DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “wherein in a case where an amount of increase in an image height per unit angle of view is set as a resolution, a resolution of the optical system is lower than a resolution of a stereographic projection optical system at a central angle of view, and the resolution of the optical system is higher than the resolution of the stereographic projection optical system at a maximum half angle of view and at an intermediate half angle of view which is a half value of the maximum half angle of view” (line 4-9) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim cites “a stereographic projection optical system” (line 5-6) without specifying any structures, compositions and parameters of the stereographic projection optical system. Hence the resolution of a stereographic projection optical system is undefined, since the resolution of a stereographic projection optical system depends on the structures, compositions and parameters of the stereographic projection optical system. The cited resolution of the optical system becomes undefined as it is related to the undefined resolutions of the stereographic projection optical system.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 18 has same undefined issue (in line 7-12) as that of claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 18 through their dependency from claim 18.
Claim 20 has same undefined issue (in line 13-18) as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, parameters of g(0), g(θmax/2), g(θmax) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Claim cites parameters of g(0), g(θmax/2), g(θmax) without specifying what they are. Claim cites parameter of Y(θ), but not specifying relations between g(θ) and Y(θ). Appears that corresponding equation is missing in the claim.
Claim 3 has same undefined issue as that of claim 2 on parameter of g(θ).
Regarding claim 5, Claim cites a distance of Dc without defining a unit of Dc. Hence, the value of Dc becomes undefined.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 of this title, 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 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaya (US 9195033).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaya teaches an optical system (abstract; fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of lenses (fig. 1, 10-70); and
an aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, ST).
But Sasaya does not specifically disclose that wherein in a case where an amount of increase in an image height per unit angle of view is set as a resolution, a resolution of the optical system is lower than a resolution of a stereographic projection optical system at a central angle of view, and the resolution of the optical system is higher than the resolution of the stereographic projection optical system at a maximum half angle of view and at an intermediate half angle of view which is a half value of the maximum half angle of view.
However, firstly, this portion has 112 issue, please see above.
Secondly, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sasaya is same to that recited in the claim, then it is expected that resolution functions provided by Sasaya has same results as claimed. Since 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).
Further, 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)).
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 modify the optical system of Sasaya to have resolution parameters as claimed for a purpose of providing an optical system having a small size and lightness in weight and also having excellent optical performance at a wide field angle (col. 3, line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 2, Sasaya teaches the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
1.0 < g(0) < 2.0;
0.5 < g(θmax/2) < 1.0; and
0.5 < g(θmax) < 1.0,
where θ [deg.] represents a half angle of view, Y [mm] represents an image height, Y(θ) represents a projection characteristic of the optical system that represents a relationship between the half angle of view θ and the image height Y, δY(θ) represents an amount of change in an image height per unit angle of view, θmax represents a maximum half angle of view, when the following equation holds (--this portion has 112 issue, please see above; for the claimed g(θ) function parameters, 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)).
Regarding Claim 3, Sasaya teaches the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied for all half angles of view θ satisfying
θmax/2 ≤ θ ≤ θmax;
0.5 < g(θ) < 1.0.
(--this portion has 112 issue, please see above; for the claimed g(θ) function parameters, 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)).
Regarding Claim 18, Sasaya teaches an imaging system (abstract; fig. 1) comprising:
an optical system (fig. 1, 100); and
an image sensor configured to capture an image of an object via the optical system (fig. 1, PS-image plane, 90-imaging device, 95-drive circuit),
wherein the optical system includes:
a plurality of lenses (fig. 1, 10-70); and
an aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, ST).
But Sasaya does not specifically disclose that wherein in a case where an amount of increase in an image height per unit angle of view is set as a resolution, a resolution of the optical system is lower than a resolution of a stereographic projection optical system at a central angle of view, and the resolution of the optical system is higher than the resolution of the stereographic projection optical system at a maximum half angle of view and at an intermediate half angle of view which is a half value of the maximum half angle of view.
However, firstly, this portion has 112 issue, please see above.
Secondly, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sasaya is same to that recited in the claim, then it is expected that resolution functions provided by Sasaya has same results as claimed. Since 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).
Further, 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)).
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 modify the optical system of Sasaya to have resolution parameters as claimed for a purpose of providing an optical system having a small size and lightness in weight and also having excellent optical performance at a wide field angle (col. 3, line 1-6).
Regarding Claim 19, Sasaya teaches the imaging system according to claim 18, further comprising: a display apparatus configured to display an image obtained based on an output from the imaging apparatus (fig. 13, 95, 100- Control Section, 300- Display Device)
Regarding Claim 20, Sasaya teaches a movable apparatus (abstract; fig. 1) comprising:
a movable body (col. 6, line 60-67, an action camera, a car-mounted camera (rearview camera), a monitoring camera, or the like); and
an imaging apparatus (fig. 1, 100),
wherein the movable body is configured to move while holding the imaging apparatus (col. 6, line 60-67, a car-mounted camera),
wherein the imaging apparatus (fig. 1, 100) includes:
an optical system (fig. 1, 100); and an image sensor configured to capture an image of an object via the optical system (fig. 1, PS-image plane, 90-imaging device, 95-drive circuit),
wherein the optical system (fig. 1, 100) includes:
a plurality of lenses (fig. 1, 10-70); and
an aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, ST).
But Sasaya does not specifically disclose that wherein in a case where an amount of increase in an image height per unit angle of view is set as a resolution, a resolution of the optical system is lower than a resolution of a stereographic projection optical system at a central angle of view, and the resolution of the optical system is higher than the resolution of the stereographic projection optical system at a maximum half angle of view and at an intermediate half angle of view which is a half value of the maximum half angle of view.
However, firstly, this portion has 112 issue, please see above.
