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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12-13-23 and 5-8-26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6-29-26.
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, 2, 5, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Hirano (US20200209594).
Re claim 1, Hirano teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, optical system comprising: first to ninth lenses (L1-L9) disposed along an optical axis in a direction from an object side to a sensor side (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the first lens (L1) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (Table 13), wherein the second lens (L2) has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (Table 13), wherein the eighth lens (L8) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (Table 13), wherein the ninth lens (L9) has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (Table 13), wherein each of the first to ninth lenses has an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the object-side surface of the third lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (para. 0090), L7_CT is a thickness on the optical axis of the seventh lens (Table 13), L8_CT is a thickness on the optical axis of the eighth lens (Table 13), and wherein the following equation satisfies: 0.1<L7_CT/L8_CT<0.8 (para. 0141; Table 13).
Re claim 2, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, F means a total focal length (mm) of the optical system, and f1 means the focal length (mm) of the first lens, wherein the following equation satisfies: 0.5<fl/F<2 (Table 13).
Re claim 5, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, an object-side surface of the first lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), and wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13).
Re claim 17, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, a camera module comprising: an optical system and an image sensor (para. 0001); wherein the optical system comprises the optical system, TTL (Total Track Length) means a distance on the optical axis from a vertex of an object-side surface of the first lens to an upper surface of the image sensor, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 2<TTL<20 (para. 0141).
Re claim 18, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, the third lens (L3) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a negative (-) refractive power on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the fifth lens (L5) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the sixth lens (L6) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), wherein the seventh lens (L7) has a negative (-) refractive power on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13).
Re claim 19, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, the sensor-side surface of the first lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), and wherein the object-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13).
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, 4, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US20200209594).
Re claim 3, supra claim 1.
But, Hirano fails to explicitly teach satisfying L8_CT is the thickness on the optical axis of the eighth lens, L8_ET is a thickness in a direction of the optical axis at an end of an effective region of the eighth lens, wherein the following equation satisfies: 0.2<L8_ET/L8_CT<0.8.
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 thicknesses of lenses, 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 provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Hirano (para. 0005).
Re claim 4, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (para. 0102).
Re claim 20, supra claim 19.
But, Hirano fails to explicitly teach satisfying the object-side surface of the fourth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis, wherein the sensor-side surface of the fourth lens has a concave shape on the optical axis.
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 shape of lenses, 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 provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Hirano (para. 0005).
Re claim 21, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, the object-side surface of the fifth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), and wherein the sensor-side surface of the fifth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13).
Re claim 22, supra claim 21.
But, Hirano fails to explicitly teach satisfying he object-side surface of the sixth lens has a concave shape on the optical axis, and wherein the sensor-side surface of the sixth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis.
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 shape of lenses, 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 provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Hirano (para. 0005).
Re claim 23, supra claim 22.
But, Hirano fails to explicitly teach satisfying the object-side surface of the seventh lens has a convex shape on the optical axis, and wherein the sensor-side surface of the seventh lens has a concave shape on the optical axis.
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 shape of lenses, 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 provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Hirano (para. 0005).
Re claim 24, Hirano further teaches for example in Fig. 19 and Table 13, the object-side surface of the ninth lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13), and wherein the sensor-side surface of the ninth lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (Fig. 19, Table 13).
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 7-25-26
Prosecution Insights