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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (figure 1, including claims 1-20), in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Lin et al. (CN 111522130).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses an optical system comprising:
first to ninth lenses disposed along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side direction (L1-L9; camera lenses must be paired with a sensor at the image surface side to capture an image; the fisheye lens system 100 further comprises a shield glass IR&CG located at the image side of the ninth lens L9, coated with an infrared absorbing material on the shield glass IR&CG, whereby the shield glass IR&CG is also used as an infrared absorption filter to function. and the image side of the shield glass IR&CG is configured with an imaging surface IMA; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph),
wherein the first lens (L1) has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least page 4, 3rd paragraph),
wherein the fifth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the eighth lens has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the ninth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract).
Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis. Lin et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis (the vertical distance between the critical point of the first lens object side surface and the optical axis is Yc11, the maximum effective radius of the first lens object side surface is Y11, which can satisfy the following conditions: 0.50 < Yc11/Y11 < 0.80; therefore 50% < Yc11 < 80%; see at least page 9, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens as taught by Lin et al. in order to further improve the image illumination.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Lin et al.; further in view of Sun (CN 111929849).
Regarding claim 2, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the object-side surface of the first lens is concave on the optical axis, and a sensor-side surface of the first lens is concave on the optical axis. Sun (figure 1) teaches wherein the object-side surface of the first lens is concave on the optical axis, and a sensor-side surface of the first lens is concave on the optical axis (L1; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens as taught by Sun in order to further improve the image illumination.
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the object-side surface of the first lens has a largest effective diameter among object-side surfaces and sensor-side surfaces of the first to ninth lenses (L1).
Regarding claim 4, Sun (figure 1) teaches wherein a refractive index for a d-line wavelength of the first lens is nd1, wherein the following equation satisfies: 1.4<nd1<1.6 (nd1 = 1.544; table 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Sun (figure 1) teaches wherein an object-side surface of the ninth lens includes a second critical point, and wherein the second critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the ninth lens with respect to the optical axis (L9; figure 1; where the function changes from concave up to concave down from the central optical axis as shown in figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Sun (figure 1) teaches wherein a sensor-side surface of the ninth lens includes a third critical point, and wherein the third critical point is disposed in a range of 40% to 70% of an effective radius of the sensor-side surface of the ninth lens with respect to the optical axis (L9; figure 1; where the function changes from concave up to concave down from the central optical axis as shown in figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Lin et al. (CN 111522130); further in view of Sun (CN 111929849) and Si (CN 112014953).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein an Abbe number of the fifth lens is Vd5, wherein the following equation satisfies: 10<Vd5<30. Si (figure 1) teaches wherein an Abbe number of the fifth lens is Vd5, wherein the following equation satisfies: 10<Vd5<30 (V5 = 19.39; table 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second lens as taught by Si in order to further improve the image illumination.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 8-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Lin et al. (CN 111522130); further in view of Si (CN 112014953).
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses an optical system comprising:
first to ninth lenses disposed along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side direction (L1-L9; camera lenses must be paired with a sensor at the image surface side to capture an image; the fisheye lens system 100 further comprises a shield glass IR&CG located at the image side of the ninth lens L9, coated with an infrared absorbing material on the shield glass IR&CG, whereby the shield glass IR&CG is also used as an infrared absorption filter to function. and the image side of the shield glass IR&CG is configured with an imaging surface IMA; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph),
wherein the first lens (L1) has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least page 4, 3rd paragraph),
wherein the fifth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the eighth lens has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the ninth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract).
Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis and wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape on the optical axis.
Lin et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis (the vertical distance between the critical point of the first lens object side surface and the optical axis is Yc11, the maximum effective radius of the first lens object side surface is Y11, which can satisfy the following conditions: 0.50 < Yc11/Y11 < 0.80; therefore 50% < Yc11 < 80%; see at least page 9, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens as taught by Lin et al. in order to further improve the image illumination.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Si (figure 1) teaches wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (see at least page 5, last paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second lens as taught by Si in order to further improve the image illumination.
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein the object-side surface of the first lens has a largest effective diameter among object-side surfaces and sensor-side surfaces of the first to ninth lenses (L1).
Regarding claim 10, Si (figure 1) teaches wherein CA_L1S1 is an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens, CA_L1S2 is an effective diameter of the sensor-side surface of the first lens, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 1.5<CA_L1S1/CA_L1S2<3 (d1 / d2 = 9.6 / 3.1 = 3.1; table 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Si (figure 1) teaches wherein L1_CT is a thickness of the first lens in the optical axis, L1_ET is a thickness in a direction of the optical axis at an end of an effective region of the first lens, wherein the following equation satisfies: 0.4<L1_CT/L1_ET<1 (L1; figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the seventh lens on the optical axis is L7R1, wherein a distance between a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens and an object-side surface of the eighth lens in the optical axis is d78_CT, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 10<L7R1/d78_CT<30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 10<L7R1/d78_CT<30, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the eighth lens on the optical axis is L8R1, wherein a distance between a sensor-side surface of the eighth lens and an object-side surface of the ninth lens on the optical axis is d89_CT, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 100<|L8R1|/d89_CT<300. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 100<|L8R1|/d89_CT<300, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Si (CN 112014953).
Regarding claim 12, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses an optical system comprising:
first to ninth lenses disposed along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side direction (L1-L9; camera lenses must be paired with a sensor at the image surface side to capture an image; the fisheye lens system 100 further comprises a shield glass IR&CG located at the image side of the ninth lens L9, coated with an infrared absorbing material on the shield glass IR&CG, whereby the shield glass IR&CG is also used as an infrared absorption filter to function. and the image side of the shield glass IR&CG is configured with an imaging surface IMA; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph),
wherein the first lens (L1) has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the fourth lens (L4) has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least page 4, 3rd paragraph),
wherein the fifth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the eighth lens has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract),
wherein the ninth lens has a negative (−) refractive power on the optical axis (see at least abstract).
wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis between the first and second lenses decreases from the optical axis in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (L1 and L2),
wherein an object-side surface of the first lens has a concave shape on the optical axis.
Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape on the optical axis. Si (figure 1) teaches wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a convex shape on the optical axis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second lens as taught by Si in order to further improve the image illumination.
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein d12_CT is a distance in the direction of the optical axis between the first and second lenses on the optical axis, d12_ET is a distance in the direction of the optical axis between the first and second lenses at an end of an effective region of the object-side surface of the second lens, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 2<d12_CT/d12_ET<3 (the distance in the direction of the optical axis between the first and second lenses on the optical axis is bigger than the distance in the direction of the optical axis between the first and second lenses on the optical axis at the end of the lenses; the figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Si (figure 1) teaches wherein a distance in the direction of the optical axis between the eighth and ninth lenses increases from the optical axis toward a first point on a sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (the lower ends of L8 and L9), and decreases from the first point toward an end of the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (the upper ends of L8 and L9).
Regarding claim 15, Si (figure 1) teaches wherein the first point is disposed in a range of 60% to 80% of an effective radius of the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens with respect to the optical axis (the lower ends and the upper ends of L8 and L9).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al. (figures 1-2) discloses wherein a sensor-side surface of the fifth lens has a concave shape on the optical axis (L5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Si (CN 112014953); further in view of Lin et al. (CN 111522130).
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis. Lin et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein an object-side surface of the first lens includes a first critical point, and wherein the first critical point is disposed in a range of 20% to 50% of an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens with respect to the optical axis (the vertical distance between the critical point of the first lens object side surface and the optical axis is Yc11, the maximum effective radius of the first lens object side surface is Y11, which can satisfy the following conditions: 0.50 < Yc11/Y11 < 0.80; therefore 50% < Yc11 < 80%; see at least page 9, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens as taught by Lin et al. in order to further improve the image illumination.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112817120) in view of Si (CN 112014953); further in view of Sun (CN 111929849).
Regarding claim 18, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding 3<L2R1/d12_CT<6. Sun (figure 1) teaches wherein a radius of curvature on the optical axis of an object-side surface of the second lens is L2R1, wherein a distance between a sensor-side surface of the first lens and the object-side surface of the second lens in the optical axis is d12_CT, and wherein the following equation satisfies: 3<L2R1/d12_CT<6 ( R3 / d2 = 2.599 / 0.785 = 3.3; table 1; the central curvature radius of the second lens object side is R3 and the distance from the image side surface of the first lens L1 to the axis of the object side surface of the second lens L2; see at least pages 9-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lenses as taught by Sun in order to further improve the image illumination.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871