, 2 < |R2/R5| < 7 (In Equation 7, R1 is a radius of curvature of a first surface of a first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of a second surface of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of a third surface of a second lens. R4 is a radius of curvature of a fourth surface of the second lens, R5 is a radius of curvature of a fifth surface of the third lens, R6 is a radius of curvature of a sixth surface of the third lens, R7 is a radius of curvature of a seventh surface of the fourth lens, R8 is a radius of curvature of a eighth surface of the fourth lens, R9 is a radius of curvature of a ninth surface of a fifth lens, R10 is a radius of curvature of a tenth surface of the fifth lens).” However, “|R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10| < |R5|, 2 < |R2/R5| < 7” is not a single equation and it is unclear how such an expression should be interpreted. Specifically, it is unclear if the claim is requiring for each of “|R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10|” to be less than |R5| or if the expression is met if any single value is less than |R5|. Moreover, it is unclear if the claim is intended to require 2 < |R2/R5| < 7 in addition to the other expressions, or as an alternative. Further, it is impossible for |R2| < |R5| and simultaneously satisfy 2 < |R2/R5| < 7. Furthermore, as each lens only has a first or a second surface, it is unclear how to define a third surface of a second lens, a fourth surface of a second lens, a fifth surface of a third lens, a sixth surface of a third lens, a seventh surface of a fourth lens, an eighth surface of a fourth lens, a ninth surface of a fifth lens, or a tenth surface of a fifth lens. Additionally, as the claim does not positively require five lenses, it is unclear if any optical system having less than five lenses would necessarily meet the claimed condition. Further, as no lenses are defined in any specific order, any surface of the optical system could be defined to be any of the values R1-R10.
For the purposes of examination, any optical system with R5 being greater than another R value, or satisfying 2 < |R2/R5| < 7 will be interpreted as meeting the claimed limitations.
Claims 9 and 19 recite “In Equation 10, BFL_1 refers to a distance in the optical axis direction from a vertex of the image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode to an image surface of an image sensor, BFL_2 is a distance in a direction of the optical axis from a vertex of an image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode to the image surface of the image sensor.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the image side of a last lens” and it is unclear how “a last lens” should be defined. Specifically, it is unclear if the “last lens” should be a last lens in the optical system, a last lens in the first lens group, a last lens in the second lens group, or defined some other way. For the purposes of examination “the image side of a last lens” will be interpreted as a most image side surface of the second lens group.
Claims 10 and 20 recite that “In Equation 12, TD_ 1 is a distance between an image side of a first lens and an image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, TD_1 is a distance between the image side of the first lens and the image side of the last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode.” However, it is unclear how the “first lens” and the “last lens” should be defined. It is unclear if the first and last lenses should be first lenses and last lenses in the optical system, in the first lens group, in the second lens group, or some other combination. For the purposes of examination, the first lens will be interpreted as a first lens of the first lens group and the image side surface of the last lens will be interpreted as a most image side surface of the second lens group.
Claim 12 recites “In Equation 17, md1 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 means 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.” However, it is unclear if the claim is intended to define the “first mode” of claim 11 to be the “infinity mode” and the “second mode” from claim 11 to be the “short-distance mode.” Moreover, as the distance from the first mode to the second mode would be opposite the distance from the second mode to the first mode, md1 would not be equal depending on how it is defined. Thus it is unclear how md1 can be 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). Further, it is unclear that the second lens group should positively move, and it is unclear if the claim is intended to further require such a movement. Furthermore, it is unclear how ImgH can be “a vertical distance of the optical axis (OA)” as the optical axis is defined to be the axis of the system and it is unclear what the distance is being defined from. Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes “a 0 field area of the image sensor unit to a 1.0 field area of the image sensor unit” as it is unclear how to define a “0 field area” or a “1.0 field area” or how the “vertical distance” would be different in either case. For the purposes of examination, md1 will be interpreted as a change in distance between the first lens group and the second lens group when moving from a first state to a second state and ImgH will be interpreted as a height of an image on the image sensor unit from the optical axis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/263,370 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1 and 11 are met by the details of reference claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 11 which require the claimed lens configurations meeting equations on the focal lengths of the first and second lens groups and the distance between the lens groups. Additionally, the limitations of dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 are met by the details of reference claims 1-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0063704; hereinafter – “Son”).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11 – Each of Son’s second, fourth, fifth, and sixth embodiments read on the claimed configuration and equations, but calculations are shown for the second embodiment only) an optical system comprising:
a first lens group (G2) and a second lens group (G3) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side and wherein each of the first and second lens groups includes at least one lens (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0164-0165, 0204-0205, 0224-0225, and 0245-0246),
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. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0173, 0213, 0234, and 0255),
wherein a number of lenses of the first lens group is different from a number of lenses of the second lens group (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0165, 0176-0180, 0205, 0216-0220, 0225, 0237-0241, 0246, and 0258-0262),
wherein the first lens group includes at least one lens having a non-circular shape (See e.g. Figs. 13-16; Paragraphs 0079-0081, 0085-0086, and 0270, e.g. Paragraph 0079: “all lenses of the optical imaging system may be formed to have a non-circular shape”), and
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group satisfy equations 1 and 8 below:
[Equation 1] 0.6 < |f_1/f_2| < 1.4 (f_1 is the focal length of the first lens group, and f_2 is the focal length of the second lens group) (Ex. 2 – Paragraph 0173: |f_1/f_2| = 4.288/5.758 = 0.74, within Applicant’s claimed range),
[Equation 8] 2 < T34_2/T34_1 < 7 (In Equation 8, T34_1 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a first mode, T34_2 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a second mode) (Ex. 2 – Table 5: T34_2/T34_1 = 1.253/0.500 = 2.5, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, Son teaches (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11 – Each of Son’s second, fourth, fifth, and sixth embodiments read on the claimed configuration and equations, but calculations are shown for the second embodiment only) an optical module comprising:
an optical system (e.g. 200) (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0164-0165, 0204-0205, 0224-0225, and 0245-0246); and
an image sensor unit (e.g. 290) where light passing through the optical system is incident (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0164-0165, 0204-0205, 0224-0225, and 0245-0246);
wherein the optical system comprises a first lens group (G2) and a second lens group (G3) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side and wherein each of the first and second lens groups includes at least one lens, and wherein each lens has an object side and an image side (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0164-0165, 0204-0205, 0224-0225, and 0245-0246),
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. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0173, 0213, 0234, and 0255),
wherein the first lens group (G2) includes a first lens (230, 430, 530, 630), a second lens (240, 440, 540, 640), and a third lens (250, 450, 550, 650) sequentially arranged along the optical axis in a direction from the object side to the image side (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0165, 0176-0180, 0205, 0216-0220, 0225, 0237-0241, 0246, and 0258-0262),
wherein the second lens group (G3) includes a fourth lens (260, 460, 560, 660) and a fifth lens (270, 470, 570, 670) sequentially arranged along the optical axis from the object side to the image side (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0165, 0176-0180, 0205, 0216-0220, 0225, 0237-0241, 0246, and 0258-0262),
wherein the first lens group includes at least one lens having a non-circular shape (See e.g. Figs. 13-16; Paragraphs 0079-0081, 0085-0086, and 0270, e.g. Paragraph 0079: “all lenses of the optical imaging system may be formed to have a non-circular shape”), and
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group satisfy equations 1 and 8 below:
[Equation 1] 0.6 < |f_1/f_2| < 1.4 (f_1 is the focal length of the first lens group, and f_2 is the focal length of the second lens group) (Ex. 2 – Paragraph 0173: |f_1/f_2| = 4.288/5.758 = 0.74, within Applicant’s claimed range),
[Equation 8] 2 < T34_2/T34_1 < 7 (In Equation 8, T34_1 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a first mode, T34_2 is a distance between a third lens and a fourth lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in a second mode) (Ex. 2 – Table 5: T34_2/T34_1 = 1.253/0.500 = 2.5, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1, as above.
Son further teaches that the first lens group (G2) includes a first lens (230, 430, 530, 630), a second lens (240, 440, 540, 640), and a third lens (250, 450, 550, 650) sequentially arranged along the optical axis in a direction from the object side to the image side (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0165, 0176-0180, 0205, 0216-0220, 0225, 0237-0241, 0246, and 0258-0262), and the second lens group (G3) includes a fourth lens (260, 460, 560, 660) and a fifth lens (270, 470, 570, 670) sequentially arranged along the optical axis from the object side to the image side (See e.g. Figs. 3, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0165, 0176-0180, 0205, 0216-0220, 0225, 0237-0241, 0246, and 0258-0262).
