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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/2026 has been entered.
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 5, 7 and 11 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.
Claims 5 recites the limitation "the first direction" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites “a direction” but not “a first direction”, since the language was amended out. So, it is no longer clear what direction claim 5 now refers. For the purposes of this action the first direction will be understood to mean a direction orthogonal to the optical axis.
Claim 7 depends from claim 5.
Claim 11 has a similar issue with respect to “the second direction”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (PGPUB 20110279913).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses an optical system, comprises comprising:
a plurality of lenses arranged in a direction of a sensor side from an object side to a sensor side (Fig. 2, and [0010]),
wherein at least one first lens of the plurality of lenses includes a first surface that is an object-side surface through which light is incident and a second surface that is a sensor-side surface (Fig. 2),
wherein the at least one first lens comprises at least one side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (8);
wherein the side surface is inclined with respect to an optical axis of the optical system (Fig. 2),
wherein the side surface is configured such that at least a portion of the light incident through the first surface is reflected by the side surface toward a region outside an effective aperture of a subsequent lens (Fig. 2 where rays passing through the 4 are reflected by 8 such that they pass out of the lens towards 17), and
wherein the reflected light is inhibited from re-entering any optical path that reaches the sensor of the optical system and from reaching an effecting imaging region of the sensor (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses wherein the first lens is a lens closest to the object side among the plurality of lenses (2A), and wherein the first surface has a convex shape, and the second surface has a concave shape (2B).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses wherein the first lens is a lens closest to the sensor side among the plurality of lenses ([0041] where the inclined surface may be placed on the third lens, which is closest to the sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses wherein the side surface is provided on opposite sides of the at least one first lens (Fig. 2 where the lens shapes are mirrored on the opposite side).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Watanabe discloses the first lens comprises a first side surface and a second side surface in the first direction,
wherein at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface has an inclination with respect to the optical axis (Fig. 2), and
wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are configured to reflect light toward the region outside the effective aperture of the subsequent lens (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses wherein inclinations of the first side surface and the second side surface are equal to each other (Fig. 2 is shows one side, but it is mirrored to have the same shape on the opposite side), and
wherein the reflected light does not re-enter an effective optical path, and the reflected light is directed in a single predetermined direction ([0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Watanabe discloses wherein the inclination is configured to direct the reflected light outside an effective region of a subsequent lens (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe discloses wherein the side surface has different inclinations in a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 2 where the incline is in one direction only).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe discloses wherein the side surface is formed as a planar surface inclined with respect to the optical axis (Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Hosoya et al. (PGPUB 20110157430).
Regarding claim 11, Takumi does not explicitly disclose wherein maximum lengths of the first and second side surfaces in the second direction are smaller than an effective length of the first surface and larger than an effective diameter of the second surface.
However, Hosoya teaches a lens system wherein maximum lengths of the first and second side surfaces in the second direction are smaller than an effective length of the first surface and larger than an effective diameter of the second surface (Fig. 6C, for example).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Watanabe and Hosoya such that the first and second side surfaces in the second direction are smaller than an effective length of the first surface and larger than an effective diameter of the second surface motivated by reducing the size of the device ([0075]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe discloses an optical system comprising:
wherein the first lens includes at least one side surface connecting the object-side first surface and the sensor side second surface (8);
wherein the at least one side surface is inclined with respect to an optical axis of the optical system (Fig. 2),
wherein the side surface is configured such that at least a portion of the light incident through the object-side first surface is reflected by at least one side surface toward a region outside an effective aperture of a subsequent lens (Fig. 2 where rays passing through the 4 are reflected by 8 such that they pass out of the lens towards 17), and
wherein the reflected light does not re-enter any optical path of the optical system and does not reach an effective imaging region of the sensor (Fig. 2), and
wherein stray light reaching the sensor is reduced ([0013]).
Watanabe does not disclose a reflective member; and
first to fifth lenses disposed on a sensor side of the reflective member and arranged along an optical axis in a direction from an object side to the sensor side,
wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens,
wherein the first lens has a positive refractive power.
However, Hosoya teaches a lens system wherein the plurality of lenses includes a prism (prism part of G1), first to fifth lenses (Starting from surface 5 to surface 15), and the first lens has a positive refractive power ([0213] where the lens of surfaces 5-6 create a biconvex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Watanabe and Hosoya such that the optical system comprised a positive first lens and at least 5 total lenses motivated by improving image quality.
Regarding claim 19, modified Watanabe discloses wherein the object-side first surface of the first lens has a convex shape (Fig. 2 of Watanabe), and the sensor-side second surface has a concave shape (Fig. 2 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 20, modified Watanabe discloses wherein the first lens includes a first side surface and a second side surface on both sides in the first direction (Figs. 3A-3D of Hosoya for example),
wherein the first side surface and the second side surface have an inclination with respect to the optical axis (Fig. 2 of Watanabe),
wherein the first side surface and second side surface are configured such that the reflected light is directed such that the reflected light exits the optical system without intersecting any subsequent surface (Fig. 2 of Watanabe, where light is directed out of the system without intersection of any other optical surface except those of the first lens).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Chen (PGPUB 20180017767).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe does not disclose wherein the plurality of lenses consists of first to fifth lenses, and the first lens has a positive refractive power.
However, Chen teaches a lens system wherein the plurality of lenses includes first to fifth lenses (See at least Tables 3 and 4), and the first lens has a positive refractive power (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Watanabe and Chen such that the optical system comprised a positive first lens and 5 total lenses motivated by improving image quality ([0082]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Watanabe teaches wherein the first surface of the first lens has a convex shape, and the second surface has a concave shape (Fig. 2 of Watanabe).
Regarding claim 14, modified Watanabe teaches wherein a center thickness of the first lens is thicker than a center thickness of each of the second to fourth lenses (Table 3 of Chen).
Regarding claim 15, modified Watanabe teaches comprising a reflective member (prism) disposed on the object-side surface of the first lens (280 of Chen), wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens (210 of Chen), and wherein the fifth lens has a positive refractive power ([0135] of Chen).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Liang et al. (CN209167633).
Regarding claim 16, Takumi does not disclose comprising a reflective member disposed on an object side of the plurality of lenses, wherein the plurality of lenses includes-consists of first to sixth lenses, wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens, wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the sixth lens have different lengths in the first direction, and wherein the length of the object-side surface of the sixth lens in the first direction is shorter than a length of the object-side surface in the second direction.
However, Liang teaches a similar lens system comprising a reflective member disposed on an object side of the plurality of lenses ([0177]-[0179] where Liang discloses that the prism is not shown in the figure but is disposed at the front of the lens assembly), wherein the plurality of lenses consists of first to sixth lenses (L1-L6), wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens ([0177]-[0179]), wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the sixth lens have different lengths in the first direction (Figs. 4-5), and wherein the length of the object-side surface of the sixth lens in the first direction is shorter than a length of the object-side surface in the second direction (Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Watanabe and Liang such that the optical lens assembly consisted of six lenses and a front prism motivated by improving lens performance (Abst).
Regarding claim 17, modified Watanabe teaches wherein the fifth lens and the sixth lens are configured to move along the optical axis ([0064]-[0065] of Liang where the entire assembly may move for focusing).
Claim(s) 22is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Kim et al. (USPAT 11899225).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe does not disclose wherein the side surface is non-rotationally symmetric with respect to the optical axis.
However, Kim teaches a lens a non-rotationally symmetric side surface of a lens (Fig. 3 where symmetry is broken at 13/14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Watanabe and Kim such that the lens was non-rotationally symmetric motivated by improving miniaturization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5,7 and 11-24 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights