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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “cemented each other”. Examiner assumes this is a typographical error and Applicant intended to claim “cement to each other”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the cemented lens”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a first lens and a second lens, at least one of which is a cemented lens”, and thus it is unclear to which of the first or second lenses (or both) are being referred to by “the cemented lens”. The dependent claims are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Additionally, claim 21 recites “wherein each of the first lens and the second lens is the cemented lens”. Again, it is unclear to which lens “the cemented lens” is referring, or whether the first lens and the second lens are intended to be the same lens.
The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20-25 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4-5, 8, 14, 17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 111796419, published 10/20/20) in view of Kawamura et al. (US 2021/0341709) and Lin et al. (US 2017/0115481).
Regarding claim 1, Qin discloses an optical system comprising a plurality of lenses including: a first lens and a second lens (abstract, fig. 1, e.g., lenses 10-17),
wherein outside respective effective regions of the first lens and the second lens, the first lens and the second lens are in contact with an interval holding member disposed between the first lens and the second lens (abstract, fig. 1, spacers between adjacent lenses),
and wherein following inequalities are satisfied:
0.96<D1/D2<1.04, and
0.96<D1/D3<1.04,
where maximum diameters of the first lens and the second lens are D1 and D2, respectively, and a maximum diameter of the interval holding member is D3 (abstract, fig. 1, i.e., D1=D2=D3).
Qin fails to explicitly disclose at least one of a first lens and a second lens is a cemented lens, wherein the cemented lens includes a positive lens and a negative lens cemented each other, wherein a diameter of the negative lens is larger than a diameter of the positive lens; and a third lens disposed closest to an object and having the largest diameter among the plurality of lenses, and wherein D4min is a minimum diameter of the third lens, D4max is a maximum diameter of the third lens, and 0.96<D1/D4min<1.04 and D1/D4max≤0.96.
Kawamura teaches at least one of a first lens and a second lens is a cemented lens, wherein the cemented lens includes a positive lens and a negative lens cemented each other, wherein a diameter of the negative lens is larger than a diameter of the positive lens (fig. 2, ¶ 191-192, e.g., B cemented lens with positive lens L1e and larger negative lens L1f; C cemented lens with positive lens L1g and larger negative lens L1h; see also figs. 3-11).
Qin and Kawamura are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin with the cemented lenses of Kawamura since such a modification provides the Petzval sum can be corrected, coma aberration can be corrected, and spherical aberration can be corrected (Kawamura, ¶ 192).
Lin teaches a third lens disposed closest to an object and having the largest diameter among the plurality of lenses, and wherein D4min is a minimum diameter of the third lens, D4max is a maximum diameter of the third lens, and 0.96<D1/D4min<1.04 and D1/D4max≤0.96 (fig. 1, ¶ 30, objective lens in barrel 11 with max diameter larger than other lenses and minimum diameter approximately equal to other lens diameters; see also figs. 6 and 12).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura with the device of Lin since such a modification provides a compact image capturing system for vehicles or smart house appliances (Lin, ¶ 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Qin discloses wherein the first lens and the second lens are in contact with the interval holding member outside the effective regions of the optical system (abstract, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Qin discloses wherein surfaces of the first lens and the second lens are in contact with the interval holding member outside the effective regions of the optical system, are flat surfaces perpendicular to an optical axis (abstract, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Qin discloses wherein a following inequality is satisfied:
1.00≤Dmax/Dmin<1.04,
where a maximum value and a minimum value of maximum diameters of the interval holding member and the plurality of lenses other than the third lens are Dmax and Dmin, respectively (abstract, fig. 1, e.g., lenses 10-17 with Dmax=Dmin).
Regarding claim 14, Qin discloses an optical apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 1 (abstract, fig. 1);
and a lens barrel configured to support the optical system (abstract, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Qin discloses an image capturing apparatus comprising: the optical system according to claim 1 (abstract, fig. 1);
and an element configured to capture an image of an object via the optical system (abstract, fig. 1, multi-lens optical system for imaging disclosed),
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the element includes a pixel including a plurality of light receiving portions, wherein the plurality of light receiving portions receive a light flux that has passed through different pupil points. However, Examiner takes official notice that the use of sub-pixels in an image sensor for receiving a light flux that has passed through different pupil points is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the well-known image sensor with sub-pixels since such a modification achieves the predictable result of providing adequate imaging resolution for a camera. Applicant has not traversed Examiner's assertion of official notice in the reply filed 8/7/25, and thus the use of sub-pixels in an image sensor for receiving a light flux that has passed through different pupil points is taken to be admitted prior art [see MPEP 2144.03]).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamura further teaches wherein each of the first lens and the second lens is the cemented lens (fig. 2, ¶ 191-192, e.g., B cemented lens with positive lens L1e and larger negative lens L1f; C cemented lens with positive lens L1g and larger negative lens L1h; see also figs. 3-11).
Regarding claim 22, Qin discloses wherein the negative lens included in the first lens and the positive lens included in the second lens are in contact with each other via the interval holding member (abstract, fig. 1, spacers between adjacent lenses).
Regarding claim 23, Kawamura further teaches wherein the positive lens is disposed closer to the object than the negative lens in the first lens, and the positive lens is disposed closer to the object than the negative lens in the second lens (fig. 2, ¶ 191-192, e.g., B cemented lens with positive lens L1e and larger negative lens L1f; C cemented lens with positive lens L1g and larger negative lens L1h; see also figs. 3-11).
