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.
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 1-17 and 19 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 the first surface has a non-circular shape and the second surface has a circular shape. It is unclear what is meant by “non-circular” in the context of the present invention. The applicant’s disclosure with respect to every surface, except the non-lens surfaces, can be described as “circular”. Further, applicant’s claim 2 specifically limits the shape of the second surface to be “concave”, which is a circular shape. Therefore, it is unclear what applicant considers to be circular and non-circular. For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim such that non-circular means there is a surface that is cut off or aspheric.
Claim 19 has the identical issue with respect to a non-circular shape.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the clarity issue.
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) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takumi et al. (PGPUB 20130107373).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Takumi 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. 11 gives an example optical system including a plurality of lenses),
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. 11 where each lens has an object-side and image-side surface),
wherein a length in a first direction of the first surface is different from a length in the first direction of the second surface (See Figs. 5A-9C, [0053] and [0069]),
wherein the length in the first direction of the first surface is shorter than a length in a second direction of the first surface (See Figs. 5A-9C), wherein the first direction is orthogonal to an optical axis of the lenses (See Figs. 5A-9C where the diameter and lens width may be defined along either claimed axis), and
wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction and the optical axis (Figs. 5A-9C), and
wherein the first surface has a non-circular shape, and the second surface has a circular shape ([0049] and See Figs. 5A-9C).
Regarding claim 2, Takumi discloses wherein the first lens is a lens closest to the object side among the plurality of lenses (621a), and wherein the first surface has a convex shape, and the second surface has a concave shape ([0127]).
Regarding claim 3, Takumi discloses wherein the first lens is a lens closest to the sensor side among the plurality of lenses (621d).
Regarding claim 4, Takumi discloses wherein the length of the first surface in the first direction is shorter than a length in the first direction of the second surface (For example Fig. 5D where the distance from the optical axis to Pc1 is shorter than the distance from the outer radius in the opposite direction).
Regarding claim 8, Takumi discloses wherein the length in the second direction of the first surface is equal to a length in the first direction of the second surface (See Figs. 5A-9C where only one side needs cut leaving the second direction of the first surface and the first direction of the second surface equal).
Regarding claim 9, Takumi discloses wherein the length of the first surface in the first direction is longer than a length in the first direction of the second surface (Fig. 7c, for example, where the inclination, which may be any angle, leads to one side being longer than the other).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi in view of Noda et al. (PGPUB 20150277085) .
Regarding claim 5, Takumi discloses wherein the first lens comprises a first side surface and a second side surface on both sides in the first direction, and at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface has an inclination with respect to the optical axis (Figs. 5A-5C where the lens edge is cut at an angle with respect to the optical axis).
Takumi does not explicitly disclose the at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface having the inclination reflects the incident light passing through the first surface.
However, Noda teaches an optical system comprising lenses having a first and second side surface comprising inclinations for reflecting incident light that passes through the first surface (Fig. 19 and [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Takumi and Noda such that the lenses comprised at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface having the inclination reflects the incident light passing through the first surface motivated by improving image quality ([0135]).
Regarding claim 6, Takumi discloses wherein the cut-off operation may be performed with any angle and at any position ([0060]), but does not specifically disclose wherein the angle between at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface and the optical axis is 5 degrees to 10 degrees.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of lens design includes manipulation of known result effective variables such as index or refraction, lens surface radii and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary 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 made to adjust the cut angle of the lens edge to be between 5 and 10 degrees, 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). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would have modified the cut angle to be between 5 and 10 degrees motivated by reducing ghosting caused by internally reflected rays.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi in view of Noda and further in view of Hosoya et al. (PGPUB 20110157430).
Regarding claim 7, while Takumi teaches that one side may be cut at the same angle as the other side (for example Fig 7D), but does not disclose both sides of the lens being cut at the same angle.
However, Hosoya teaches a lens system wherein opposite sides of the lens are cut at the same angle with respect to the optical axis (Fig. 6c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Takumi and Hosoya such that both sides of the lens were cut at the same angle motivated by reducing ghost image ([0176]).
Regarding claim 10, Takumi does not provide explicit lens radii in their embodiment, which is given as a general optical disclosure, and therefore does not disclose wherein a radius of curvature of the first surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the second surface.
However, Hosoya teaches a lens system wherein a radius of curvature of the first surface is greater than a radius of curvature of the second surface ([0213] S1 and S2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Takumi and Hosoya such that the first lens was a meniscus lens having an object-side radius larger than an image-side motivated by improving image quality for particular optical applications.
