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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/29/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo US PGPub 2020/0012078 A1 (hereinafter, “Kuo”) in view of Xie et al. US PGPub 2022/0326481 A1 (hereinafter, “Xie”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kuo discloses a camera optical lens (title and abstract refer to a photographing optical lens assembly), comprising from an object side to an image side (lens elements are listed in order from an object side to an image side, par. [0005]): a first lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 19 shows the tenth embodiment of the imaging apparatus disclosed by Kuo, where first lens element 1010 has negative refractive power, pars. [0236-237]), a second lens having a refractive power (Fig. 19, second lens element 1020 has positive refractive power, par. [0238]), a third lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 19, third lens element 1030 has negative refractive power, par. [0239]), a fourth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 19, fourth lens element 1040 has positive refractive power, par. [0240]), a fifth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 19, fifth lens element 1050 has positive refractive power, par. [0241]), a sixth lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 19, sixth lens element 1060 has negative refractive power, par. [0242]), a seventh lens (Fig. 19, seventh lens element 1070, par. [0243]), and an eighth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 19, eighth lens element 1080 has positive refractive power, par. [0245]),
wherein a total track length of the camera optical lens is TTL, a focal length of the camera optical lens is f, a refractive index of the first lens is n1, an on-axis thickness of the third lens is d5, an on-axis thickness of the fourth lens is d7, a combined focal length of the sixth lens and the seventh lens is f67, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the eighth lens is R15, and a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the eighth lens is R16, and following relational expressions are satisfied:
3.00 ≤ d7/d5 ≤ 15.00 (Table 19, lens 4, i.e., lens element 1040, has a thickness of 0.607, and lens 3, i.e., lens element 1030, thickness is 0.142, therefore the ratio d7/d5 is 4.27 for the tenth embodiment, satisfying the limitation);
-4.00 ≤ f67/f ≤ -2.00 (the combined focal length of lens elements 6 and 7, i.e., elements 1060 and 1070, as calculated from the parameters provided in Table 19, where f is listed as 1.85 mm for the tenth embodiment, provides a ratio of f67/f = -5.56/1.85, or -3.00, within the claimed range); and
R15/R16 ≤ -1.50 (Table 19, lens 8, i.e., lens element 1080, object-side surface radius of curvature is 54.510, and image-side radius of curvature is -22.721, therefore the ratio R15/R16 is -2.399, satisfying the instant limitation).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose a seventh lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 19, seventh lens element 1070 has positive refractive power, par. [0243], see also Table 19), nor does Kuo tenth embodiment disclose the condition 6.00 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 12.00 (Kuo defines TL as an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface, pars. [0047] and [0053], and per Table 20, TL/f for the tenth embodiment is 3.14, see also Table 19), nor does Kuo in the tenth embodiment disclose the limitation 1.70 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.20 (Table 19, lens 1, i.e., lens element 1010, of the tenth embodiment has an index of refraction of 1.545, therefore teaching at least the condition n1 ≤ 2.20).
However, Kuo discloses a fourth embodiment, depicted in Fig. 7, with a seventh lens element 470 that has negative refractive power (par. [0153]) and from Tables 7 and 8 the ratio TL/f for the fourth embodiment is 6.48, within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the features of the tenth embodiment with the features of the fourth embodiment, such as selecting the seventh lens element to have a negative refractive power, so as to avoid excessive aberrations (Kuo par. [0067]), and to have adjusted the track length and the focal length of the tenth embodiment to have a ratio of TL/f = 6.48, a value that is favorable for maintaining a short total track length while enlarging the field of view of the photographing optical lens assembly (Kuo, pars. [0047] and [0053]). In addition, 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, track length and focal length are art recognized results effective variables in that adjusting of TL and f are favorable for maintaining a track length with an acceptable field of view as taught by Kuo in at least par. [0053]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio TTL/f, because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable, being the ratio of two results-effective variables, 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.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting track length and focal length of an optical system is a common and routine activity in the design of optical imaging systems.
