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.
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 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,940,601) in view of Yabe (“Optimization in Lens Design”, 2018, Examiner has provided a PDF copy).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a camera optical lens (Figure 1; Example 1), comprising in order from an objective side to an image side (left hand side of Figure 1 to right hand side of Figure 1):
a first lens having a negative refractive force (Col. 10, lines 2-3 discloses: E1, first lens, has negative refractive power);
a second lens having a negative refractive force (Col. 10, lines 5-6 discloses: E2, second lens, has a negative refractive power);
a third lens having a positive refractive force (Col. 10, lines 8-9 discloses: E3, third lens, has a positive refractive power);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive force (Col. 10, lines 11-12 discloses: E4, fourth lens, has a positive refractive power);
a fifth lens having a negative refractive force (Col. 10, lines 14-15 discloses: E5, fifth lens, has negative refractive power);
a sixth lens having a positive refractive force (Col. 10, lines 17-18 discloses: E6, sixth lens, has a positive refractive power); and
a seventh lens having a negative refractive force (Col. 10, lines 20-21 discloses: E7, seventh lens, has a negative refractive power);
a focal length of the camera optical lens is f; a focal length of the fourth lens is f4; an on-axis thickness of the sixth lens is d11; an on-axis distance from an image surface of the sixth lens to an objective surface of the seventh lens is d12; a radius of curvature of an objective surface of the first lens is R1; a radius of curvature of an image surface of the first lens is R2; a radius of curvature of an objective surface of the fifth lens is R9; a radius of curvature of an image surface of the fifth lens is R10, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
0.95≤f4/f≤1.40 (using values from Table 3: f4 is calculated to be 2.24, f is calculated to be 1.75 f4/f is calculated to be 1.23, which falls within the claimed range);
0.30≤d11/d12≤1.00 (using values from Table 1: d11 is calculated to be 0.6097, d12 is calculated to be 0.7994, d11/d12 is calculated to be 0.76, which falls within the claimed range).
Wang fails to disclose 3.00≤R1/R2≤12.00, 1.20≤(R9+R10)/(R9-R10) ≤3.20. However, choosing specific radius of curvature for a lens is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation and could be optimized without necessarily changing the focal length of the optical system. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to keep 3.00≤R1/R2≤12.00, 1.20≤(R9+R10)/(R9-R10) ≤3.20 since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing these specific radius of curvature described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, or produces an unexpected result. Yabe discusses on page 40, Tolerance optimization, that curvature is a standard optimizable feature in lens design and can be adjusted according to performance. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple different curvatures of the specified lenses, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of 3.00≤R1/R2≤12.00, 1.20≤(R9+R10)/(R9-R10) ≤3.20 represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1.
Wang fails to disclose wherein an on-axis thickness of the fourth lens is d7; an on-axis distance from an image surface of the fourth lens to the objective surface of the fifth lens is d8, and the following relationship expression is satisfied: 8.00≤d7/d8≤25.20. However, optimizing lens thickness is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yabe teaches on page 43 that lens thickness is an optimizable feature and as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the thickness of the lenses and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to keep 8.00≤d7/d8≤25.20 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, wherein the objective surface of the first lens is convex at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: E1, first lens, object side, left hand side of E1, fist lens, of Figure 1, convex right above and below the axis, therefore considered convex at a proximal-axis position), and an image surface of the first lens is concave at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: image side surface of E1, first lens, is concave at a proximal-axis position; right hand side of E1, first lens from Figure 1); a focal length of the first lens is f1; an on-axis thickness of the first lens is d1; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
-7.70≤f1/f≤-1.95 (using values from Table 3: f1 is calculated to be -3.51, f is calculated to be 1.81, f1/f is calculated to be -1.94, which is just outside the claimed range; Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would see -1.94 and -1.95 as functionally equivalent);
0.03≤d1/TTL≤0.75 (using values from Table 1 and 3: d1 is calculated to be 0.6388, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d1/TTL is calculated to be 0.09, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, wherein an objective surface of the fourth lens is convex at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: E4, fourth lens, with an object surface that is convex at the axis position), and an image surface of the fourth lens is convex at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: E4, fourth lens, with an image surface that is convex at the axis position); a radius of curvature of the objective surface of the fourth lens is R7, and a radius of curvature of the image surface of the fourth lens is R8; an on-axis thickness of the fourth lens is d7; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
0.08≤(R7+R8)/(R7-R8)≤0.34
0.02<d7/TTL<0.11 (using values from Tables 1 and 3: d7 is calculated to be 0.6086, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d7/TTL is calculated to be 0.08, which falls within the claimed range).
The modified Wang fails to disclose 0.08≤(R7+R8)/(R7-R8)≤0.34. However, choosing specific radius of curvature for a lens is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation and could be optimized without necessarily changing the focal length of the optical system. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to keep 0.08≤(R7+R8)/(R7-R8)≤0.34 since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing these specific radius of curvature described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, or produces an unexpected result. Yabe discusses on page 40, Tolerance optimization, that curvature is a standard optimizable feature in lens design and can be adjusted according to performance. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple different curvatures of the specified lenses, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of 0.08≤(R7+R8)/(R7-R8)≤0.34 represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, wherein the image surface of the sixth lens is convex at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: E6, sixth lens, is convex on the image side at the optical axis); a radius of curvature of an objective surface of the sixth lens is R11; a radius of curvature of the image surface of the sixth lens is R12; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
-0.34≤(R11+R12)/(R11-R12) ≤4.55 (using values from Table 1: R11 is calculated to be 5.6251, R12 is calculated to be -2.4363, (R11+R12)/(R11-R12), is calculated to be 0.40, which falls within the claimed range);
0.01≤d11/TTL≤0.08 (using values from Table 1 and Table 3: d11 is calculated to be 0.6097, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d11/TTL is calculated to be 0.081; Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would see 0.08 and 0.081 as functionally equivalent).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, wherein the objective surface of the seventh lens is convex at a proximal-axis position, and an image surface of the seventh lens is concave at a proximal-axis position (Figure 1 depicts: E7, seventh lens, with image side concave near the optical axis); a focal length of the seventh lens is f7; a radius of curvature of the objective surface of the seventh lens is R13; the radius of curvature of the image surface of the seventh lens is R14; an on-axis thickness of the seventh lens is d13; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
-7.64≤f7/f≤-1.18 (using values from Table 3: f7 is calculated to be -5.13, f is calculated to be 1.81, f7/f is calculated to be -2.83, which falls within the claimed range);
0.91≤(R13+R14)/(R13-R14)≤5.68 (using values from Table 1: R13 is calculated to be 2.6112, R14 is calculated to be 1.2692, (R13+R14)/(R13-R14) is calculated to be 2.89, which falls within the claimed range);
0.01≤d13/TTL≤0.06 (Using values from Table 1 and Table 3: d13 is calculated to be 0.4000, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d13/TTL is calculated to be 0.05 which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical tens of claim 1, wherein a field of view of the camera optical lens is FOV, and the following relationship expression is satisfied:
FOV≥130.00̊ (using values from Table 3: semi-FOV is calculated to be 77.5̊, therefore FOV is calculated to be 155̊ , which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim1, wherein an aperture value of the camera optical lens is FNO, and the following relationship expression is satisfied:
FNO≤2.6 (Using values from Table 3: f/EPD is calculated to be 2.60, which falls within the claimed range).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,940,601) in view of Yabe (“Optimization in Lens Design”, 2018), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gross (“Handbook of Optical Systems”, 2005, Examiner has provided a PDF copy).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, and an image surface of the second lens is concave at a proximal-axis position (Figure 2 depicts: image side surface of E2, second lens, concave at the axis); a focal length of the second lens is f2; a radius of curvature of the objective surface of the second lens is R3; a radius of curvature of the image surface of the second lens is R4; an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
-5.83≤f2/f≤-1.23 (using values from Table 3: f2 is calculated to be -3.55, f is calculated to be 1.81, f2/f is calculated to be -1.96, which falls within the claimed range);
0.31≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤0.99
0.05≤d3/TTL≤0.31 (using values from Table 1 and 3: d3 is calculated to be 0.4500, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d3/TTL is calculated to be 0.06, which falls within the claimed range) .
The modified Wang fails to disclose, wherein an objective surface of the second lens is concave at a proximal-axis position and 0.31≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤0.99.
Wang discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim except wherein an objective surface of the second lens is concave at a proximal-axis position. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an objective surface of the second lens is concave at a proximal-axis position, since applicant has not disclosed that this lens shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a convex or a flat lens. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).Gross discloses in 33.1.4 on page 378 that bending a lens is a zero power operation and could be optimized without necessarily changing the focal length of the optical system. Therefore, the claimed use of an objective surface of the second lens is concave at a proximal-axis position represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
The modified Wang fails to disclose 0.31≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤0.99. However, choosing specific radius of curvature for a lens is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation and could be optimized without necessarily changing the focal length of the optical system. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to keep 0.31≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤0.99 since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing these specific radius of curvature described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, or produces an unexpected result. Yabe discusses on page 40, Tolerance optimization, that curvature is a standard optimizable feature in lens design and can be adjusted according to performance. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple different curvatures of the specified lenses, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of 0.31≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤0.99 represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1, wherein the objective surface of the fifth lens is convex at a proximal-axis position. (Figure 1 depicts: E5, fifth lens, with an image side surface that is concave at the optical axis); a focal length of the fifth lens is f5; an on-axis thickness of the fifth lens is d9; a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and the following relationship expressions are satisfied:
-7.29≤f5/f≤-1.06 (using values from Table 3: f5 is calculated to be -3.04, f is calculated to be 1.81, f5/f is calculated to be -1.68, which falls within the claimed range);
0.01≤d9/TTL≤0.04 (d9 is calculated to be 0.2800, TTL is calculated to be 7.50, d9/TTL is calculated to be 0.037, which falls within the claimed range).
The modified Wang fails to discloses a lens systems with the image surface of the fifth lens is concave at a proximal-axis position. However, choosing a curvature of a specific side of a lens is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. Gross discloses in 33.1.4 on page 378 that bending a lens is a zero power operation and could be optimized without necessarily changing the focal length of the optical system. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to have the image surface of the fifth lens is concave at a proximal-axis position since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing image surface of the fifth lens is concave at a proximal-axis position described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized lens design, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of image surface of the fifth lens is concave at a proximal-axis position represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,940,601) in view of Yabe (“Optimization in Lens Design”, 2018), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Uno (US 2024/0288665).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1.
Wang fails to disclose wherein the first lens is made of glass material. Wang and Uno are related because both disclose optical systems.
Uno teaches an optical lens wherein the first lens is made of glass material ([0067] teaches: L1, first lens, is a glass lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Uno and provide wherein the first lens is made of glass material. Doing so would allow for better imaging performance and durability, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wang discloses the camera optical lens of claim 1.
Wang fails to disclose wherein the fourth lens is made of glass material. Wang and Uno are related because both disclose optical systems.
Uno teaches an optical lens wherein the fourth lens is made of glass material ([0071] teaches: L4, fourth lens, is a glass lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Wang to incorporate the teachings of Uno and provide wherein the fourth lens is made of glass material. Doing so would allow for better imaging performance and durability, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to teach “3.00≤f6/f≤8.00” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 3 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to teach “0.72≤f3/f≤2.89” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 6 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen et al. (US 2025/0102773) and Chen et al. (US 2022/0276466) both disclose relevant optical systems but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872