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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-13-23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Wang (US20180164550).
Re claim , Wang teaches for example in fig. 1, a 6P lens suitable for small mounting hole, comprising an aperture stop (St), a first lens (L1), a second lens (L2), a third lens (L3), a fourth lens (L4), a fifth lens (L5) and a sixth lens (L6) along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (fig. 1); the first lens is a positive lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is convex at a near optical axis (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2) and changes from a convex surface to a concave surface from the near optical axis to the periphery (Table 4), its image surface is concave at the near optical axis (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2) and changes from the concave surface to the convex surface from the near optical axis to the periphery (Table 4); the second lens is a negative lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is convex and its image surface is concave (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2); the third lens is a positive lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is concave and its image surface is convex (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2); the fourth lens is a negative lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is concave and its image surface is convex (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2); the fifth lens is a positive lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is concave and its image surface is convex (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), and the fifth lens is generally curved toward the object side (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2); the sixth lens is a negative lens (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), wherein its object surface is a concave surface and its image surface is convex (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2), and the larger radial dimensions of both surfaces of the sixth lens are curved toward the object side (fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2).
Re claim 2, Wang teaches for example in fig. 1, a focal length F1 of the first lens and a total focal length EFL of the lens satisfy a following condition: 0.75<F1/EFL<0.98 (Table 1).
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 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 of this title, 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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US20180164550).
Re claim 3, supra claim 1.
But, Wang fails to explicitly a combined focal length F123 of the first lens, the second lens and the total focal length EFL of the lens satisfy a following condition: 5<F123/EFL<9.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would effectively reduce the total track length of the optical camera lens, as taught by Wang (para. 0021).
Re claim 4, supra claim 1.
But, Wang fails to explicitly teach a focal length F5 of the fifth lens and the total focal length EFL of the lens satisfy a following condition: 0.7<F5/EFL<0.85.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would effectively reduce the total track length of the optical camera lens, as taught by Wang (para. 0021).
Re claim 5, supra claim 1.
But, Wang fails to explicitly teach the total focal length EFL of the lens and a total optical length TTL of the lens meet a following condition: 0.82<EFL/TTL<0.88, wherein, the total optical length TTL of the lens is a distance from the first lens to an image surface.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would effectively reduce the total track length of the optical camera lens, as taught by Wang (para. 0021).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2-14-26