DETAILED ACTION
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.
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims, and their specification describes, a first negative lens and wherein 1.4 < f1/f < 1.7. However, in order for the conditional expression to be true the focal length of the entire system must be negative. It is understood in the art that, except in very rare cases, the focal length of the system must be positive (this is also supported by the applicant’s specification where none of the embodiments have a negative overall focal length). Therefore, it is unclear how the conditional expression could be satisfied if f1 was negative and f was positive.
Regarding claim 2, applicant claims f34 and a conditional expression including that variable and f. Due to the issue of the variable sign(s) being raised above, it is unclear if f34 must be positive or negative.
Claims 3-7 also include conditional expressions that both depend on claim 1 and inherit the same issue.
Due to the issues described above, the examiner will interpret each conditional expression such that they are the absolute powers.
Regarding claims 5-6, the applicant claims TTL as “…a distance from the first lens to the image side…”, which is unclear. The applicant has not claimed where on or in the first lens TTL is measured and they have failed to claim where in the system TTL is measured to. For example, applicant’s definition could be interpreted to mean from the center of the first lens to the image side surface of the first lens.
For the purposes of this action the office has interpreted TTL to mean a distance from the object side of the first lens to the imaging plane.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant has claimed “the first surface of the third lens”, which is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the applicant has not previously defined “the first surface” and a reasonable interpretation of the claim includes that the first surface may be the object-side or the image-side surface of the lens.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim such that the first surface is the object-side surface.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is not clear, concise and/or exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
For the same reasons as discussed with respect to the claims (namely the ratio of f1/f), the specification does not satisfy the requirements of 112(a). Applicant should amend the specification, while considering the issue of new matter, to clarify the conditional expressions discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 objected to because of the following informalities: “The4P lens…” should be “The 4P lens…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (PGPUB 20190107689) in view of Shigemitsu et al. (PGPUB 20110249171).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huang discloses a lens for scanner gun with a long depth of field, comprising a first lens, a second lens, an aperture stop, a third lens and a fourth lens along the optical axis from the object side to the image side (Table 7 and [0102]-[0111]),
wherein the first lens is a negative lens (Table 9), with a convex surface facing the object side and a concave surface facing the image side (Tables 7-8 and Fig. 5-6C, please note that the aspheric lenses have inflection points and comprise convex and concave shapes on a single surface – an amendment to the claim such that the convex/concave shape for a particular lens is in the paraxial region would overcome the rejection), the second lens is a positive lens (Table 9), with a convex surface facing the object side (Tables 7-8 and Fig. 5-6C), and the third lens is a positive lens (Table 9), with a concave surface facing the object side and a convex surface facing the image side (Tables 7-8 and Fig. 5-6C), the fourth lens is a positive lens (Table 9), with a concave surface facing the object side and a convex surface facing the image side (Tables 7-8 and Fig. 5-6C);
wherein a focal length of the first lens is f1, and a total focal length of the lens is f, which meets a following condition:
1.4 <f1/f<1.7 (Table 9).
Huang does not specifically disclose wherein the lens is a “4P” lens, understood to 4 plastic lenses.
However, Shigemitsu teaches a 4P lens system wherein the lenses are plastic ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Huang and Shigemitsu such that the lenses were made of plastic motivated by reducing the cost of the device.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Huang discloses wherein a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens is f34 and a following condition is met between it and the total focal length of the lens:
0.06<f/f34<1.11 (Tables 7 and 9 where f34 = 2.16 giving 0.98).
Regarding claim 5, modified Huang discloses wherein a distance from the first lens to the image side is a total optical length TTL of the lens, and a following condition is met between the total optical length TTL and the core thickness P4 of the fourth lens:
0.11<P4/TTL<0.12 (Table 7 where P4/TTL = 0.111).
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 9AM-5PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (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 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.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872