Regarding claim 12, Son teaches the optical module according to claim 11, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical module satisfies Equation 17 below: [Equation 17] 0.1 < md1/ImgH < 0.4 (In Equation 17, md1 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 means 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) (Ex. 2 – Table 5 and Paragraph 0170: md1/ImgH = 0.5/2.35 = 0.21, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the first lens group (G2) has positive (+) refractive power, and the second lens group (G3) has negative (-) refractive power (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraph 0173).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the first lens group and the second lens group satisfy Equation 13 below: [Equation 13] 1 < EFL 1/EFL 2 < 3 (In Equation 13, EFL 1 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, and EFL 2 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode) (Ex 2 – Paragraphs 0171-0172: EFL_1/EFL_2 = 15/8 = 1.875, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 2 below: [Equation 2] |P5|<|P4|<|P3| (In Equation 2, P3, P4, and P5 mean refractive powers of the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens, respectively) (See e.g. Fig. 3; Table 4).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 3 below: [Equation 3] 0.3 < EFL_2/f5 /EFL_1/f5 < 0.9 (In Equation 3, EFL_1 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, EFL_2 is an effective focal length at the maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode, and f5 means a focal length of a fifth lens) (Ex 2 – Paragraphs 0171-0172: EFL_2/f5/EFL_1/f5 = 8/15 = 0.53, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 6 below:
[Equation 6] |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R5|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R10| < |R9|,
20 < |R9/R10| < 30
(In Equation 6, R1 is a radius of curvature of a first surface of a first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of a second surface of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of a third surface of a second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of a fourth surface of the second lens, R5 is a radius of curvature of a fifth surface of the third lens, R6 is a radius of curvature of a sixth surface of the third lens, R7 is a radius of curvature of a seventh surface of the fourth lens, R8 is a radius of curvature of a eighth surface of the fourth lens, R9 is a radius of curvature of a ninth surface of a fifth lens, R10 is a radius of curvature of a tenth surface of the fifth lens) (Ex. 2 – Table 4: |R9| = -39.084927 > |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R5|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R10|).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 7 below
[Equation 7] |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10| < |R5|,
2 < |R2/R5| < 7
(In Equation 7, R1 is a radius of curvature of a first surface of a first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of a second surface of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of a third surface of a second lens. R4 is a radius of curvature of a fourth surface of the second lens, R5 is a radius of curvature of a fifth surface of the third lens, R6 is a radius of curvature of a sixth surface of the third lens, R7 is a radius of curvature of a seventh surface of the fourth lens, R8 is a radius of curvature of a eighth surface of the fourth lens, R9 is a radius of curvature of a ninth surface of a fifth lens, R10 is a radius of curvature of a tenth surface of the fifth lens) (Ex. 6, Table 16: |R5| = 35.808245 > |R1|, |R2|, |R3|, |R4|, |R6|, |R7|, |R8|, |R9|, |R10|).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 10 below: [Equation 10] 0.5 < BFL 1/BFL_2 < 3 (In Equation 10, BFL_1 refers to a distance in the optical axis direction from a vertex of the image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode to an image surface of an image sensor, BFL_2 is a distance in a direction of the optical axis from a vertex of an image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode to the image surface of the image sensor sensor) (Ex. 2 – Tables 4 and 5: BFL_1/BFL_2 = 6.231/2.3 = 2.71, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Son teaches the optical system according to claim 1 and the optical module according to claim 11, respectively, as above.
Son further teaches that the optical system satisfies Equation 12 below: [Equation 12] 0.5 < TD_1/TD 2 < 1.2 (In Equation 12, TD_ 1 is a distance between an image side of a first lens and an image side of a last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the first mode, TD_1 is a distance between the image side of the first lens and the image side of the last lens at a maximum moving distance of the second lens group in the second mode) (Ex. 2 – Table 4: TD_1/TD_2 = 4.695/5.448 = 0.86, within Applicant’s claimed range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tang et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0075163) teaches an image capturing lens system, image capturing unit, and electronic device with two lens groups having a similar configuration.
Kim et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0063702) teaches an optical imaging system having lens groups meeting similar conditions.
Moon (U.S. Patent No. 5,982,560) teaches a compact zoom lens system having two lens groups of a similar arrangement.
Shibata (U.S. Patent No. 5,654,830) teaches a zoom lens system having two lens groups of a similar configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights