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 7-8-26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8-11, and 14-196 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4, 8, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Ito et al. (US5463499).
Re claim 1, Ito et al. teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, an optical system comprising a first lens group (abstract) and a second lens group (abstract) sequentially disposed from an object side to an image side (Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the first lens group and the second lens group include five lenses in total, wherein the first lens group includes a first lens to a third lens (claim 1, claim 2), wherein the second lens group includes a fourth lens and a fifth lens (abstract, claim 1, claim 2, Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the first lens is closest to the object side and has a concave object side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the fifth lens is closest to the image side and has a convex image side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein a distance between the third lens and the fourth lens based on an optical axis is the largest among distances between lenses closest to each other (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Re claim 4, Ito et al. teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, a first lens to a fifth lens sequentially disposed from an object side to an image side (Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the first lens is closest to the object side and has a concave object side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein the fifth lens is closest to the image side and has a convex image side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1), and wherein a distance between the third lens and the fourth lens based on an optical axis is the largest among distances between lenses closest to each other (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Re claim 8, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, an image sensor disposed at a rear end of the fifth lens (abstract; col. 1, ln. 5-8; wherein the examiner interprets a camera to inherently have an image sensor, analog or digital, to capture an image).
Re claim 14, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, an image side surface of the fifth lens has an absolute value of a radius of curvature that is larger than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the fifth lens (Table 1).
Re claim 15, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, an Abbe's number of the fifth lens is larger than 24 (Table 1).
Re claim 16, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, a focal length of the first lens is larger than a focal length of the fifth lens (Table 1).
Re claim 17, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, a focal length of the fourth lens is larger than a focal length of the fifth lens (Table 1).
Re claim 18, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Re claim 19, Ito et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1, Table 1, and Table 2, a distance on an optical axis between an image side surface of the third lens and an object side surface of the fourth lens is larger than a sum of a thickness on the optical axis of the fourth lens and a thickness on the optical axis of the fifth lens (Fig. 1, 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US5463499).
Re claim 9, supra claim 8.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a filter disposed between the fifth lens and the image sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the components of an optical apparatus, such as including a filter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices 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 modify the teachings of Ito et al. in order to provide enhanced contrast and/or block unwanted light, as is well known in the art.
Re claim 10, supra claim 9.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a dummy member disposed between the fifth lens and the filter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the components of an optical apparatus, such as including a glass cover, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices 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 modify the teachings of Ito et al. in order to provide a dust free imaging plane, as is well known in the art.
Re claim 11, supra claim 8.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a reflective member disposed in front of the first lens.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the components of an optical apparatus, such as including a prism, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering obvious design choices 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 modify the teachings of Ito et al. in order to provide a deflected light path that can be more flexible in space arrangement, as is well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-7 and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in dependent claims 2, 13, and 20; and independent claims 5, 6, and 12.
Specifically regarding claim 2, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the fourth lens has a convex object side surface and a concave image side surface, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 5, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the fourth lens has a convex object side surface and a concave image side surface, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 6, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the fifth lens have positive refractive power, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 12, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the fourth lens has a convex object side surface and a concave image side surface, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 13, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including a center thickness of the fifth lens is larger than a distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 20, Ito et al. (US5463499) teaches the state of the art of an optical system.
But, Ito et al. fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including a distance on an optical axis between an image side surface of the third lens and an object side surface of the fourth lens is larger than a half of a difference between a size of the third lens and a size of the fourth lens in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 7-23-26
Prosecution Insights