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 Takumi 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, Takumi discloses an optical system comprising:
a plurality of lenses (620);
first to fourth lenses arranged along an optical axis in a direction from an object side to the sensor side (sensor 611 and Fig. 11),
wherein the first lens includes an object-side first surface through which light is incident and a sensor-side second surface (Fig. 11),
wherein a length of the first surface in a first direction is different from a length of the second surface in the first direction (Fig. 11 where each lens has an object-side and image-side surface),
wherein the length of the object-side first surface in the first direction is shorter than a length of the sensor-side first surface in the second direction (See Figs. 5A-9C, [0053] and [0069]),
wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the optical axis of the first to fourth lenses (See Figs. 5A-9C where the diameter and lens width may be defined along either claimed axis), and
wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction and the optical axis (See Figs. 5A-9C).
Takumi does not disclose a reflective member; and
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 Takumi 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 20, modified Takumi discloses wherein the length of the object-side first surface in the first direction is shorter than the length of the sensor-side second surface in the first direction (Figs. 5A-5C of Hosoya at least),
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 (Figs. 5A-5C where the lens edge is cut at an angle with respect to the optical axis),
wherein a maximum length of the first and second side surfaces in the second direction is smaller than an effective length of the object-side first surface and larger than an effective diameter of the sensor-side second surface (Figs. 5A-5C of Takumi and Figs. 3A-3D of Hosoya for example).
Takumi discloses wherein the cut-off operation may be performed with any angle and at any position ([0060]), but does not specifically disclose wherein the angle between at least one of the first side surface and the second side surface and the optical axis is 5 degrees to 10 degrees.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering the process of lens design includes manipulation of known result effective variables such as index or refraction, lens surface radii and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are known optics/physics equations (unless the particular range of values meets secondary 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 made to adjust the cut angle of the lens edge to be between 5 and 10 degrees, 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). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would have modified the cut angle to be between 5 and 10 degrees motivated by reducing ghosting caused by internally reflected rays.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi in view of Chen (PGPUB 20180017767).
Regarding claim 12, Takumi 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 Takumi 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 Takumi teaches wherein the first surface of the first lens has a convex shape, and the second surface has a concave shape (Table 3 of Chen gives the radii of each surface and Table 4 provides the aspheric values of surface 5, which indicates a concave portion).
Regarding claim 14, modified Takumi 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 Takumi teaches comprising a reflective member (prism) disposed on the object-side surface of the first lens (Table 3), wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens (Table 3), and wherein the fifth lens has a positive refractive power (Table 3).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi 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 Takumi 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 Takumi 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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi in view of Gao et al. (PGPUB 20210033825).
Regarding claim 18, Takumi discloses an optical system comprising:
a plurality of lenses (620);
first to fourth lenses arranged along an optical axis in a direction from an object side to the sensor side (sensor 611 and Fig. 11),
wherein the first lens includes an object-side first surface and a sensor-side second surface (Fig. 11),
wherein a length of the first surface in a first direction is different from a length of the second surface in the first direction (Fig. 11 where each lens has an object-side and image-side surface),
wherein the length of the first surface in the first direction is shorter than a length of the first surface in the second direction (See Figs. 5A-9C, [0053] and [0069]),
wherein the first direction is orthogonal to the optical axis of the first to fourth lenses (See Figs. 5A-9C where the diameter and lens width may be defined along either claimed axis), and
wherein the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction and the optical axis (See Figs. 5A-9C).
Takumi does not disclose a reflective member; and
wherein the first lens is disposed between the reflective member and the second lens,
wherein the first lens has a positive refractive power.
However, Gao teaches a lens system wherein the plurality of lenses includes a prism ([0056]), first to fifth lenses (E1-E5), and the first lens has a positive refractive power ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Takumi and Gao such that the optical system comprised a positive first lens and at least 5 total lenses motivated by improving image quality.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, modified Takumi discloses wherein the object-side first surface of the first lens has a convex shape, and the second surface has a concave shape ([0062] of Gao), and
wherein the object-side first surface has a non-circular shape, and the second surface has a circular shape ([0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks with respect to the 112 rejection, the office believes that applicant may be referring to the perimeter edge of the object-side of the lens being non-circular. Or, the applicant may be suggesting that because the first surface is aspherical, it is “non-circular”. Regardless, neither interpretation is persuasive. Even if a portion of the edge of the lens is planar, there is at least some part that is circular (applicant’s Fig. 3 shows S1 having two circular edges). Further, aspheric lenses are first defined by their radius ([0064] of Gao where the aspheric surface equation is given), which is a defining characteristic of a circle. The office would encourage the applicant to consider language that is not reliant on “circle” or “spherical” in order to avoid clarity issues or overly broad interpretations.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on page 9, the applicant argues that Takumi’s slope does not have light incident upon it. However, the applicant has not claimed a slope. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a slope) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, applicant argues that Takumi does not disclose a length difference of the slope. The office respectfully disagrees. While no explicit distance is given, none is required by the claim. It is clear, by the drawings and the text of Takumi, that the geometry would change due to the removal of gate portion 13 at an angle (Fig. 5A) such that the distance from the optical axis to Pc1 is different than the distance to Pc2 (Fig. 5c).
With respect to the applicants remaining arguments, please see the office’s response above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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