Regarding claim 24, Lin further teaches wherein a diameter of an object-side surface of the third lens is larger than a diameter of an image-side surface of the third lens (fig. 1, ¶ 30, objective lens in barrel 11 with object-side diameter larger than diameter of curved image-side surface; see also figs. 6 and 12).
Claims 2, 3, 9, 11-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin as applied to claims 1, 8, and 17 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2022/0236533).
Regarding claim 2, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first lens and the second lens is disposed adjacent to an aperture stop.
Takahashi teaches wherein at least one of the first lens and the second lens is disposed adjacent to an aperture stop (fig. 1, ¶ 29-30, e.g., aperture stop ST1).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Takahashi are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the device of Takahashi since such a modification provides an in-vehicle camera with a sufficient angle of view, sufficient center and peripheral resolutions, and a good optical performance over the entire angle of view (Takahashi, ¶ 30, ¶ 32, ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further teaches wherein at least one of the first lens and the second lens includes an aspheric surface (fig. 1, ¶ 29-34, aspherical surfaces disclosed).
Regarding claim 9, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to disclose wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is an aspheric surface including a point of inflection in a cross section including an optical axis.
Takahashi teaches wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is an aspheric surface including a point of inflection in a cross section including an optical axis (fig. 1, ¶ 29-34, aspherical surfaces disclosed; see also ¶ 36-55).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Takahashi are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the device of Takahashi since such a modification provides an in-vehicle camera with a sufficient angle of view, sufficient center and peripheral resolutions, and a good optical performance over the entire angle of view (Takahashi, ¶ 30, ¶ 32, ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi further teaches wherein curvatures with respect to points in a radial direction in a cross section including the optical axis of the aspheric surface have a minimum value (¶ 29, ¶ 36-55, e.g., see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi further teaches wherein a following inequality is satisfied:
0.50≤E≤0.80,
where E is a normalized distance from the optical axis to a point corresponding to the minimum value on the aspheric surface (¶ 36-55, e.g., see ¶ 42).
Regarding claim 13, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to disclose wherein a following inequality is satisfied:1.00<f×sin(θmax)/y(θmax)≤1.90, where a projection property of the optical system representing a relationship between a half angle of view θ and an image height y is y(θ), a maximum half angle of view of the optical system is θmax, and a focal length of the optical system is f.
Takahashi teaches wherein a following inequality is satisfied:
1.00<f×sin(θmax)/y(θmax)≤1.90,
where a projection property of the optical system representing a relationship between a half angle of view θ and an image height y is y(θ), a maximum half angle of view of the optical system is θmax, and a focal length of the optical system is f (¶ 36-55, e.g., see ¶ 55).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Takahashi are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the device of Takahashi since such a modification provides an in-vehicle camera with a sufficient angle of view, sufficient center and peripheral resolutions, and a good optical performance over the entire angle of view (Takahashi, ¶ 30, ¶ 32, ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 18, Lin further teaches an in-vehicle system comprising: the image capturing apparatus according to claim 17 (¶ 5, ¶ 82-83).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to explicitly disclose a display apparatus configured to display an image obtained based on an output of the image capturing apparatus.
Takahashi a display apparatus configured to display an image obtained based on an output of the image capturing apparatus (¶ 29-34, E mirror and rearview mirror disclosed; see also figs. 15-17, ¶ 80-91).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Takahashi are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the device of Takahashi since such a modification provides an in-vehicle camera with a sufficient angle of view, sufficient center and peripheral resolutions, and a good optical performance over the entire angle of view (Takahashi, ¶ 30, ¶ 32, ¶ 91).
Regarding claim 20, Lin further teaches a moving apparatus comprising the image capturing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the moving apparatus is movable while holding the image capturing apparatus (¶ 5, ¶ 82-83).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2023/0024433).
Regarding claim 15, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein a following inequality is satisfied:
2.00<| αT−αL|<30.0,
where a linear expansion coefficient of the lens barrel is αT [10−6/° C.] and a minimum value of linear expansion coefficients of lenses including the first lens and the second lens included in the optical system is αL [10−6/° C].
However, Yun teaches the selection of various materials and configurations for lenses and lens barrels to provide athermalization (see Yun, ¶ 22, ¶ 25, ¶ 31-35, ¶ 44-56, coefficient of thermal expansion for a lens and a lens barrel may be adjusted to achieve athermalization, e.g., a glass lens may have a smaller coefficient of thermal expansion than a lens barrel). Further, Yun teaches the design and optimization of a lens and barrel arrangement to meet athermalization specifications (see Yun, ¶ 78-86, ¶ 92-94). Therefore, the claimed inequality would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as merely routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Further, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Yun are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the device of Yun since such a modification provides optical components that are more resistant to temperature change (Yun, ¶ 22) and provides greater thermal stability (Yun, ¶ 56).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirie (US 2004/0120046).
Regarding claim 25, Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the interval holding member has a function of an aperture stop.
Shirie teaches wherein the interval holding member has a function of an aperture stop (fig. 2, ¶ 24-30, spacer 30 with flare stopper 31; see also figs. 4-7).
Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin and Shirie are both directed to optical systems with lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Qin in view of Kawamura and Lin with the stopper of Shirie since such a modification reduces the occurrence of ghost and flare (Shirie, ¶ 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights