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
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 8/3/2023. It is noted, however, that an attempt by the PTO Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, a certified copy of the foreign application 202310610923.1 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 01/03/2025. For further questions or assistance, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC): EBC Customer Support Center 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free); 571-272-4100 (local); M-F 6AM - Midnight (Eastern Time); PDX @uspto.gov(email). Also, useful information is provided at the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program Website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx), including practice tips for priority document exchange (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx#Practice%20tips).
Amendments in response to notice of omitted items
The Replacement Sheets of Drawings filed on 1/22/2024 is acknowledged.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/399,637 filed on 12/28/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2017/0010446, hereinafter, “Liu”) as evidenced by Wade, Herbert and Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a camera optical lens 40 (Fig. 4A), comprising from an object side to an image side:
a first lens 410 having negative refractive power, a second lens 420 having negative refractive power, a third lens 430 having positive refractive power, a fourth lens 440 having negative refractive power, and a fifth lens 450 having positive refractive power; the first lens is made of glass material ([0090], [0178]-[0183]);
wherein a focal length of the third lens is f3, a focal length of the camera optical lens is f, and following relation is satisfied:
3.00≤f3/f≤5.00 (Table 7, f3=3.90723, f=0.85370, thus, f3/f=4.57).
Liu does not disclose 1.70≤n1≤2.10, wherein a refractive index of the first lens is n1.
However, Liu discloses n1=1.565 (Table 7).
The parameter of the refractive index of the first lens is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, achieving efficient collimation and focusing of the lens (see, for example, col. 10, lines 16-23 in Wade (US 6,404,945)).
Liu discloses the claimed invention except for 1.70≤n1≤2.10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liu so that the refractive index of the first lens falls in the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, the refractive index of the first lens is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the first lens
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the refractive index of the first lens because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Moreover, Liu does not disclose 3.20≤(R3+R4)/(R3-R4)≤4.70, wherein, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the second lens is R3, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the second lens is R4.
However, Liu discloses R3=49.68607, R4=8.07054 (Table 7), thus, (R3+R4)/(R3-R4)=1.3878.
The parameter of the curvature radii of the second lens is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, suppressing the occurrence of aberrations, see Herbert et al. (US 11,719,960, hereinafter, Herbert) (Herbert discloses that adjusting the curvature of a lens adjusts the optical properties of the lens, including astigmatism correction, col. 3, line 63 to col. 4, line 2).
Liu discloses the claimed invention except for 3.20≤(R3+R4)/(R3-R4)≤4.70.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liu so that (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) falls in the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, the curvature radii of the second lens is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the second lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the curvature radii of the second lens because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, wherein an on-axis thickness of the fourth lens is d7, an on-axis thickness of the fifth lens is d9, an on-axis distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens is d6, and a following relation is satisfied:
1.00≤(d7+d9)/d6≤2.50 (d6=0.841654, d7=0.402838, d9=1.251703 (Table 7), thus, (d7+d9)/d6=1.96).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1.
Liu does noy disclose a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and a following relation is satisfied: 8.00≤TTL/f≤12.00.
However, Liu discloses InTL=43.14830 ([0010], [0190]), thus, TTL=43.14830+0.8 +0.85+1.597782= 46.39 (Table 7), and f=0.85370 (Table 7), thus, TTL/f=54.339.
The parameter of TTL/f is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the resolution of a magnified image and controlling the total track length, see, for example, [0046] in Huang (US 2019/0258028), hereinafter, “Huang”.
Liu discloses the claimed invention except for 8.00≤TTL/f≤12.00.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liu so that TTL/f falls in the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, the ratio of the total optical length to the total focal length is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the total lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of the total optical length to the total focal length because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, wherein the object-side surface of the second lens is convex at a paraxial position, and the image-side surface of the second lens is concave at the paraxial position ([0180]);
a focal length of the second lens is f2, an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3, a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, and following relations are satisfied:
-20.66≤f2/f≤-2.89 (f2=-17.2141, f=0.85370, Table 7, thus, f2/f=-20.16).
0.02≤d3/TTL≤0.13 (d3=1.425896, Table 7, TTL=46.39, see above re claim 4, thus, d3/TTL=0.030).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1.
Liu does noy disclose wherein a field of view in a diagonal direction of the camera optical lens is FOV, and a following relation is satisfied: FOV≥194°.
However, Liu discloses that HAF=80.0032°, thus, FOV=160.01°. It is noted that Liu discloses in other embodiment that HAF=100° (Table 3).
The parameter of FOV is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the effective imaging range and improving the resolution of a magnified image from a telephoto shot, see, for example, [0048] in Huang.
Liu discloses the claimed invention except for FOV ≥194°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Liu so that FOV falls in the claimed range, 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). In the current instance, the FOV of the camera optical lens is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the performance of the camera lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the FOV of the camera lens because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 3, Liu does not disclose the ratio f45/f being in the claimed range. In Liu, f45/f= -23.62 which is away from the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Liu dos not disclose the ratios f1/f and d1/TTL being in the claimed ranges. In Liu, f1/f= -10.318 and d1/TTL=0.172 which are away from the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not disclose that an object side surface of the third lens is concave and the ratio (R5+R6)/(R5-R6) being in the claimed range. In Liu, an object side surface of the third lens is convex and (R5+R6)/(R5-R6)= -0.203 which is away from the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not disclose that an object side surface of the fourth lens is convex and the ratio d7/TTL being in the claimed range. In Liu, an object side surface of the fourth lens is concave and d7/TTL=0.008 which is away from the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Liu does not disclose the ratio (R9+R10)/(R95-R10) being in the claimed range. In Liu, (R9+R10)/(R9-R10)= 0.10 which is away from the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872