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
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, with respect to Applicant’s argument against the rejections for the chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor, Applicant claims that the “‘chief ray angle of the image sensor’ is understood in the art as the angle from the optical axis to the periphery of the image sensor” in the second paragraph under “Rejections Relating to “Chief Ray Angle”. By this definition, since the chief ray angle is written with respect to the image sensor, then as claimed it would be a property of the image sensor, not the lens system.
Further, Applicant cites paragraph 0040 of the instant specification and argues that the ray incident on the image sensor may be at an angle of 45◦, though where this angle is measured (as in, from the optical axis or from the surface of the image sensor) is not specified in the specification nor in the arguments. This could mean that the CRA of the image sensor is the acute angle, however the range for the CRA is specified as greater than 40◦. If the intention was to have CRA with an angle up to 45◦ as stated in paragraph 0040 of the specification, then the claimed range would reflect this. However, paragraph 0019 of the specification specifically states that the CRA may be at 45◦ or more. The specification does not discuss whether the acute angle or the obtuse angle specifically is utilized – which is further proven with the open-ended range which was moved from claims 3 and 20 into claims 1 and 16 that states the CRA is greater than 40◦. If the CRA is meant to be only the acute angle such that it would be up to 45◦ as argued, then why is this property both not reflected in the claimed range and also contradicted by paragraph 0019? The claimed range encompasses both acute and obtuse angles. Therefore, since the specification does not indicate one angle versus another, and the drawings do not label the CRA, the 112(b) rejection over the CRA is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the chief ray angle of claims 1 and 16 and the flange back length distance between the image sensor and the lens mount of claims 6 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 4-10, 16-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, claims state the limitation “chief ray angle of the image sensor” in the last line of claims 1 and 16. This limitation is indefinite because image sensors themselves do not have chief rays, thus it is unclear what such language is directed to. The specification does not define where the angle is between - additionally, if it is assumed a ray is incident on the image sensor, there are two angles – the acute angle and the obtuse angle. Of these two angles, which is Applicant’s “ray angle”? The specification does not indicate whether the ray angle is supposed to be only the acute angle (as could be inferred from paragraph 0040), only the obtuse angle (as could be inferred from paragraph 0019), or both, and since the open-ended range encompasses both of these angles, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(B) II). For purposes of compact prosecution, the obtuse angle incident on the image sensor is assumed to be the claimed chief ray angle.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, claims state the limitation “flange back length” in the first line of claim 6 and in line 5 of claim 20. This limitation is unclear because the lens mount that the distance from the image sensor is being measured from is still neither specified in the specification nor shown in the figures. Is this a lens mount within a specific camera? Where is the lens mount? The specification as cited by Applicant merely states the value of having a shortened back focal length, but gives no suggestion or details as to how this value is measured or where the lens mount is in relation to any of the disclosed structure. Due to the nature of this claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(B) II). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as a flange back length or a lens mount is disclosed in art, this limitation will be considered met.
Also, claims 2, 4-10, and 17-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huh et. al US 20210063690 (hereinafter “Huh”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Huh teaches an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens (Huh fig. 9 - 510) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a second lens (Huh fig. 9 - 520) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a third lens (Huh fig. 9 - 530) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a fourth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 540) having positive or negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a fifth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 550) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a sixth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 560) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Huh fig. 9 - 570) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Huh fig. 9),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by twice the image height (IH) is less than 0.56 (Huh abstract – teaches a range TTL/(2*IMG HT) < 0.69 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)), and
wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40° (since the obtuse angle is assumed to be the chief ray angle, this angle is necessarily over 40 ◦, see also the annotated Huh fig. 9 below, with a supplemental arrow added to the top of the image sensor merely for clarity of the angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Huh further teaches wherein each of the first to seventh lenses comprises plastic material (Huh para. 0050), and
has an aspherical surface (Huh para. 0051).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et. al US 20210063690 (hereinafter “Huh”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Huh teaches an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens (Huh fig. 9 - 510) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a second lens (Huh fig. 9 - 520) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a third lens (Huh fig. 9 - 530) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a fourth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 540) having positive or negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a fifth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 550) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a sixth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 560) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Huh fig. 9 - 570) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Huh fig. 9),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system, and
wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40° (since the obtuse angle is assumed to be the chief ray angle, this angle is necessarily over 40 ◦, see also the annotated Huh fig. 9 below, with a supplemental arrow added to the top of the image sensor merely for clarity of the angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by twice the image height (IH) is less than 0.56 (Huh abstract and para. 0059 – teaches a range TTL/(2*IMG HT) < 0.69 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of having an optical system with a reduced size and an increased focal length, which allows for a high resolution (Huh para. 0180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TTL/(2*IH) < 0.56 in order to have an optical system with a reduced size and an increased focal length, which allows for a high resolution (Huh para. 0180).
Regarding claim 2, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Huh further teaches wherein each of the first to seventh lenses comprises plastic material (Huh para. 0050), and
has an aspherical surface (Huh para. 0051).
Regarding claim 5, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Huh further teaches wherein a size of an aperture through which light is incident on the first lens is about 3.4 as calculated, which divided by the image height (IH) is about 0.4, which lies just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have an aperture divided by the image height within a range greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Huh further teaches a range 1.0 < TTL/f < 1.10, which lies just outside the claimed range of the lens length (TTL) divided by an effective focal length (EFL) is greater than 1.15 and less than 1.2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have lens length (TTL) divided by an effective focal length (EFL) is greater than 1.15 and less than 1.2, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Huh further teaches wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fourth lens (540) is convex,
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fifth lens (550) is convex,
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the sixth lens (560) is convex, and
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the seventh lens (570) is convex (see annotated Huh fig. 9 below – shows edges of the fourth through seventh lenses being convex on the object side).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Huh further teaches wherein a size of an effective diameter of the first lens divided by a size of an effective diameter of the second lens is 1.17 as calculated, which lies just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Seo et. al US 20180045918 (hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Huh teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Huh does not specify a lens mount nor a flange back length.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches wherein a flange back length (FBL) is a distance from the image sensor to a lens mount and is greater than 0.7 mm and less than 0.9 mm (Seo para. 0059 – a flange back length ranging from 0.8mm to 1.2mm, which overlaps the claimed range, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of preventing the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flange back length between 0.7mm and 0.9mm in order to prevent the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
Claim 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et. al US 20030020814 (hereinafter “Ono”) of record, in further view of Huh et. al US 20210063690 (hereinafter “Huh”) of record.
Regarding claim 16, Ono teaches an electronic device comprising:
a camera module (Ono fig. 2 – 20 which contains 21, see also fig. 6 - 21) comprising a first camera configured to capture a first image (Ono fig. 6 – 21a), the first camera comprising a first angle of view (Ono para. 0058), and a second camera configured to capture a second image (Ono fig. 6 – 21b), the second camera comprising a second angle of view (Ono para. 0058), narrower than the first angle of view (Ono para. 0058 – 21a described as having a wide-angle, see also fig. 5 example C, the first capturing optical system has a wide-angle while the second capturing optical system has a telephoto zoom);
a memory (Ono fig. 2 – 64, 66, 68) configured to store software code related to a digital image stabilization module (Ono para. 0039 – Examiner’s Note: what the memory stores does not define the memory device itself, therefore this limitation is considered met as the disclosed memory stores information);
a display (Ono fig. 2 - 100) configured to display the second image captured by the second camera (Ono para. 0044);
an input/output interface (Ono fig. 2 - 72) configured to input/output data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041);
a communication interface (Ono fig. 2 - 80) configured to communicate with an external device (Ono para. 0043); and
at least one processing circuit (Ono fig. 2 - 60) configured to control the camera module (20 which contains 21), the memory (64, 66, 68), the display (100), inputting/outputting of data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041), and communication with an external device (Ono para. 0043), and to execute the software code (Ono para. 0036-0043),
wherein at least one of the first camera (21a) and the second camera (21b) includes an imaging lens system.
Ono does not specifically disclose a 7 or 8 lens system, however Ono does teach that the first and second cameras 21a and 21b each include a lens system (see Ono fig. 6).
