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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9 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.
Claims 17-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 17, the closest prior art Sato et al. (CN108254859), fails to disclose in combination with all of the other elements of the claim wherein the second catadioptric lens element has an object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region. Modification of Sato’s second catadioptric lens would require completely redesigning the entire optical system due to the highly complex nature of h having multiple catadioptric lenses in the system with no guarantee of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (CN108254859).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an imaging system lens assembly, comprising two lens groups, the two lens groups being, in order from an object side to an image side along a light path, a first lens group and a second lens group (see at least Fig. 9 L1, L2 and L4);
wherein the first lens group comprises a first catadioptric lens element and a second catadioptric lens element (L1 and L2), the second lens group comprises at least one lens element (L4);
wherein each of the first catadioptric lens element and the second catadioptric lens element has an object-side surface facing towards the object side and an image-side surface facing towards the image side (Tables 9 and 10);
wherein the object-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element comprises a central region and a peripheral region, and the image-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element comprises a central region and a peripheral region (Fig. 9);
wherein the object-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element comprises a central region and a peripheral region, and the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element comprises a central region and a peripheral region (Fig. 9);
wherein the peripheral region of the object-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element comprises a first refracting surface (R1), the peripheral region of the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element comprises a first reflecting surface (M1), the central region of the object-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element comprises a second reflecting surface (M2), the central region of the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element comprises a last refracting surface (R8); wherein an axial distance between the second reflecting surface and an image surface is TL, a maximum image height of the imaging system lens assembly is ImgH, and the following condition is satisfied:
TL/ImgH < 6.0 ([0117]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses wherein the axial distance between the second reflecting surface and the image surface is TL, the maximum image height of the imaging system lens assembly is ImgH, and the following condition is satisfied:
1.0 < TL/ImgH < 3.0 ([0117]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses wherein a half of a maximum field of view of the imaging system lens assembly is HFOV, an f-number of the imaging system lens assembly is Fno, and the following conditions are satisfied: 7.0 degrees < HFOV < 20.0 degrees ([0097] – 8.1 degrees); and 1.3 < Fno < 2.5 ([0097] – 1.9).
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses wherein a maximum effective radius of the central region of the object-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element is YM2, a maximum effective radius of the central region of the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element is YRL, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.0 < YM2/YRL < 2.0 (Table 9 where 15.3/9.8 = 1.6).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses wherein each of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element comprises a light blocking area between the central region and the peripheral region thereof (C, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses wherein each of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element comprises a light blocking area between the central region and the peripheral region thereof (Fig. 9, B and the peripheral edge of L4).
Regarding claim 15, Sato discloses an imaging apparatus, comprising: the imaging system lens assembly of claim 1; and an image sensor disposed on the image surface of the imaging system lens assembly (P1).
Regarding claim 16, Sato discloses an electronic device, comprising: the imaging apparatus of claim 15 (500).
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
Regarding claim 6, Sato does not disclose wherein a central thickness of the first catadioptric lens element is CT1, a central thickness of the second catadioptric lens element is CT2, the axial distance between the second reflecting surface and the image surface is TL, and the following condition is satisfied:
0 < (CT1+CT2)/TL < 0.3.
However, Sato teaches (CT1+CT2)/TL = 0.33 (Table 9), which is a difference of 0.03 and close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the thickness of, or distance between, any one or more lenses so that the conditional expression above was satisfied since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Sato does not disclose wherein at least one surface of the at least one lens element of the second lens group comprises at least one inflection point; a central thickness of the first catadioptric lens element is CT1, the axial distance between the second reflecting surface and the image surface is TL, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.06 < CT1/TL < 0.15.
However, Sato teaches CT1/TL = 0.18 (Table 9), which is a difference of 0.03 and close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the thickness of, or distance between, any one or more lenses so that the conditional expression above was satisfied since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Sato does not disclose wherein a minimum effective radius of the peripheral region of the object-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element is YR1i, a maximum effective radius of the central region of the image-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element is YRL, an axial distance between the image-side surface of the first catadioptric lens element and the object-side surface of the second catadioptric lens element is T12, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.60 < (YR1i-YRL)/T12 < 8.0.
However, Sato teaches (YR1i-YRL)/T12 = 0.5 (Table 9), which is a difference of 0.1 and close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the distance between the first and second lenses so that the conditional expression above was satisfied since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872