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 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 9, the limitation, “ 0.9 < f2/f9 < 1.20, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, claim 1, on which claim 9 depends requires the second lens having a negative refractive power. Applicant’s disclosure sets forth the ninth lens as having a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0086] of applicant’s originally filed disclosure). It is further noted that all of applicant’s disclosed embodiments appear to have a ninth lens having a positive refractive power. Therefore, it is unclear how a ratio of f2/f9 may be positive. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the range is negative or that the absolute value of the ratio falls with the claimed range.
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.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (TW I734477, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 11, Lee et al. discloses an optical imaging system (i.e. wide-angle lens, see e.g. page 3, first paragraph under “Mode-for-invention”), comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a first lens L11 (see e.g. page 3, third paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1), a second lens L12 (see e.g. page 3, fourth paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1), a third lens L13 (see e.g. page 3, fifth paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1), a fourth lens L14 L13 (see e.g. page 3, sixth paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1), a fifth lens L15 (see e.g. page 4, first paragraph), a sixth lens L16 (see e.g. page 4, second paragraph), a seventh lens L17 (see e.g. page 4, third paragraph), an eighth lens L18 (see e.g. page 4, fourth paragraph), a ninth lens L19 (see e.g. page 4, fifth paragraph), and a tenth lens L110 (see e.g. page 4, sixth paragraph) sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. Figure 1),
wherein:
the second lens L12 has negative refractive power (see e.g. page 3, fourth paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1),
the third lens L13 has negative refractive power L13 (see e.g. page 3, fifth paragraph under “Mode-for-invention” and Figure 1),
the fifth lens L15 has positive refractive power (see e.g. page 4, first paragraph), and
the eighth lens L18 has a convex object-side surface S114 (see e.g. page 4, fourth paragraph).
In regard to claim 18, Lee et al. discloses an electronic device, comprising the optical imaging system of claim 11 (see e.g. rejection of claim 11).
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 1-10 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. paragraph [0150]), comprising (see e.g. Figure 3):
a first lens 210, a second lens 220, a third lens 230, a fourth lens 240, a fifth lens 250, a sixth lens 260, a seventh lens 270, an eighth lens 280, a ninth lens 290, and a tenth lens 293 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0150]),
wherein the second lens 220 has negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0152] and Figure 3),
wherein the first lens 210 to the tenth lens 293 are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0105]),
wherein TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66 (see e.g. paragraph [0164] for TL/ImgH=1.24 which results in a value of ~.62, which falls within applicant’s claimed range), 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.
Tseng et al. fails to explicitly disclose
0 < f9/f < 2.0,
f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens.
However, Tseng et al. does disclose f9/f ~3.45 (see e.g. Table 3 for f=8.48 and f9=29.25), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
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 0 < f9/f < 2.0, f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens.
Setting the ratio of focal lengths would allow for a desired magnification to be achieved in the device and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 2, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
-1.0 < f1/f3 < -0.01, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens 210, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens 230 (see e.g. Table 3 for f1=7.03 and f3=-238.91, thus f1/f3 ~ -0.29, 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
0 < BFL/f < 0.3 (see e.g. paragraph [0164] for ImgH/BL= 5.35 and ImgH=8.16, which means BL ~ 1.53, so BL/f ~ 1.53/8.48 ~0.18, which falls within applicant’s claimed range), where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the tenth lens to the image plane.
In regard to claim 4, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0 < D12/f < 0.3, where D12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens 210 to an object-side surface of the second lens 220 (see e.g. Table 1 for D12=0.05 and f =8.48, thus D12/f ~ 0.0059, 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
70°< FOV*ImgHT/f, where FOV is an angle of view of the optical imaging system (see e.g. paragraph [0164] for HFOV =42.7, ImgHT= 8.16, and f=8.48, thus FOV ~ 85.4, and thus FOV*ImgHT/f ~ 82.2, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 6, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0.30 mm < SmT23 < 0.80 mm, where SmT23 is a sum of a thickness of the second lens 220 and a thickness of the third lens 230 (see e.g. Table 1 for thickness of the second and third lens are 0.3 and 0.3997 respectively, thus SmT23 ~ 0.70, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 7, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
0.50 mm < SmT3456 < 1.50 mm, where SmT3456 is a sum of respective thicknesses of the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens and the sixth lens.