In the same field of endeavor, Huh teaches an imaging lens system comprising 7 lenses or 8 lenses sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Huh fig. 9 – 510 through 570), the s7 lenses or 8 lenses comprising:
a first lens (Huh fig. 9 - 510) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a second lens (Huh fig. 9 - 520) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a third lens (Huh fig. 9 - 530) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive),
a fourth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 540) having positive or negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a fifth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 550) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
a sixth lens (Huh fig. 9 - 560) having positive refractive power (Huh table 9 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Huh fig. 9 - 570) having negative refractive power (Huh table 9 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Huh fig. 9),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system, and
wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40° (since the obtuse angle is assumed to be the chief ray angle, this angle is necessarily over 40 ◦, see also the annotated Huh fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by twice the image height (IH) is less than 0.56 (Huh abstract and para. 0059 – teaches a range TTL/(2*IMG HT) < 0.69 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of having an optical system with a reduced size and an increased focal length, which allows for a high resolution (Huh para. 0180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TTL/(2*IH) < 0.56 in order to have an optical system with a reduced size and an increased focal length, which allows for a high resolution (Huh para. 0180).
Regarding claim 17, Ono and Huh teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Huh further teaches wherein a refractive index of a second lens in the imaging lens system that is adjacent to the first lens is 1.64 or more (Huh table 9 – second lens has a refractive index of 1.679).
Regarding claim 18, Ono and Huh teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Huh further teaches wherein both surfaces of a lens adjacent to a last one of the lenses in the imaging lens system have at least two inflection points (Huh fig. 9 - 560).
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhang et. al US 20180188482 (hereinafter “Jhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Jhang teaches an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 3) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a second lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 4) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
a third lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 5) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a fourth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 6) having positive or negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a fifth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 7) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
a sixth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 8) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 9) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Jhang fig. 34),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system.
Jhang further teaches wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40° (Jhang teaches all the necessary structure and thus also has the properties of the structure (MPEP §2112.01). Additionally, the angle of the central ray in fig. 38 appears to meet this limitation), however Jhang does not specify a value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40°, 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Jhang further teaches a value for TTL/(2*IH) ≈ 0.83 as calculated from fig. 36, which lies just outside the claimed range of less than 0.56.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value for TTL/(2*IH) less than 0.56, 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.
Regarding claim 2, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Jhang further teaches
wherein each of the first to seventh lenses comprises plastic material (Jhang para. 0073), and
has an aspherical surface (Jhang fig. 37, see also para. 0007-0008 and equation 00001).
Regarding claim 5, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Jhang further teaches wherein a size of an aperture through which light is incident on the first lens is 1.4 as calculated divided by the image height (IH) is 0.4, which lies just outside the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Jhang further teaches wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by an effective focal length (EFL) is 1.35, which lies just outside of the claimed range greater than 1.15 and less than 1.2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the lens length (TTL) divided by an effective focal length (EFL) is greater than 1.15 and less than 1.2, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Jhang further teaches wherein an absolute value of a maximum height value (Max Sag) from an arbitrary point on an aspherical surface of the seventh lens in an optical axis direction to an apex of the aspherical surface is about 0.6 as calculated, divided by a size of an effective diameter of the seventh lens which is about 5.7 as calculated, is about 0.1, which lies just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Jhang further teaches wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fourth lens (6) is convex (Jhang fig. 34, at optical axis),
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fifth lens (7) is convex (see annotated Jhang fig. 34 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
447
455
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the sixth lens (8) is convex (Jhang fig. 34, at optical axis), and
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the seventh lens (9) is convex (Jhang fig. 34, at optical axis).
Regarding claim 10, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Jhang further teaches wherein a size of an effective diameter of the first lens is about 1.5 as calculated divided by a size of an effective diameter of the second lens which is about 1.3 as calculated, which gives a value of about 1.1 as calculated, which is just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhang as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Seo et. al US 20180045918 (hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Jhang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Jhang does not specify a lens mount nor a flange back length.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches wherein a flange back length (FBL) is a distance from the image sensor to a lens mount and is greater than 0.7 mm and less than 0.9 mm (Seo para. 0059 – a flange back length ranging from 0.8mm to 1.2mm, which overlaps the claimed range, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of preventing the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flange back length between 0.7mm and 0.9mm in order to prevent the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et. al US 20030020814 (hereinafter “Ono”) of record, in further view of Jhang et. al US 20180188482 (hereinafter “Jhang”).
Regarding claim 16, Ono teaches an electronic device comprising:
a camera module (Ono fig. 2 – 20 which contains 21, see also fig. 6 - 21) comprising a first camera configured to capture a first image (Ono fig. 6 – 21a), the first camera comprising a first angle of view (Ono para. 0058), and a second camera configured to capture a second image (Ono fig. 6 – 21b), the second camera comprising a second angle of view (Ono para. 0058), narrower than the first angle of view (Ono para. 0058 – 21a described as having a wide-angle, see also fig. 5 example C, the first capturing optical system has a wide-angle while the second capturing optical system has a telephoto zoom);
a memory (Ono fig. 2 – 64, 66, 68) configured to store software code related to a digital image stabilization module (Ono para. 0039 – Examiner’s Note: what the memory stores does not define the memory device itself, therefore this limitation is considered met as the disclosed memory stores information);
a display (Ono fig. 2 - 100) configured to display the second image captured by the second camera (Ono para. 0044);
an input/output interface (Ono fig. 2 - 72) configured to input/output data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041);
a communication interface (Ono fig. 2 - 80) configured to communicate with an external device (Ono para. 0043); and
at least one processing circuit (Ono fig. 2 - 60) configured to control the camera module (20 which contains 21), the memory (64, 66, 68), the display (100), inputting/outputting of data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041), and communication with an external device (Ono para. 0043), and to execute the software code (Ono para. 0036-0043),
wherein at least one of the first camera (21a) and the second camera (21b) includes an imaging lens system.
Ono does not specifically disclose a 7 or 8 lens system, however Ono does teach that the first and second cameras 21a and 21b each include a lens system (see Ono fig. 6).
In the same field of endeavor, Jhang teaches an imaging lens system comprising 7 lenses or 8 lenses sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Jhang fig. 34 – 3-9),
a first lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 3) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a second lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 4) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
a third lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 5) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a fourth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 6) having positive or negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive),
a fifth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 7) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
a sixth lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 8) having positive refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 9) having negative refractive power (Jhang fig. 36 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Jhang fig. 34),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system.
Jhang further teaches wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40° (Jhang teaches all the necessary structure and thus also has the properties of the structure (MPEP §2112.01). Additionally, the angle of the central ray in fig. 38 appears to meet this limitation), however Jhang does not specify a value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40°, 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Jhang further teaches a value for TTL/(2*IH) ≈ 0.83 as calculated from fig. 36, which lies just outside the claimed range of less than 0.56.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value for TTL/(2*IH) less than 0.56, 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.
Regarding claim 17, Ono and Jhang teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Jhang further teaches wherein a refractive index of a second lens (Jhang fig. 34 - 4) in the imaging lens system that is adjacent to the first lens (3) is 1.64 or more (Jhang table 36 – the second lens adjacent to the first lens has a refractive index of 1.642).
Regarding claim 18, Ono and Jhang teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Jhang further teaches wherein both surfaces of a lens adjacent to a last one of the lenses in the imaging lens system have at least two inflection points (Jhang fig. 34 – 8 is adjacent to 9 and has at least two inflection points).
Regarding claim 19, Ono and Jhang teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Jhang further teaches wherein, on both sides of the first lens in the imaging lens system, an absolute value of a maximum height value (Max Sag) from an arbitrary point on an aspherical surface of the first lens in an optical axis direction to an apex of the aspherical surface (Jhang fig. 34, where the max sag is about 0.5 as calculated), divided by a size of an effective diameter of the first lens (Jhang fig. 34, where the effective diameter is about 1.4 as calculated), is about 0.4, is greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45 (Jhang fig. 34, 0.5/1.4 ≈ 0.4 as calculated).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et. al US 20200249437 (hereinafter “Hirano”).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano teaches an imaging lens system comprising:
a first lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L2) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a second lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L3) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
a third lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L4) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a fourth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L5) having positive or negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a fifth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L6) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
a sixth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L7) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L8) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Hirano fig. 34),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by twice the image height (IH) is less than 0.56 (Hirano para. 0050 and eq. 19 teach a range 1.0 < TL/Hmax < 1.8, which would be 0.5 < TL/2Hmax < 0.9 – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of mounting the imaging lens in a thin portable device (Hirano para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TTL/(2*IH) < 0.56 in order to mount the imaging lens in a thin portable device (Hirano para. 0050).
Hirano further teaches wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40
°
(Hirano teaches all the necessary structure and thus also has the properties of the structure (MPEP §2112.01). Additionally, the angle of the central ray in fig. 34 appears to meet this limitation), however Hirano does not specify a value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40°, 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hirano further teaches
wherein each of the first to seventh lenses comprises plastic material (Hirano para. 0059), and
has an aspherical surface (Hirano para. 0060).
Regarding claim 4, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hirano further teaches wherein a half field of view (HFOV) of the image sensor is greater than 40 and less than 50 (Hirano table 23 – HFOV is 40.1◦).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Hirano further teaches wherein a size of an aperture through which light is incident on the first lens is about 1.3 as calculated divided by the image height (IH) which is 4.58 as calculated, which gives a value of 0.3, which lies just outside the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.3, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hirano further teaches wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by an effective focal length (EFL) is greater than 1.15 and less than 1.2 (Hirano para. 0047 and eq. 18 – teach 1.0 < TL/f < 1.4 – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of suitably downsizing the imaging lens (Hirano para. 0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TTL/(2*IH) < 0.56 in order to suitably downsize the imaging lens (Hirano para. 0047).
Regarding claim 8, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Hirano further teaches wherein an absolute value of a maximum height value (Max Sag) from an arbitrary point on an aspherical surface of the seventh lens in an optical axis direction to an apex of the aspherical surface is about 0.7 as calculated, divided by a size of an effective diameter of the seventh lens which is about 5.6 as calculated, is about 0.1, which lies just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45, 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.
Regarding claim 9, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Hirano further teaches wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fourth lens (L6) is convex (Hirano fig. 34),
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the fifth lens (L7) is convex (Hirano fig. 34),
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the sixth lens (L8) is convex (Hirano fig. 34), and
wherein an edge of an object side surface of the seventh lens (L9) is convex (Hirano fig. 34).
Regarding claim 10, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Hirano further teaches wherein a size of an effective diameter of the first lens is about 2.7 as calculated divided by a size of an effective diameter of the second lens which is about 2.4 as calculated, which gives a value of about 1.1 as calculated, which is just outside the claimed range of a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a value greater than 1.25 and less than 1.35, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Seo et. al US 20180045918 (hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Hirano teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1.
Hirano does not specify a lens mount nor a flange back length.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches wherein a flange back length (FBL) is a distance from the image sensor to a lens mount and is greater than 0.7 mm and less than 0.9 mm (Seo para. 0059 – a flange back length ranging from 0.8mm to 1.2mm, which overlaps the claimed range, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of preventing the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flange back length between 0.7mm and 0.9mm in order to prevent the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
Claims 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et. al US 20030020814 (hereinafter “Ono”) of record, in further view of Hirano et. al US 20200249437 (hereinafter “Hirano”).
