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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
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, 4-6, 8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (CN 111796419, published 10/20/20) in view of Yun et al. (US 2023/0024433) 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; 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.
Yun teaches at least one of a first lens and a second lens is a cemented lens (fig. 4, ¶ 56-61, doublet lens may provide greater thermal stability).
Qin 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 with the doublet 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).
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 Yun 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 Yun 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 6, Qin in view of Yun and Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the contact surfaces include a region on which the contact surfaces are bonded to each other by an adhesive member. However, Examiner takes official notice that the use of adhesive for bonding surfaces 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 Yun and Lin with the well-known adhesive since such a modification achieves the predictable result of providing bonded components for durable manufacturing. Applicant has not traversed Examiner's assertion of official notice in the reply filed 1/21/26, and thus the use of adhesive for bonding surfaces is taken to be admitted prior art [see MPEP 2144.03]).
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 15, Qin in view of Yun 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.
Regarding claim 16, Qin discloses wherein an internal shape of the lens barrel is circular (abstract, fig. 1, lens barrel, see also fig. 2).
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 Yun 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 Yun 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]).
Claims 2, 3, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin in view of Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun and Lin fails to disclose wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is an aspheric surface.
Takahashi teaches wherein an object-side surface of the third lens is an aspheric surface (fig. 1, ¶ 29-34, aspherical surfaces disclosed).
Qin in view of Yun 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 Yun 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 10, Takahashi further teaches wherein the aspheric surface includes a point of inflection in a cross section including an optical axis (¶ 29, ¶ 36-55).
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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 Yun 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 19, Takahashi further teaches wherein the display apparatus includes: a first unit configured to display a first image corresponding to a first angle of view in the image; and a second unit configured to display a second image corresponding to a second angle of view including the first angle of view (¶ 29-34, E mirror and rearview mirror disclosed; see also figs. 15-17, ¶ 80-91).
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).
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
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