However, Tseng et al. does disclose SmT3456 ~ 0.3997 + 0.5515 + 0.3593 + 0.4965 ~ 1.81 (see e.g. Table 1 for thickness values), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
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 0.50 mm < SmT3456 < 1.50 mm, where SmT3456 is a sum of respective thicknesses of the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens and the sixth lens.
Modifying the thickness by using materials of a different refractive index would allow the device to be lighter/smaller and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 8, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
0 < SmT23/TTL < 0.10, where SmT23 is a sum of a thickness of the second lens 220 and a thickness of the third lens 230 (see e.g. claim 6 calculation for SmT23 ~ 0.70 and paragraph [0164] for track length of 10.11, thus SmT23/TTL ~0.069, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 9, Tseng et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 0.9 < f2/f9 < 1.20, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens.
However, Tseng et al. does discloses a f2/f9 = -16.85/29.25 ~0.58, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. Table 1 for focal lengths and 35 U.S.C. claim rejection above regarding the interpretation of claim 9).
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 wherein: 0.9 < f2/f9 < 1.20, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens.
Setting the ratio of focal lengths would allow for a desired magnification to be achieved in the device and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 10, Tseng et al. discloses an electronic device, comprising the optical imaging system of claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (TW I734477).
In regard to claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 0.8 < f1/R3 < 1.2, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 0.8 < f1/R3 < 1.2, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 0.8 < f1/R3 < 1.2, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens.
Selecting the ratio of the focal lengths and the radius of curvature for the lens allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 13, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 7.10 < (R2+R3)/R1 < 7.60, where R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 7.10 < (R2+R3)/R1 < 7.60, where R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 7.10 < (R2+R3)/R1 < 7.60, where R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, R2 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens.
Selecting the ratios of the radii of curvature for the lenses allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 14, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 1.50 < (R3+R4)/f1 < 1.80, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, and R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 1.50 < (R3+R4)/f1 < 1.80, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, and R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 1.50 < (R3+R4)/f1 < 1.80, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, and R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens.
Selecting the ratio of the focal lengths and the radii of curvature for the lens allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 15, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 0.90 < (R3+R4)/R6 < 1.20, where R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens, and R6 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 0.90 < (R3+R4)/R6 < 1.20, where R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens, and R6 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 0.90 < (R3+R4)/R6 < 1.20, where R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens, and R6 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens.
Selecting the ratios of the radii of curvature for the lenses allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 16, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 2.10 < (R17+R18)/f9 < 2.40, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 2.10 < (R17+R18)/f9 < 2.40, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 2.10 < (R17+R18)/f9 < 2.40, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth lens.
Selecting the ratios of the radii of curvature for the lenses allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 17, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein: 1.30 < (R18-R17)/f9 < 1.60, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth lens.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein: 1.30 < (R18-R17)/f9 < 1.60, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth 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 Lee et al. with wherein: 1.30 < (R18-R17)/f9 < 1.60, where f9 is a focal length of the ninth lens, R17 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the ninth lens, and R18 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the ninth lens.
Selecting the ratios of the radii of curvature for the lenses allows for a desired magnification to be selected and would have predictable results.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2020/0393653 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Chen discloses an optical imaging system (denoted “image capturing unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0188]), comprising (see e.g. Figure 7):
a first lens 410, a second lens 420, a third lens 430, a fourth lens 440, a fifth lens 450, a sixth lens 460, a seventh lens 470, an eighth lens 480, a ninth lens 490, and a tenth lens 493 (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0188]),
wherein the first lens 410 to the tenth lens 493 are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0188]), and
wherein 2.0 < f7/f < 15, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens 470 (see e.g. Table 7 for f7=35.59 and f=6.92, thus f7/f ~ 5.14, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
Chen fails to disclose
TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66, 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, Chen discloses TTL/(2*ImgHT) ~ 0.73 (see e.g. paragraph [0208] for value of TL/ImgH of 1.46), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
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 Chen with TTL/(2*ImgHT) < 0.66, 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.
Setting the ratio of the track length and image size would allow for a desired magnification to be achieved in the device and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 20, Chen discloses an electronic device, comprising the optical imaging system of claim 19 (see e.g. rejection of claim 19).
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