Regarding claim 16, Ono teaches an electronic device comprising:
a camera module (Ono fig. 2 – 20 which contains 21, see also fig. 6 - 21) comprising a first camera configured to capture a first image (Ono fig. 6 – 21a), the first camera comprising a first angle of view (Ono para. 0058), and a second camera configured to capture a second image (Ono fig. 6 – 21b), the second camera comprising a second angle of view (Ono para. 0058), narrower than the first angle of view (Ono para. 0058 – 21a described as having a wide-angle, see also fig. 5 example C, the first capturing optical system has a wide-angle while the second capturing optical system has a telephoto zoom);
a memory (Ono fig. 2 – 64, 66, 68) configured to store software code related to a digital image stabilization module (Ono para. 0039 – Examiner’s Note: what the memory stores does not define the memory device itself, therefore this limitation is considered met as the disclosed memory stores information);
a display (Ono fig. 2 - 100) configured to display the second image captured by the second camera (Ono para. 0044);
an input/output interface (Ono fig. 2 - 72) configured to input/output data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041);
a communication interface (Ono fig. 2 - 80) configured to communicate with an external device (Ono para. 0043); and
at least one processing circuit (Ono fig. 2 - 60) configured to control the camera module (20 which contains 21), the memory (64, 66, 68), the display (100), inputting/outputting of data with an input/output device (Ono para. 0041), and communication with an external device (Ono para. 0043), and to execute the software code (Ono para. 0036-0043),
wherein at least one of the first camera (21a) and the second camera (21b) includes an imaging lens system.
Ono does not specifically disclose a 7 or 8 lens system, however Ono does teach that the first and second cameras 21a and 21b each include a lens system (see Ono fig. 6).
In the same field of endeavor, Hirano teaches an imaging lens system comprising 7 lenses or 8 lenses sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Hirano fig. 34 – 2-8),
a first lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L2) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a second lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L3) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
a third lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L4) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a fourth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L5) having positive or negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive),
a fifth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L6) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
a sixth lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L7) having positive refractive power (Hirano table 23 - positive), and
a seventh lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L8) having negative refractive power (Hirano table 23 - negative),
wherein the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side of the imaging lens system to an image side of the imaging lens system (Hirano fig. 34),
wherein a lens length (TTL) of the imaging lens system is a distance from an incident surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein an image height (IH) is a diagonal diameter of an image sensor at the imaging plane on the image side of the imaging lens system,
wherein the lens length (TTL) divided by twice the image height (IH) is less than 0.56 (Hirano para. 0050 and eq. 19 teach a range 1.0 < TL/Hmax < 1.8, which would be 0.5 < TL/2Hmax < 0.9 – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of mounting the imaging lens in a thin portable device (Hirano para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have TTL/(2*IH) < 0.56 in order to mount the imaging lens in a thin portable device (Hirano para. 0050).
Hirano further teaches wherein a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40
°
(Hirano teaches all the necessary structure and thus also has the properties of the structure (MPEP §2112.01). Additionally, the angle of the central ray in fig. 34 appears to meet this limitation), however Hirano does not specify a value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a chief ray angle (CRA) of the image sensor is greater than 40°, 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Ono and Hirano teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Hirano further teaches wherein a refractive index of a second lens (Hirano fig. 34 – L3) in the imaging lens system that is adjacent to the first lens (L2) is 1.64 or more (Hirano table 23 – the second lens adjacent to the first lens has a refractive index of 1.6707).
Regarding claim 19, Ono and Hirano teach the electronic device of claim 16.
Hirano further teaches wherein, on both sides of the first lens in the imaging lens system, an absolute value of a maximum height value (Max Sag) from an arbitrary point on an aspherical surface of the first lens in an optical axis direction to an apex of the aspherical surface (Hirano fig. 34, where the max sag is about 0.4 as calculated), divided by a size of an effective diameter of the first lens (Hirano fig. 34, where the effective diameter is about 2.7 as calculated), is about 0.1, which lies just outside the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed range of greater than 0.25 and less than 0.45, 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Hirano as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Seo et. al US 20180045918 (hereinafter “Seo”) of record.
Regarding claim 20, Ono and Hirano teach the electronic device of claim 16, and Hirano further teaches wherein a half field of view (HFOV) of the image sensor is greater than 40 and less than 50 (Hirano table 23 – HFOV is 40.1◦).
Hirano does not specify a lens mount nor a flange back length.
In the same field of endeavor, Seo teaches wherein a flange back length (FBL) is a distance from the image sensor to a lens mount and is greater than 0.7 mm and less than 0.9 mm (Seo para. 0059 – a flange back length ranging from 0.8mm to 1.2mm, which overlaps the claimed range, which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of preventing the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flange back length between 0.7mm and 0.9mm in order to prevent the optical lens assembly from being unnecessarily large (Seo para. 0059).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights