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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
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 1-12 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 seven lenses, does not reasonably provide enablement for all possible combinations of seven 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).
Claim 1 recites a camera optical lens comprising seven lenses and satisfying the conditional expressions: 0.06 ≤ d6/TTL ≤ 0.20; 90.00 ≤ (FOVxf)/IH ≤ 140.00; 1.00 ≤ f3/f ≤ 5.00; and 1.00 ≤ R4/R3 ≤ 15.00. Each of the lenses can have positive, negative, or zero optical power and satisfy said conditions. As such, the claims encompass 2187 possible combinations of arrangements of the lenses that could satisfy the claimed conditions.
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. 2017/0192203) 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 five examples in Applicant’s specification with three unique lens power arrangements, one having a --+-+++ arrangement, one having a --+-+-+ arrangement, and one having a -++-+++ arrangement. The examples represent just three different combinations of the 2187 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, claim 1 encompasses a system of seven lenses having a first positive lens followed by six 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 recited in the specification (i.e. a negative first lens, a negative second lens, a positive third lens, a negative fourth lens, a positive fifth lens, a positive sixth lens, and a positive seventh lens).
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1, and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4-5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 114721125). Reference to Yang (CN 114721125) will be made to Yang (U.S. 2023/0314769), which is an equivalent English translation of Yang (CN 114721125).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a camera optical lens (30, Fig. 9; page 8, para [0158]), comprising from an object side (left side of L1, Fig. 9) to an image side (side of Si, Fig. 9; page 2, para [0034]): a first lens (L1, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0081]), a second lens (L2, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0083]), a third lens (L3, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0085]), a fourth lens (L4, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0087]), a fifth lens (L5, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0089]), a sixth lens (L6, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0091]), and a seventh lens (L7, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0093]);
wherein an on-axis distance from an image-side surface of the third lens (right surface of L3, Fig. 9) to an object-side surface of the fourth lens (left surface of L4, Fig. 9) is d6, a total optical length from an object-side surface of the first lens (left surface of L1, Fig. 9) to an image plane (Si, Fig. 9; page 2, para [0034]) of the camera optical lens along an optic axis of the camera optical lens (optic axis of 30, Fig. 9) is TTL, a field of view of the camera optical lens is FOV, a full field of view image height in a diagonal direction of the camera optical lens is IH, a focal length of the camera optical lens is f, a focal length of the third lens (L3, Fig. 9) is f3, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the second lens (left surface of L2, Fig. 9) is R3, and a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the second lens (right surface of L2, Fig. 9) is R4, and the following relational expressions are satisfied:
0.06 ≤ d6/TTL ≤ 0.20 (d6/TTL=0.0899; when d6=3.312 and TTL=36.854, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17);
90.00 ≤ (FOVxf)/IH ≤ 140.00 ([FOVxf]/IH=123.3988; when FOV=139.4, f=4.095, and IH=4.626; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17);
1.00 ≤ f3/f ≤ 5.00 (f3/f=2.796; when f3=11.449 and f=4.095; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17); and
1.00 ≤ R4/R3 ≤ 15.00 (R4/R3=7.947; when R4=-68.469 and R3=-8.616; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses a camera optical lens with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein a refractive index of the first lens (L1, Fig. 9) is n1 (nd1, Fig. 9; page 6, para [0120]), and a following relational expression is satisfied:
1.70 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.10 (since nd1=1.8830, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses a camera optical lens with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3 (d3, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0103]), an on-axis thickness of the third lens is d5 (d5, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0105]), and a following relational expression is satisfied:
1.20 ≤ d3/d5 ≤ 5.00 (d3/d5=4.957; since d3=9.007 and d5=1.817; page 8, Table 9).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses a camera optical lens with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power (L1 has a negative refractive power, Fig. 9; page 3, para [0043]; page 8, para [0155]), and an image-side surface of the first lens (right side surface of L1, Fig. 9) is concave in a paraxial region (Fig. 9; page 3, para [0043]);
a focal length of the first lens (L1, Fig. 9) is f1, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens (left side surface of L1, Fig. 9) is R1 (R1, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0081]), a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens (right side surface of L1, Fig. 9) is R2 (R2, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0082]), and an on-axis thickness of the first lens is d1 (d1, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0101]), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
-4.50 ≤ f1/f ≤ -1.40 (f1/f=-2.269; since f1=-9.29 and f=4.095, Fig. 9; page 10, Table 17);
0.24 ≤ (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) ≤ 2.57 ([R1+R2]/[R1-R2]=1.884; since R1=17.596 and R2=5.395, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9); and
0.03 ≤ d1/TTL ≤ 0.20 (d1/TTL=0.03967; since d1=1.462 and TTL=36.854, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17).
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses a camera optical lens with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein at least one of the first lens (L1, Fig. 9), the second lens (L2, Fig. 9), the third lens (L3, Fig. 9), the fourth lens (L4, Fig. 9), the fifth lens (L5, Fig. 9), the sixth lens (L6, Fig. 9), and the seventh lens (L7, Fig. 9) is made of glass (since the first lens L1 is made of glass, Fig. 9; page 2, para [0035]; page 8, para [0155]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 114721125). Reference to Yang (CN 114721125) will be made to Yang (U.S. 2023/0314769), which is an equivalent English translation of Yang (CN 114721125).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses a camera optical lens with all the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the object-side surface of the second lens (left side surface of L2, Fig. 9) is concave in a paraxial region 9 (Fig. 9; page 3, para [0047]; page 8, para [0155]), and the image-side surface of the second lens (right side surface of L2, Fig. 9) is convex in the paraxial region (Fig. 9; page 3, para [0047]; page 8, para [0155]);
a focal length of the second lens (L2, Fig. 9) is f2, an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3 (d3, Fig. 9; page 5, para [0103]), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
-13.03 ≤ f2/f ≤ 18.87 (f2/f=-3.413; since f2=-13.978 and f=4.095, Fig. 9; page 10, Table 17) and
0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 (d3/TTL=0.244; since d3=9.007 and TTL=36.854, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17).
Yang does not disclose that d3/TTL satisfies: 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 (d3/TTL=0.244 since d3=9.007 and TTL=36.854, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17). However, at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to configure d3 and TTL of the camera optical lens of Yang to satisfy: 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of d3/TTL satisfying 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure d3 and TTL of the camera optical lens of Yang to satisfy: 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 in order to obtain the benefits of optimizing the optical characteristics of the camera optical lens since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum workable range involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Furthermore, since d3/TTL of Yang is very close to satisfying 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 (Yang: d3/TTL=0.244 since d3=9.007 and TTL=36.854, Fig. 9; page 8, Table 9; page 10, Table 17), one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify d3/TTL of Yang to satisfy 0.09 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.20 through routine experimentation and optimization with a reasonable expectation for success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Teranishi (U.S. 2023/0076657) and Hsieh et al. (U.S. 2012/0212836) disclose a camera optical lens comprising seven lenses but fail to disclose all the combination of features as recited in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871