The prior art combination of the tenth and fourth embodiments of Kuo still does not disclose the limitation 1.70 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.20 (Table 19, tenth embodiment lens 1 has an index of refraction n1 = 1.545, and Table 7, fourth embodiment lens 1 also has an index of refraction of 1.545, outside of the claimed range).
However, Kuo in the tenth embodiment discloses a third lens element 1030 and a sixth lens element 1060, both with an index of refraction of 1.688 (refer to Table 19), and in the fourth embodiment Kuo discloses a second lens (lens element 420), a fifth lens (lens element 450) and a seventh lens (lens element 470) all with an index of refraction of 1.669 (refer to Table 7). These values are within 2% of the claimed lower limit of 1.70 (e.g., Kuo sixth lens element 1060 is within 0.7% of the claimed lower limit, and lens elements 420, 450, and 470 are within 1.8% of the claimed lower limit).
The Examiner contends that the value disclosed in the prior art of Kuo tenth embodiment for lens elements having an index of refraction of 1.688 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.70 and equal to or less than 2.20 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 1.688 and the endpoint of 1.70 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.7% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the index of refraction for a lens element from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.70 and equal to or less than 2.20.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have reasonably concluded that the value of 1.688 for the index of refraction for a lens element, as determined from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1.70 and equal to or less than 2.20 to render it obvious because the difference between 1.688 and the endpoint of 1.70 is insubstantial, a value of 1.688 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for greater than or equal to 1.70 and equal to or less than 2.20, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Furthermore, it is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of a lens material for the first lens element from the lens materials of the other lens elements in the same embodiment of an optical system would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the lens material for the sixth lens element of the tenth embodiment of Kuo as the material for the first lens element of the tenth embodiment of Kuo, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). Refer to MPEP §2144.07.
Additionally, in the same field of invention, Xie discloses a wide-angle lens and image capturing device (refer to title and abstract thereof), embodiment 1 of which is shown in Fig. 1 thereof, where wide-angle lens 100 has a first lens L1 with negative focal power (par. [0068] thereof) and lens L1 has an index of refraction of 1.811 (see Table 1 thereof for details of the first embodiment). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Xie to the disclosure of Kuo and modified the tenth embodiment of Kuo to have a first lens element of glass, with an index of refraction of 1.811, because glass with a higher refractive index can optimize an optical transfer function of the lens and the use of the glass lens can improve imaging resolution of the wide-angle lens (Xie, pars. [0048] and [0053]).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Kim in view of Xie (hereinafter, “modified Kuo”) discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is convex in a paraxial region (Kuo, tenth embodiment, Table 19, first lens element 1010 has an object-side surface 1011 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0237]), and an image-side surface of the first lens is concave in the paraxial region (Kuo, tenth embodiment, Table 19, first lens element 1010 has an image-side surface 1012 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0237]), and wherein a focal length of the first lens is f1, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens is R1, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens is R2, and an on-axis thickness of the first lens is d1 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters of the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and the following relational expressions are satisfied:
-4.90 ≤ f1/f ≤ -0.92 (Kuo, Table 19, f1 is -2.53 and f is 1.85, thus the tenth embodiment has a ratio f1/f = -1.37, within the claimed range);
0.80 ≤ (R1+R2)/(R l-R2) ≤ 3.09 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 1 R1 is 12.365, and lens 1 R2 is 1.231, therefore the tenth embodiment has a ratio of 1.22, within the claimed range); and
0.01 ≤ d1/TTL ≤ 0.07 (Kuo, Table 19, on-axis thickness of lens 1 is 0.256 and TL is 5.81 as listed in Table 20, therefore the ratio d1/TTL is 0.04 for the tenth embodiment, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses wherein an object-side surface of the fifth lens is convex in a paraxial region (Kuo, fifth lens element 1050 has object-side surface 1051 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0241]), and an image-side surface of the fifth lens is convex in the paraxial region (Kuo, fifth lens element 1050 has image-side surface 1052 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0241]), and wherein a focal length of the fifth lens is f5, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the fifth lens is R9, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the fifth lens is R10, and an on-axis thickness of the fifth lens is d9 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters for the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
0.89 ≤ f5/f ≤ 3.61 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 5 has focal length f5 = 1.77 and f = 1.85, therefore the tenth embodiment has a ratio f5/f = 0.96, within the claimed range);
-0.27 ≤ (R9+R10)/(R9-R10) ≤ 0.61 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 5 has R9 = 3.529 and R10 = -1.215, therefore the tenth embodiment has a value for the ratio (R9+R10)/(R9-R10) = 0.49, within the claimed range); and
0.04 ≤ d9/TTL ≤ 0.19 (Kuo, Table 19, on-axis distance of lens 5 is 0.836 and TTL is 5.81 from Table 20, thus the tenth embodiment has a ratio d9/TTL = 0.14, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, but Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose wherein the first lens, the fourth lens, the sixth lens and the seventh lens are made of glass (Kuo Fig. 19, tenth embodiment has lenses of plastic, see Table 19 and pars. [0237-245]). Additionally, Xie discloses one of the first lens to fifth lens of the disclosed wide-angle lens and image capturing device is a glass lens (par. [0012] of Xie), but Xie does not specifically disclose the first, fourth, sixth, and seventh lenses are of glass.
However, Kuo in the second embodiment discloses a first lens element 210 that is made of glass (par. [0118], refer also to Table 3), and Kuo also discloses a seventh embodiment with a first lens element 710 that is made of glass (par. [0192], refer also to Table 13). Kuo further teaches the lens elements of the photographing optical lens assembly can be made of either glass or plastic material (Kuo par. [0075]).
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07. In this case, the selection of glass, a common material for lenses, for the first, fourth, sixth, and seventh lens elements would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose glass for the lens material for the first, fourth, sixth, and seventh lens element of the tenth embodiment of Kuo as glass is commonly used as a material for lenses, and Kuo discloses the use of glass for the first lens in at least two embodiments, and further teaches the use of glass as an option for the material of the lenses of the embodiments disclosed therein, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). Refer to MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Xie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPub 2017/0293110 A1 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding dependent claim 2, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses wherein an abbe number of the sixth lens is n6, and an abbe number of the seventh lens is n7 (see Kuo Table 19, Abbe numbers for all lens elements are disclosed), but Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose the following relational expression is satisfied: 56.11 ≤ n6 - n7 (Kuo tenth embodiment, Table 19, lens 6 has Abbe number of 18.7 and lens 7 has Abbe number of 56.0, therefore the difference n6 - n7 is 37.3, lower than the claimed lower limit of 56.11).
In the same field of invention, Kim discloses an optical imaging system (refer to at least title and abstract thereof, and see Fig. 1 depicting an example of an optical imaging system, par. [0027] thereof) where the second lens has an Abbe number of 80 or more (par. [0044], and refer to Fig. 2 for a table of lens characteristics, par. [0028] thereof, where lens 2 has an Abbe number of 84.2) and the third lens has an Abbe number of 25 or less (par. [0048] thereof, and refer to Fig. 2, where lens 3 has an Abbe number of 19.0). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Kim to the disclosure of Kuo and used a material with a higher Abbe number for the sixth lens element, such as an Abbe number of 84.2, and a material with a lower Abbe number for the seventh lens element, such as an Abbe number of 19.0, to reduce chromatic aberration by having adjacent lenses with different Abbe numbers (Kim, par. [0099]). As a result, the prior art combination of Kuo in view of Kim teaches and renders obvious the limitation 56.11 ≤ n6 - n7 by the fact that the difference between n6 and n7 is 65.2, satisfying the instant limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Xie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems", Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007) (hereinafter, “Gross”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses an image-side surface of the second lens is convex in the paraxial region (Kuo Fig. 19, second lens element 1020 has an image-side surface 1022 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0238]), and wherein a focal length of the second lens is f2, 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, and an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters for the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
-8.57 ≤ f2/f ≤ 7.69 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 2 has a focal length f2 = 2.63, and focal length f is 1.85 for the tenth embodiment, therefore the ratio f2/f is 1.42 for the tenth embodiment of Kuo, within the claimed range);
-4.08 ≤ (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) ≤ 11.62 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 2 has R3 = 2.585 and R4 = 5.387, therefore the ratio has a value of -0.04, within the claimed range); and
0.02 ≤ d3/TTL ≤ 0.25 (Kuo, Table 19, on-axis thickness of lens 2 is 0.925 and TTL for the tenth embodiment is 5.81 as provided in Table 20, therefore the ratio d3/TTL is 0.16, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose an object-side surface of the second lens is concave in a paraxial region (Fig. 19, Kuo second lens element 1020 has an object-side surface 1021 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0238], see also Table 19).
