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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2022/0244500 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Tseng et al. discloses an optical imaging system (denoted “image capturing unit”, see e.g. Figure 9), comprising (see e.g. Figure 9 and Tables 9-10 and paragraph [0209] for Tseng et al.’s 5th embodiment):
a first lens 510, a second lens 520, a third lens 530, a fourth lens 540, a fifth lens 550, a sixth lens 560, a seventh lens 570, an eighth lens 580, a ninth lens 590, and a tenth lens 593 (see e.g. Figure 9 and paragraph [0195]),
wherein the third lens 530 has positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0198]),
wherein the first lens 510 to the tenth lens 593 are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (i.e. left to right, see e.g. Figure 9 and paragraph [0195]), and
TTL/(2*ImgHT) ~ 0.6 (see e.g. Tables 9-10 and paragraph [0209] for a value TL/ImgH=1.20), where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane and ImgHT is a height of the image plane, which falls within applicant’s claimed range.
Tseng et al. fails to explicitly disclose
0.5 mm < SmT3456 < 1.5 mm, and SmT3456 is a sum of thicknesses of the third lens to the sixth lens.
However, Tseng et al. does disclose
SmT3456 ~ 1.684 (see e.g. Table 9 for T3=0.3264, T4=0.5522 T5=0.3756 T6=0.4300), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tseng et al. with SmT3456 is a sum of thicknesses of the third lens to the sixth lens.
Selecting lenses to have a thickness that falls within the claimed range would result in a thinner and lighter weight device.
In regard to claim 2, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0 < f1/f < 1.40, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f1 is a focal length of the first lens L1 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f1=7.12, thus f1/f ~ 0.820, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 3, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-10 < f2/f < -1.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f2 is a focal length of the second lens L2 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f2=-18.50, thus f2/f ~ -2.13, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 4, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
1.0 < |f3/f| < 35, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f3 is a focal length of the third lens L3 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f3=189.24, thus |f3/f| ~ 21.8, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 5, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
3.0 < |f5/f| < 20, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens L5 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f5=-55.89, thus |f5/f| ~ 6.44, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 7, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
2.0 < f7/f < 15, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens L7 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f7=84.66, thus f7/f ~ 9.75, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 9, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-1.0 < f10/f < 0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f10 is a focal length of the tenth lens L10 (see e.g. Tables 9-10, paragraph [0209] for f=8.68 and f10=-8.16, thus f10/f ~-.940 , which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 10, Tseng et al. discloses an electronic device (i.e. image capturing unit, see e.g. Figure 9 and paragraph [0195]), comprising the optical imaging system of claim 1.
Claims 1-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2022/0082803 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lu et al. discloses an optical imaging system (see e.g. paragraph [0086]), comprising (see e.g. Figure 3 and Table 3 for Lu et al.’s second embodiment):
a first lens E1, a second lens E2, a third lens E3, a fourth lens E4, a fifth lens E5, a sixth lens E6, a seventh lens E7, an eighth lens E8, a ninth lens E9, and a tenth lens E10 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0087]),
wherein the third lens E3 has positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0088]),
wherein the first lens E1 to the tenth lens E10 are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. paragraph [0087]), and
SmT3456 ~ 1.00 (see e.g. Table 3 for T3=0.2656, T4=0.2809, T5=0.2376 and T6=0.2218), which falls within applicant’s claimed range, SmT3456 is a sum of thicknesses of the third lens to the sixth lens.
Lu et al. fails to disclose
wherein TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66 and where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane, ImgHT is a height of the image plane.
However, Lu et al. does disclose TTL/(2*ImgHT) ~ 0.74 (see e.g. paragraph [0089] for values of TTL and ImgH), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with wherein TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66 and where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane, ImgHT is a height of the image plane.
Optimizing the value of TTL/(2*ImgHT) would provide a desired magnification while balance the size of the optical system.
