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 .
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 07/10/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, a three lens system with positive, positive, and negative refractive powers as shown in Figs. 1-3, 8, and 11, in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific arrangements of lenses, does not reasonably provide enablement for all combinations of lenses satisfying the claimed conditions. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors considered when determining if the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue include, but are not limited to: 1) nature of the invention, 2) state of the prior art, 3) relative skill of those in the art, 4) level of predictability, 5) existence of working samples, 6) breadth of claims, 7) amount of direction or guidance by the inventor, and 8) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The claims recite an imaging lens comprising at least first, second, and third lenses, each having positive, negative, or zero optical power and satisfying conditions. As such, the claims encompass an infinite number of lens combinations of lenses that could satisfy the conditions, and 27 possible combinations of three lenses alone.
The nature of the invention is drawn to optical design and optical systems. The state of the art (See e.g. U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0092731) discloses optical systems with a specific number of lenses in a specific arrangement of optical powers. The level of skill in the art is related to the areas of optical design, which is high due to the nature of optical systems.
There are twelve examples in Applicant’s specification, each having a positive first lens. The examples represent just five different combinations of the infinite number of possible lens arrangements. Applicants’ claims are excessively broad due, in part, to the complex and diverse nature of optical design.
Therefore, based on the discussions above concerning the art’s recognition that lenses must have a specific arrangement, the specification fails to teach the skilled artisan how to make the claimed system without resorting to undue experimentation to determine how to make all possible optical imaging lenses encompassed by the claim and satisfying the claimed conditions.
As a non-limiting example, the instant claims encompass a system of three negative lenses meeting the claimed conditions. However, the specification provides no detail on how to make such a system.
Due to the large quantity of experimentation necessary to determine the arrangement of lenses, the lack of direction/guidance presented in the specification regarding same, the absence of sufficient working examples directed to same, the complex nature of the invention, the state of the prior art establishing that lenses must be provided with a specific optical arrangement, and the breadth of the claims which fail to recite any optical powers for the lenses, undue experimentation would be required of the skilled artisan to make and/or use the claimed invention in its full scope.
Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to include specific arrangements of powers consistent with the elected species, and to include, at least, a positive first lens, consistent with each disclosed example.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claims 12-18 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dainty et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0092731; hereinafter – “Dainty”).
Regarding claim 1, Dainty teaches an imaging lens, comprising:
a first lens (104-1), a second lens (104-2) and a third lens (104-3) arranged in order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063); and
an aperture stop (102) disposed between the object side and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0039-0041, 0060-0062, and 0067), wherein the second lens and the third lens are aspheric lenses (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0062-0063 and 0078-0079), and the imaging lens satisfies the following conditions:
(1) 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm (See e.g. Fig. 3: dBFL = 4.648mm – 4.640mm = 0.08mm, within Applicant’s claimed range); and
(2) 1 < DL/LT < 1.79 (See e.g. Fig. 4: DL/LT = 2.769/2.700 = 1.03, within Applicant’s claimed range),
where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0068-0069), DL is a lens diameter of the third lens, LT is a distance measured on the optical axis of the imaging lens between an object-side surface of the first lens and an image-side surface of the third lens (See e.g. Fig. 4 where DL is given to be 2.769 mm and LT is calculated to be 2.700 mm from the values of the thickness for surfaces 4-7).
Additionally, while Dainty explicitly teaches that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm since Dainty explicitly teaches a value of the focal length of 4.640mm for visible light defined to be from 400 to 650 nm, inclusive of 587nm (Paragraph 0051) and a value of the focal length of 4.648mm for IR light defined to be from centered about 940 nm (Paragraphs 0053-0054), Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on dBFL. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Regarding claim 2, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a center part of the object-side surface of the first lens (104-1) is convex, and a center part of the image-side surface of the third lens (104-3) is concave (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 3, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that the imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.58 < D1/LT < 1.17 (See e.g. Fig. 4: D1/LT = 2.922/2.700 = 1.08, within Applicant’s claimed range), where D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens (See e.g. Fig. 4 where D1 is given to be 2.922 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a total number of lenses with refractive powers of the imaging lens is three, four or five (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 6, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that an F-number of the imaging lens ranges from 1.6 to 2.4 (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0054 and 0073), and a horizontal field of view of the imaging lens ranges from 40 to 67 degrees (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 8, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063). Specifically, Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemitsu et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0304764; hereinafter – “Shigemitsu”) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0329179; hereinafter – “Chang”).
Regarding claim 1, Shigemitsu teaches an imaging lens, comprising:
a first lens (L1), a second lens (L2) and a third lens (L3) arranged in order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053); and
an aperture stop (2) disposed between the object side and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053), wherein the second lens and the third lens are aspheric lenses (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053 and 0060-0062), and the imaging lens satisfies the following condition:
(2) 1 < DL/LT < 1.79 (See e.g. Fig. 7: DL/LT = 2.82/2.40 = 1.18, within Applicant’s claimed range),
where DL is a lens diameter of the third lens, LT is a distance measured on the optical axis of the imaging lens between an object-side surface of the first lens and an image-side surface of the third lens (See e.g. Fig. 7 where DL is given to be 2*1.41mm = 2.82mm and LT is calculated to be 2.40 mm from the values of the thickness for L1-L3).
Shigemitsu fails to explicitly disclose that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity.
However, Chang teaches an optical image capturing system comprising a first lens (110), a second lens (120), and a third lens (130), wherein dBFL < 0.10mm where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0012, 0017, and 0043-0045).
Chang teaches this range on dBFL in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” (Paragraph 0007) and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products” (Paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu such that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm as suggested by Chang in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products,” as in Chang (Paragraphs 0006-0007), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claim 11, Shigemitsu teaches an imaging lens, comprising:
a first lens (L1), wherein the first lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a magnified side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053);
a second lens (L2) with a refractive power (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053);
a third lens (L3), wherein the third lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a minified side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053); and
an aperture stop (2) disposed between the magnified side and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053), wherein the imaging lens includes at least two aspheric lenses (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053 and 0060-0062) and satisfies the following condition:
0.48 < D1/DL < 0.77 (See e.g. Fig. 7: D1/DL = 0.504/0.970 = 0.52, within Applicant’s claimed range),
where D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens, and DL is a lens diameter of the third lens (See e.g. Fig. 7).
Shigemitsu fails to explicitly disclose that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity.
However, Chang teaches an optical image capturing system comprising a first lens (110), a second lens (120), and a third lens (130), wherein dBFL < 0.10mm where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0012, 0017, and 0043-0045).
Chang teaches this range on dBFL in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” (Paragraph 0007) and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products” (Paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu such that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm as suggested by Chang in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products,” as in Chang (Paragraphs 0006-0007), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that a center part of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1) is convex, and a center part of the image-side surface of the third lens (L3) is concave (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that a total number of lenses with refractive powers of the imaging lens is three, four or five (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that an F-number of the imaging lens is 2.8 (See e.g. Fig. 13), and a horizontal field of view of the imaging lens ranges from 40 to 67 degrees (See e.g. Fig. 13).
Shigemitsu fails to explicitly disclose that the F-number of the imaging lens ranges from 1.6 to 2.4.
However, Chang further teaches that the F-number of the imaging lens ranges from 1 to 10 (Paragraphs 0043-0045) in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” (Paragraph 0007) and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products” (Paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu such that the F-number of the imaging lens ranges from 1.6 to 2.4 as suggested by Chang in order “to capture image with respect to light sources having wavelengths of both visible and infrared ranges” and “to further increase the amount of light admitted into the optical image capturing system, and to improve quality of image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products,” as in Chang (Paragraphs 0006-0007), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053). Specifically, Shigemitsu teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Shigemitsu must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainty in view of Lee (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0031804).