However, Kuo discloses a seventh embodiment, shown in Fig. 13, with second lens element 720 having an object-side surface 721 that is concave in a paraxial region (par. [0193]), and from Table 13, lens element 720 has an object-side radius of curvature of R3 = -1.790 and an image-side radius of curvature of R4 = -1.399, therefore lens element 720 has a ratio (R3+R4)/(R3-R4) of 8.16, within the claimed range.
In the general field of lens systems, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the object-side surface 1021 of lens element 1020 from convex to concave, as suggested by Kuo seventh embodiment which supports the feasibility of a second lens with a concave surface on the object side that also satisfies the Coddington shape factor (R3+R4)/(R3-R4), because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-10, and 12 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 dependent claim 5, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses an image-side surface of the third lens is concave in the paraxial region (Kuo, third lens element 1030 has image-side surface 1032 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0239]), and wherein a focal length of the third lens is f3, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the third lens is R5, and a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the third lens is R6 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters for the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and the following relational expressions are satisfied:
-7.53 ≤ f3/f ≤ -1.12 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 3 has a focal length f3 of -8.30 and f is 1.85, therefore the tenth embodiment has a value for the ratio f3/f of -4.49, within the claimed range); and
0.01 ≤ d5/TTL ≤ 0.05 (Kuo, Table 19, lens 3 has an on-axis thickness of 0.142, and TTL is 5.81 as given in Table 20, therefore the ratio d5/TTL for the tenth embodiment is 0.02, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is concave in a paraxial region (Kuo Fig. 19, third lens element 1030 has an object-side surface 1031 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0239]) and Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose -1.53 ≤ (R5+R6)/(R5-R6) ≤ 0.53 (from Table 19, lens 3 has object-side radius of curvature R5 of 5.387 and image-side radius of curvature R6 of 2.742, therefore lens element 1030 has a ratio of 3.07, outside of the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses wherein a focal length of the fourth lens is f4, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is R7, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the fourth lens is R8 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters are disclosed for the tenth embodiment), and the following relational expression is satisfied:
0.05 ≤ d7/TTL ≤ 0.44 (Kuo tenth embodiment lens 4 has an on-axis thickness of 0.607, see Table 19, and TL for the tenth embodiment is 5.81 mm, see Table 20, par. [0249], thus the tenth embodiment has d7/TTL = 0.10, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose the limitation 1.51 ≤ f4/f ≤ 9.55 (Kuo tenth embodiment lens 4 has a focal length f4 = 67.42 as listed in Table 19, and f is 1.85 mm for the tenth embodiment, thus the ratio f4/f is 36.44 for the tenth embodiment, outside of the claimed range), nor does Kuo in the tenth embodiment disclose the limitation -3.63 ≤ (R7+R8)/(R7-R8) ≤ 3.14 (Kuo Table 19, lens 4 has object-side radius of curvature R7 = 1.833 and image-side radius of curvature R8 = 1.705, thus the tenth embodiment has a ratio of 27.64, outside of the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment discloses wherein an object-side surface of the sixth lens is convex in a paraxial region (Kuo, sixth lens element 1060 has an object-side surface 1061 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0242]), and wherein a focal length of the sixth lens is f6, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the sixth lens is R11, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens is R12 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters for the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and an on-axis thickness of the sixth lens is d11, and following relational expression is satisfied:
0.04 ≤ d11/TTL ≤ 0.22 (Kuo, Table 19, on-axis distance of lens 6 is 0.302 and TTL is 5.81 from Table 20, thus the tenth embodiment has a ratio d11/TTL = 0.05, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose an image-side surface of the sixth lens is convex in the paraxial region (Fig. 19, sixth lens element 1060 has an image-side surface 1062 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0242]), nor does Kuo in the tenth embodiment disclose the condition -198.21 ≤ f6/f ≤ -2.69 (Table 19, lens 6 has a focal length f6 = -2.81, and the effective focal length f is 1.85 for the tenth embodiment, therefore f6/f is -1.52 for the tenth embodiment, outside of the claimed range), and Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose the limitation 0.12 ≤ (R11+R12)/(R11-R12) ≤ 0.89 (Table 19, lens 6 has an object-side radius of curvature R11 of 1.020 and an image-side radius of curvature R12 of 0.587, thus the ratio is 3.71 for lens 6, outside of the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment as modified according to the fourth embodiment (see rejection of claim 1 above) further discloses wherein an object-side surface of the seventh lens is concave in a paraxial region (Kuo, fourth embodiment, seventh lens element 470 has object-side surface 471 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0153]), and wherein a focal length of the seventh lens is f7, a central curvature radius of an object-side surface of the seventh lens is R13, a central curvature radius of an image-side surface of the seventh lens is R14, and an on-axis thickness of the seventh lens is d13 (refer to Tables 7 and 19 where all parameters for the fourth and tenth embodiments, respectively, are disclosed), and following relational expressions are satisfied:
-5.45 ≤ f7/f ≤ -0.85 (Kuo fourth embodiment lens element 470 has focal length -2.06 and the effective focal length of the fourth embodiment is f = 0.73, refer to Table 7, therefore f7/f is -2.82, within the claimed range); and
0.01 ≤ d13/TTL ≤ 0.21 (Kuo fourth embodiment lens element 470 has on-axis thickness of 0.15 and TL for the fourth embodiment is 4.72, see Table 8, par. [0158], therefore d13/TTL is 0.03, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose an image-side surface of the seventh lens is concave in the paraxial region nor does Kuo in the fourth embodiment disclose the limitation -1.49 ≤ (R13+R14)/(R13-R14) ≤ -0.17 (Kuo fourth embodiment lens element 470 has object-side radius of curvature R13 of -0.292 and an image-side radius of curvature R14 of -0.447, thus Kuo fourth embodiment has a ratio of -4.77, outside of the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, and Kuo in the tenth embodiment further discloses wherein an object-side surface of the eighth lens is convex in a paraxial region (Kuo, eighth lens element 1080 has an object-side surface 1081 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0245]), and an image-side surface of the eighth lens is convex in the paraxial region (Kuo, eighth lens element 1080 has an image-side surface 1082 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0245]), and wherein a focal length of the eighth lens is f8, and an on-axis thickness of the eighth lens is d15 (refer to Table 19 where all parameters for the tenth embodiment are disclosed), and following relational expression is satisfied:
0.03 ≤ d15/TTL ≤ 0.14 (Kuo Table 19, lens element 1080 has on-axis thickness of 0.281, and TL is 5.81, Table 20, par. [0249], thus the tenth embodiment of Kuo has a ratio d15/TTL of 0.05, within the claimed range).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose the limitation 1.15 ≤ f8/f ≤ 4.46 (Kuo Table 19, eighth lens element 1080 has a focal length f8 = 29.52, and focal length for the tenth embodiment is f = 1.85, therefore f8/f = 15.96, outside the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Kuo discloses the camera optical lens as described in claim 1, wherein a focal number of the camera optical lens is Fno, and a field of view of the camera optical lens is FOV, and following relational expression is satisfied:
Fno ≤ 1.80 (Kuo, Table 19, Fno is 1.75 for the tenth embodiment, satisfying the instant limitation).
Kuo in the tenth embodiment does not disclose a field of view that satisfies the condition FOV ≥ 159.00° (Table 19, the half field of view HFOV for the tenth embodiment is 62.1 degrees, therefore the full FOV is 124.2°, less than the claimed lower limit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872