In regard to claim 2, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0 < f1/f < 1.40, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f1 is a focal length of the first lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f1=8.30, thus f1/f ~ 1.34, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 3, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-10 < f2/f < -1.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f2=-17.06, thus f2/f ~ -2.77, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 4, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
1.0 < |f3/f| < 35, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f3 is a focal length of the third lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f5=99.15, thus |f3/f| ~ 16.1, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 5, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
3.0 < |f5/f| < 20, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose |f5/f| ~21.2 (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f5=130.61 , thus |f5/f| ~ 21.2), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with 3.0 < |f5/f| < 20, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal length to the total focal length allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 6, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-10 < f6/f < -1.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f6=-21.05, thus f6/f ~ -3.41, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 7, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
2.0 < f7/f < 15, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose f7/f ~1.64 (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f7=10.12, thus f7/f ~ 1.64), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with 2.0 < f7/f < 15, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal length to the total focal length allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 8, Lu e al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0 < f9/f < 2.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f9=5.91, thus f9/f ~ -0.958, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 9, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-1.0 < f10/f < 0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system and f10 is a focal length of the tenth lens (see e.g. Table 3, paragraph [0089] for f=6.17 and f10=-5.06, thus f10/f ~ -0.820, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 10, Lu et al. discloses an electronic device (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0086]) comprising the optical imaging system of claim 1.
In regard to claim 11, Lu et al. discloses an optical imaging system (see e.g. paragraph [0086]), comprising (see e.g. Figure 3 and Table 3 for Lu et al.’s second embodiment):
a first lens E1, a second lens E2, a third lens E3, a fourth lens E4, a fifth lens E5, a sixth lens E6, a seventh lens E7, an eighth lens E8, a ninth lens E9, and a tenth lens E10 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0087]),
wherein the third lens E3 has positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0088]),
wherein the first lens E1 to the tenth lens E10 are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. paragraph [0087]).
Lu et al. fails to disclose
wherein 0.9 < f2/f6 < 1.20, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose f2/f6 ~0.810, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. Table 3 for f2=-17.06 and f6=-21.05, thus f2/f6 ~ -0.820).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with wherein 0.9 < f2/f6 < 1.20, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal lengths allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 12, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11, but fails to disclose
0.6 < f1/f9 < 1.0, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose f1/f9 ~1.40 (see e.g. Table 3 for f1=8.30 and f9=5.91, thus f1/f9 ~ 1.40), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with wherein 0.6 < f1/f9 < 1.0, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal lengths allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 13, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
0.9 < f5/f7 < 1.50, where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using 0.9 < f5/f7 < 1.50, where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with 0.9 < f5/f7 < 1.50, where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal lengths allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 14, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
-2.0 < f9/f10 < -1.2, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens and f10 is a focal length of the tenth lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose f9/f10 ~1.40 (see e.g. Table 3 for f10=-5.06 and f9=5.91, thus f9/f10 ~ -1.16), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with -2.0 < f9/f10 < -1.2, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens and f10 is a focal length of the tenth lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal lengths allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 15, Lu et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
-3.0 < (f1+f7)/(f2+f6) < -0.8, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
However, Lu et al. does disclose (f1+f7)/(f2+f6) ~ -0.483 (see e.g. Table 3 for f1=8.30, f2= -17.06, f6=-21.05, f7=10.12, which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu et al. with -3.0 < (f1+f7)/(f2+f6) < -0.8, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
Providing a ratio of the lens focal lengths allows for selection of a desired magnification of the image.
In regard to claim 18, Lu et al. discloses an electronic device (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0086]) comprising the optical imaging system of claim 11.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2022/0057606 A1), hereinafter Lu ‘606.
In regard to claim 19¸ Lu et al. discloses an optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens, and a tenth lens (see e.g. paragraph [0059] for first through tenth lenses),
wherein the fourth lens has negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0059]),
wherein the eighth lens has positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0059]),
wherein the first lens to the tenth lens are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. paragraph [0058]).
Lu ‘606 fails to explicitly disclose
wherein TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane, and ImgHT is a height of the image plane.
However, Lu ‘606 does disclose TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.69, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0064] where TTL/ImgH ≤ 1.38, and thus TTL(2*ImgH) ≤ 0.69, which overlaps applicant's claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lu ‘606 with wherein TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane, and ImgHT is a height of the image plane.
Optimizing the value of TTL/(2*ImgHT) would provide a desired magnification while balance the size of the optical system.
In regard to claim 20, Lu ‘606 discloses an electronic device, comprising the optical imaging system of claim 19 (see e.g. paragraph [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to dependent claim 16, the closest prior art references fail to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 16, including the limitations, “1.5 < f3/R5-f3/R6 < 2.0, where f3 is a focal length of the third lens, R5 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens, and R6 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens.”
In regard to dependent claim 17, the closest prior art references fail to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 17, including the limitations, “ 0.5 < |R20/f10| < 0.6, where f10 is a focal length of the tenth lens and R20 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the tenth lens.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights