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
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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the phrase: “capable of giving the best imaging performance when using near-infrared light”. However, it has been held that when a claim term requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction, this may render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b), Section IV, citing In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893; 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970).
In the present case, the word “best” in relation to “imaging performance” is a subjective term because there does not appear to any objective standard in Applicant’s originally-filed specification for measuring the scope of this term. Applicant’s originally-filed specification does not appear to define which one or more aspects of “imaging performance” would be evaluated to determine if they are “best”, and doing so by using a measurable standard. For examination, this phrase will be treated as: “capable of imaging using near-infrared light”.
The above analysis is also applicable to Claims 9 and 19 which similarly recite “best imaging performance”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al., US 2021/0003822 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Chang discloses: An imaging lens, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens and a fifth lens with refractive powers arranged in order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens (lenses L1 through L6 in the third, fourth, and fifth embodiments; Abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0043]-[0051] and TABLES 5, 7, 9 and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang);
wherein the first lens is closest to the object side as compared with any other lens with a refractive power in the imaging lens, and the fifth lens is closest to the image side as compared with any other lens with a refractive power in the imaging lens (L1 may be identified as the claimed “first lens”, and L6 may be identified as the claimed “fifth lens”; paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and TABLES 5, 7, 9 and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang); and
an aperture stop disposed between the second lens and the fourth lens (aperture stop 14 is disposed between L3 and L4, or between lenses L2 and L3; paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and TABLES 5, 7, 9 and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang);
and where D1 is a lens diameter of the first lens, DL is a lens diameter of the fifth lens, and LT is a distance measured along an optical axis between an object-side surface of the first lens and an image-side surface of the fifth lens, the imaging lens satisfies the conditions of:
0.5 < D1 / LT < 0.8 (Chang uses “D1” to signify a lens diameter of the first lens L1, and uses “OAL” to signify a distance between two outermost lens surfaces among all lenses measured along the optical axis [i.e., corresponding to the claimed “LT”], wherein a ratio D1 / OAL is 0.68 or 0.78, wherein such values are between 0.5 and 0.8; paragraphs [0004], [0022], [0034], [0037] and TABLES 5, 7, 9 and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang); and
0.5 < DL / LT < 0.8 (Chang uses “DL” to signify a lens diameter of the last lens, i.e., lens L6, the lens closest to the image-side [corresponding to the claimed “fifth lens”], and uses “OAL” to signify a distance between two outermost lens surfaces among all lenses measured along the optical axis [i.e., corresponding to the claimed “LT”], wherein for the third embodiment [FIG. 11, TABLE 5] a value of DL is 6.13 mm and a value of OAL is 10.20 mm, for a ratio [6.13 mm / 10.20 mm] of 0.601, for the fourth embodiment [FIG. 16, TABLE 7] a value of DL is 5.81 mm and a value of OAL is 10.34 mm, for a ratio [5.81 mm / 10.34 mm] of 0.562, and for the fifth embodiment [FIG. 21, TABLE 9] a value of DL is 5.99 mm and a value of OAL is 10.47 mm, for a ratio [5.99 mm / 10.47 mm] of 0.572, wherein such values are each between 0.5 and 0.8; paragraphs [0004], [0026], [0034], [0037] and TABLES 5, 7, 9 and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang);
wherein the imaging lens is capable of giving the best imaging performance when using near-infrared light for imaging as compared with other spectral region of light (use in the near infrared light, with at least the wavelength 850 nm; paragraphs [0006], [0013], [0015], [0017], [0036], [0055], [0056] and FIGS. 13, 18, 23 of Chang; as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1 based on 35 USC 112(b), this claim is interpreted as requiring that the imaging lens is capable of imaging using near-infrared light).
Regarding Claim 5, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens and the fifth lens respectively have negative, negative, positive, positive and positive refractive powers (for the third embodiment [FIG. 11, TABLE 5] the lenses L1, L2, L3, L5, L6 are negative, negative, positive, positive, positive; paragraph [0043] and TABLE 5 and FIG. 11 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 6, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: further comprising a sixth lens with a positive refractive power disposed between the first lens and the second lens (for the fourth embodiment [FIG. 16, TABLE 7] the lenses L1, L3, L4, L5, L6 may be identified as the claimed first through fifth lenses, wherein lens L2 may be identified as the claimed “sixth lens” which is between L1 and L3, and lens L2 has a positive power; paragraph [0046] and TABLE 7 and FIG. 16 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 7, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the fourth lens is an aspheric lens (for the fifth embodiment [FIG. 21, TABLE 9] the lens L4 may be aspheric).
Regarding Claim 8, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein each of the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens and the fifth lens is a glass lens (optical elements which refract, such as lens, may include plastic or glass; paragraph [0021] and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the imaging lens gives the best imaging performance in a wavelength range of 937-943nm among different wavelengths of near-infrared light (the lens system of Change is capable of use with near infrared light; paragraphs [0006], [0013], [0015], [0017], [0036], [0055], [0056] and FIGS. 13, 18, 23 of Chang; as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1 based on 35 USC 112(b), this claim is interpreted as requiring that the imaging lens is capable of imaging using near-infrared light).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Wu et al., US 2024/0085667 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: wherein a chief ray angle on the image side measured between a chief ray and the optical axis of the imaging lens ranges from -2 degrees to 2 degrees.
Wu is related to Chang with respect to optical lens set.
Wu teaches: wherein a chief ray angle on the image side measured between a chief ray and the optical axis of the imaging lens ranges from -2 degrees to 2 degrees (angle between the chief rays at different image height positions and the optical axis is <1 degree, and the angle between the chief rays at different object height positions and the optical axis is <1 degree; Abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0015] of Wu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the chief ray angle of Wu for the lens set of Chang because doing so will result in precise magnification, as well as good aberration and resolution, as taught in Abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0015] of Wu.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang.
Regarding Claim 10, Chang discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: further comprising: a cover plate provided with a filter film and disposed on one side of the fifth lens away from the first lens (light filter 16 is disposed on one side of lens L6 away from lens L1; paragraph [0024] and FIGS. 11, 16, 21 of Chang).
Chang does not appear to disclose specific numerical ranges of filtering and wavelength, such that: wherein the filter film is capable of filtering out 99% of light in a wavelength range of 360-830 nm.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Chang discloses use in the near infrared light, with at least the wavelength 850 nm; paragraphs [0006], [0013], [0015], [0017], [0036], [0055], [0056] and FIGS. 13, 18, 23 of Chang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to strongly filter out the unused light in the visible range, as well as ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths adjacent to the visible range, when the device of Chang is used for the wavelength 850 nm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed. Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of independent Claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to Claim 2, although the prior art discloses various imaging lenses, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
150
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
49
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 4, although the prior art discloses various imaging lenses, including:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
150
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
74
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 11, although the prior art discloses various imaging lenses, including:
PNG
media_image5.png
302
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
76
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above combination of features further comprising:
PNG
media_image7.png
126
514
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 12-20, these claims each depend from Claim 11, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872