Secondly, this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Sasaya is same to that recited in the claim, then it is expected that resolution functions provided by Sasaya has same results as claimed. Since 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).
Further, 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)).
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 modify the optical system of Sasaya to have resolution parameters as claimed for a purpose of providing an optical system having a small size and lightness in weight and also having excellent optical performance at a wide field angle (col. 3, line 1-6).
Claims 4-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaya (US 9195033) in a view of Yamashita et al (WO 2017213109, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, Sasaya teaches the optical system according to claim 1, and further teaches that wherein the plurality of lenses includes a first aspheric lens located on an object side of the aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, 20; col. 13, Table 1, surfaces 3 and 4).
But Sasaya does not specifically disclose that wherein an object-side surface of the first aspheric lens is an aspherical surface including a concave surface intersecting with an optical axis, and a convex surface located on a peripheral side of the concave surface.
However, Yamashita teaches an image pickup optical system (abstract; fig. 2A-6A), wherein an object-side surface of the first aspheric lens (fig. 2A-6A, L2) is an aspherical surface including a concave surface intersecting with an optical axis, and a convex surface located on a peripheral side of the concave surface (fig. 2A-6A, L2, --object side surfaces of L2).
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 modify the optical system of Sasaya by the image pickup optical system of Yamashita for a purpose of providing of
an imaging optical system that is compact, has an angle of view of 180° or more, is bright at approximately F2, and has various aberrations well corrected (¶[0005], line 1-3).
Regarding Claim 5, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that the optical system according to claim 4, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.05 ≤ Dc ≤ 0.30,
where Dc represents a normalized distance from the optical axis at a position where a curvature of the aspherical surface is 0 (--this portion has 112 issue of Dc unit, please see above; fig. 2A, object side of L2; ¶[0048], line 1-3; ymax:1.78 (mm), as disclosed in Yamashita; --distance from a inflection point on object side of L2 to optical axis can be estimated as about 0.6 mm, or 0.06 cm).
Regarding Claim 6, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 4, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-9.0 < Rmax/Rmin < -1.0,
where Rmax represents a minimum value of a curvature radius of the convex surface, and Rmin represents a minimum value of a curvature radius of the concave surface (fig. 2A, object side of L2, as disclosed in Yamashita, -- concave and convex portions have similar curvature values; further, 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)).
Regarding Claim 7, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 4, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-5.0 < f2/f < -3.5,
where f represents a focal length of the optical system, and f2 represents a paraxial focal length of the first aspheric lens (fig. 2A, L2; ¶[0048], line 1-3; f =0.80 mm; ¶[0049], Table 1, R3, R4; --f2 can be estimated from values of R3, R4 and nd2, f2 = -2.853 mm, so f2/f = -3.57, as disclosed in Yamashita).
Regarding Claim 8, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of lenses includes a second aspheric lens located on an image side of the aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, 60 or 70, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 9, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 8, wherein the second aspheric lens is located closest to the image side among the plurality of lenses (fig. 1, 70, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 10, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses includes a first aspheric lens located on an object side of the aperture diaphragm, and a first negative lens located on an object side of the first aspheric lens (fig. 1, 10, 20, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 11, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 10, wherein the first negative lens is located adjacent to the first aspheric lens (fig. 1, 10, 20, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 12, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of lenses includes a second negative lens located on an image side of the first aspheric lens (fig. 1, 30, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 13, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 12, wherein the second negative lens is located adjacent to the first aspheric lens (fig. 1, 30, 20, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 14, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of lenses includes the first negative lens, the first aspheric lens, the second negative lens, a first positive lens, a second positive lens, the aperture diaphragm (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ST, as disclosed in Sasaya), a third positive lens, a third negative lens, and a second aspheric lens (fig. 2A, ST, L5, L6, L7, as disclosed in Yamashita) located in this order from the object side to an image side.
Regarding Claim 16, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 10, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.30 < arcsin(h2/R2)/θmax < 0.75,
where R2 represents a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first negative lens, and h2 represents an effective diameter of the image-side surface (col.13, Table 1, R2 = 3.5135; θmax = 92°, take image height (1.786) as h2; so arcsin(h2/R2)/θmax = 0.33, as disclosed in Sasaya).
Regarding Claim 17, Sasaya - Yamashita combination teaches that optical system according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.20 ≤ 2f tan(θmax/2)/Y(θmax) ≤ 0.95,
where f represents a focal length of the optical system (¶[0083], line 1-4, f = 0.72, θmax = 100°, ymax =1.84 mm, so 2f tan(θmax/2)/Y(θmax) = 0.93, as disclosed in Yamashita).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaya (US 9195033) in a view of Yamashita et al (WO 2017213109), further in a view of Ozaki et al (US 6943958).
Regarding Claim 15, Sasaya - Yamashita combination discloses as set forth above and further teaches that optical system according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of lenses includes the first negative lens, the first aspheric lens, the second negative lens, a first positive lens, the aperture diaphragm (fig. 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, ST, as disclosed in Sasaya) located in this order from an object side to an image side.
But Sasaya - Yamashita combination does not specifically disclose that wherein the plurality of lenses includes the aperture diaphragm, a second positive lens, a third negative lens, a third positive lens, and a second aspheric lens located in this order from an object side to an image side.
However, Ozaki teaches a lens system (abstract; fig. 12A-C) wherein the plurality of lenses includes the aperture diaphragm, a second positive lens, a third negative lens, a third positive lens, and a second aspheric lens located in this order from an object side to an image side (fig. 12A-C, S, L21, L22, L23, L25 (r19/r20); col. 22-23, Table of Numerical data 5; r19 --aspherical surface).
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 modify the optical system of Sasaya - Yamashita combination by the lens system of Ozaki for a purpose of providing of a lens system that enables to have a wide angle and bright F number (col. 2, line 63-65).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872