Regarding claim 11, Dainty teaches an imaging lens, comprising:
a first lens (104-1), wherein the first lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a magnified side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063);
a second lens (104-2) with a refractive power (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063);
a third lens (104-3 or 104-4), wherein the third lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a minified side of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063); and
an aperture stop (102) disposed between the magnified side and the second lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraphs 0039-0041, 0060-0062, and 0067), wherein the imaging lens includes at least two aspheric lenses (See e.g. Figs. 2-5; Paragraphs 0062-0063 and 0078-0079) and satisfies the following conditions:
(1) 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm (See e.g. Fig. 3: dBFL = 4.648mm – 4.640mm = 0.08mm, within Applicant’s claimed range); and
(2) D1/DL ≈ 0.8 (See e.g. Fig. 4), where dBFL denotes a distance between a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 587nm and a focal plane formed by light with a wavelength of 940nm on an optical axis of the imaging lens when a subject to be captured is at infinity (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0068-0069), D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens, and DL is a lens diameter of the third lens (See e.g. Fig. 4).
Additionally, while Dainty explicitly teaches that 0.07mm < dBFL < 0.17mm since Dainty explicitly teaches a value of the focal length of 4.640mm for visible light defined to be from 400 to 650 nm, inclusive of 587nm (Paragraph 0051) and a value of the focal length of 4.648mm for IR light defined to be from centered about 940 nm (Paragraphs 0053-0054), Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on dBFL. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Dainty fails to explicitly disclose that 0.48 < D1/DL < 0.77.
However, Lee teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (L1), wherein the first lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a magnified side of the imaging lens; a second lens (L2) with a refractive power; a third lens (L3), wherein the third lens is a lens with a refractive power closest to a minified side of the imaging lens; and an aperture stop (ST) disposed between the magnified side and the second lens, wherein the imaging lens includes at least two aspheric lenses (See e.g. Figs. 1, 5, 7, 9, and 11; Paragraphs 0051, 0053-0058, and 0065-0071) and satisfies the following condition:
0.48 < D1/DL < 0.77 (See e.g. Table 9 for Ex. 5: D1/DL = 0.97/1.61 = 0.60, within Applicant’s claimed range), where D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens, and DL is a lens diameter of the third lens (See e.g. Table 9 in Paragraph 0159).
Lee further teaches a broader range on D1/DL of 0.5 ≤ D1/DL ≤ 1.1 (Paragraph 0079) and teaches providing values of D1 and DL within this range to prevent that “the optical lens assembly may not accept sufficient amount of light, and thus the captured image may be too dark” and to prevent “that the optical lens assembly is unnecessarily large” (Paragraph 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty such that 0.48 < D1/DL < 0.77 as suggested by Dainty to prevent that “the optical lens assembly may not accept sufficient amount of light, and thus the captured image may be too dark” and to prevent “that the optical lens assembly is unnecessarily large,” as in Dainty (Paragraph 0079), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Regarding claim 12, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a center part of the object-side surface of the first lens (104-1) is convex, and a center part of the image-side surface of the third lens (104-3) is concave (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 13, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that the imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.58 < D1/LT < 1.17 (See e.g. Fig. 4: D1/LT = 2.922/2.700 = 1.08, within Applicant’s claimed range), where D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens (See e.g. Fig. 4 where D1 is given to be 2.922 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a total number of lenses with refractive powers of the imaging lens is three, four or five (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063).
Regarding claim 16, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that an F-number of the imaging lens ranges from 1.6 to 2.4 (See e.g. Figs. 3-4; Paragraphs 0054 and 0073), and a horizontal field of view of the imaging lens ranges from 40 to 67 degrees (See e.g. Figs. 1-4; Paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 18, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063). Specifically, Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainty in view of Gong et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0166731; hereinafter – “Gong”).
Regarding claim 4, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty fails to explicitly disclose that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 (See e.g. Figs. 35 and 37; Paragraphs 157-0158).
Gong teaches this refractive index and Abbe number for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty such that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 as in Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that at least one of the second lens (104-2) and the third lens (104-3) is made of plastic (Paragraph 0077).
Dainty fails to explicitly disclose that the first lens is made of glass.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens is made of glass and at least one of the second lens and the third lens is made of plastic (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0142-0143 and 0157-0158).
Gong teaches glass as a suitable material for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty with the glass first lens of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063). Specifically, Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Additionally, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0106, 0163-0164, and 0170).
Gong teaches this thermal drift such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty to have the thermal drift of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim(s) 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainty in view of Lee as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gong.
Regarding claim 14, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty fails to explicitly disclose that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 (See e.g. Figs. 35 and 37; Paragraphs 157-0158).
Gong teaches this refractive index and Abbe number for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty such that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 as in Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that at least one of the second lens (104-2) and the third lens (104-3) is made of plastic (Paragraph 0077).
Dainty fails to explicitly disclose that the first lens is made of glass.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens is made of glass and at least one of the second lens and the third lens is made of plastic (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0142-0143 and 0157-0158).
Gong teaches glass as a suitable material for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty with the glass first lens of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, Dainty in view of Lee teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claim 11, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063). Specifically, Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Additionally, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0106, 0163-0164, and 0170).
Gong teaches this thermal drift such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty to have the thermal drift of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemitsu in view of Chang as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively above, and further in view of Gong.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu and Chang fail to explicitly disclose that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 (See e.g. Figs. 35 and 37; Paragraphs 157-0158).
Gong teaches this refractive index and Abbe number for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu such that the first lens has a refractive index greater than 1.7 and an Abbe number less than 50 as in Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that at least one of the second lens (L2) and the third lens (L3) is made of plastic (Paragraphs 0192-0195).
Shigemitsu and Chang fail to explicitly disclose that the first lens is made of glass.
However, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein the first lens is made of glass and at least one of the second lens and the third lens is made of plastic (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0142-0143 and 0157-0158).
Gong teaches glass as a suitable material for the first lens such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu with the glass first lens of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Shigemitsu in view of Chang teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Shigemitsu further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2, 7-8, and 12-13; Paragraphs 0051-0053). Specifically, Shigemitsu teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Shigemitsu must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Additionally, Gong teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (4), a second lens (5 or 7), and a third lens (6) wherein a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 27, 29, 35, and 37; Paragraphs 0106, 0163-0164, and 0170).
Gong teaches this thermal drift such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures” (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Shigemitsu to have the thermal drift of Gong such that “thermal stability may be improved to reduce the amount of focal shift, and a certain optical quality may be maintained in the optical lens assembly 10 in an environment of different temperatures,” as taught by Gong (Paragraphs 0143 and 0158) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Claim(s) 8 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dainty in view of Chang et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0341240; hereinafter – “Chang’240”).
Regarding claim 8, Dainty teaches the imaging lens as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, as above.
Dainty further teaches that a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0039 and 0060-0063). Specifically, Dainty teaches an imaging lens formed of optical lenses having a substantially identical structure. Thus, the imaging lens of Dainty must necessarily meet the claimed limitation on the thermal drift. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP §2112.01.I).
Additionally, Chang’240 teaches an optical lens assembly comprising a first lens (L1), a second lens (L2), and a third lens (L3) wherein a thermal drift of the imaging lens is less than 15μm, where the thermal drift is an offset of a focal plane at 105°C relative to a focal plane at 25°C of the imaging lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-4 and 13; Paragraphs 0050-0051).
Chang’240 teaches this thermal drift such that “the imaging lens may achieve good imaging quality and resolution, lower fabrication costs, larger effective apertures, wider viewing angles, lighter weight and wider ranges of operating temperatures” (Paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens of Dainty to have the thermal drift of Chang’240 such that “the imaging lens may achieve good imaging quality and resolution, lower fabrication costs, larger effective apertures, wider viewing angles, lighter weight and wider ranges of operating temperatures,” as taught by Chang’240 (Paragraph 0051) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or