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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. US PGPub 2016/0320589 A1 (hereinafter, “Liao”) in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems'' Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007) (of record, see Office action dated 02/28/2025, hereinafter, “Gross”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Liao discloses an optical imaging system (disclosure provides an imaging lens system, refer to title and abstract, and see at least Fig. 7A) comprising:
a first lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 7A depicting a seventh embodiment of the image capturing device includes first lens element 710 with positive refractive power, par. [0160], refer also to Table 18 for detailed optical data of the seventh embodiment, par. [0166]);
a second lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 7A, second lens element 720 has negative refractive power, par. [0161], Table 18);
a third lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 7A, third lens element 730 has negative refractive power, par. [0162], Table 18);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 7A, fourth lens element 740 has positive refractive power, par. [0163], Table 18); and
a fifth lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 7A, fifth lens element 750 has negative refractive power, par. [0164], Table 18) and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, fifth lens element 750 has image-side surface 752 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0164], Table 18),
wherein the first to fifth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis of the optical imaging system from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system, the optical imaging system has a total number of five lenses having a refractive power (Fig. 7A, imaging lens system includes, in order from an object side to an image side, a first lens element 710, a second lens element 720, a third lens element 730, a fourth lens element 740, and a fifth lens element 750, wherein the imaging lens system has a total of five lens elements, 710-750, with refractive power, par. [0159], Table 18), an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis is greater than the absolute value of the radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens at the optical axis (Table 18, fourth lens 740 has image-side surface 742, par. [0163], where the radius of curvature of surface 742 is given as -12.645, refer to surface 9 in Table 18, the absolute value of which is 12.645, and second lens 720 has image-side surface 722 par. [0161], where the radius of curvature of surface 722 is 2.620, refer to surface 5 of Table 18, thus the seventh embodiment discloses the limitation), and 0.8 ≤ TTL/f ≤1.0, where TTL is a distance along the optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (Table 20 lists the conditions that the seventh embodiment satisfies, including TL/f = 0.92, within the claimed range).
Liao, in the seventh embodiment, does not disclose a fourth lens having a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, fourth lens element 740 has object-side surface 741 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0163], refer to Table 18), nor does Liao in the seventh embodiment disclose an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens at the optical axis is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens at the optical axis (Table 18, third lens 730 has image-side surface 732, par. [0162], where the radius of curvature of surface 732 is given as 2.225, refer to surface 7 of Table 18, and second lens 720 has image-side surface 722, par. [0161], where the radius of curvature of surface 722 is 2.620, refer to surface 5 of Table 18, thus the seventh embodiment disclosed by Liao does not have parameters that satisfy the instant condition), and the seventh embodiment of Liao does not disclose the condition 3.2 < Nd2 + Nd3, where Nd2 is a refractive index of the second lens, Nd3 is a refractive index of the third lens, (Table 18, lens 2, i.e., lens element 720, has index of refraction Nd2 of 1.650, and lens 3, i.e., lens element 730, has index of refraction of Nd3 of 1.544, thus Liao seventh embodiment discloses Nd2 + Nd3 = 3.194, a value which is different from the lower limit of not less than 3.2 by less than 0.2%).
In the general field of lens design, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bend the object-side surface 741 of the fourth lens 740 from convex in the paraxial region to concave in the paraxial region, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and Liao teaches in the first embodiment lens surface 141 is concave (Liao par. [0078]), the second embodiment has lens surface 241 that is concave (Liao par. [0108]), the third embodiment has surface 341 that is concave (Liao, par. [0119]), the fourth embodiment has lens surface 441 that is concave (Liao par. [0130]), the fifth embodiment has lens surface 541 that is concave (Liao par. [0141]), the sixth embodiment has lens surface 641 that is concave (Liao par. [0152]), the eighth embodiment has lens surface 841 that is concave (Liao par. [0174]), the ninth embodiment has lens surface 941 that is concave (Liao, par. [0185]), and the tenth embodiment has lens surface 1041 that is concave (Liao, par. [0196]) and Liao teaches a fourth lens element with a concave object-side surface is favorable for correcting astigmatism and thereby to improve the image quality (Liao, par. [0046]).
With regard to the limitation that an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens at the optical axis is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, because Gross teaches bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bend the image-side surface 732 of the third lens 730 to have an absolute value of the radius of curvature of 732 that is greater than the absolute value of the radius of curvature of the image-side surface 722 of the second lens 720, because Liao teaches embodiments of the imaging system disclosed therein that satisfy this condition (refer to Table 1 where surfaces 7 and 5 of the first embodiment satisfy the condition, as well as Table 3 surfaces 7 and 5, Table 6 surfaces 7 and 5, Table 9 surfaces 7 and 5, Table 12 surfaces 7 and 5, Table 21 surfaces 7 and 5, Table 24 surfaces 7 and 5, and Table 27 surfaces 7 and 5 that all teach the instant condition) and Liao teaches that image-side surfaces of the second and third lenses in such a configuration are favorable for correcting aberrations (Liao, pars. [0044-45]).
With regard to the condition 3.2 < Nd2 + Nd3, the Examiner contends that the prior art Liao disclosure of 3.194 for Nd2 + Nd3 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of greater than 3.2 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (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, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 3.194 and the endpoint of 3.2 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.2% difference, while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Nd2 + Nd3 value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of greater than 3.2.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 3.194 for Nd2 + Nd3, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of greater than 3.2 to render it obvious because the difference between 3.194 and the endpoint of greater than 3.2 is insubstantial, a value of 3.194 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for 3.2 < Nd2 + Nd3, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result. Furthermore, Liao in at least the first embodiment teaches values for Nd2 and Nd3 that satisfy the condition 3.2 < Nd2 + Nd3 (both indices of refraction are 1.650 as provided in Table 1 so in the first embodiment Liao discloses a value of 3.3 for Nd2 + Nd3), thus Liao teaches an embodiment of the disclosed imaging system that satisfies the condition, and Liao teaches such indices of refraction are favorable for arranging suitable materials for lens elements and for increasing the flexibility in design (Liao, par. [0057]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Liao in view of Gross (hereinafter, “modified Liao”), discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, and Liao further discloses wherein the object-side surface of the first lens is convex in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, first lens element 710 has object-side surface 711 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0160], refer to Table 18).
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Liao discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, but Liao in the seventh embodiment does not disclose wherein the first lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (first lens element 710 has image-side surface 712 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0160], refer to Table 18).
However, Liao in the third embodiment discloses first lens element 310 with image-side surface 312 that is convex in a paraxial region (par. [0116]).
Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bend the image-side surface 712 of the first lens 710 from concave in the paraxial region to convex in the paraxial region, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and Liao teaches in the third embodiment lens surface 312 is convex (Liao par. [0116]) and Liao teaches a third lens element with a convex image-side surface is favorable for correcting aberrations and thereby to improve the image quality (Liao, par. [0045]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Liao discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, and Liao further discloses wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, second lens element 720 has object-side surface 721 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0161], refer to Table 18).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Liao discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, and Liao further discloses wherein the image-side surface of the second lens is concave in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, second lens element 720 has image-side surface 722 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0161], refer to Table 18).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Liao discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, and Liao further discloses wherein the image-side surface of the fourth lens is convex in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, fourth lens element 740 has image-side surface 742 that is convex in a paraxial region, par. [0163], refer to Table 18).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Liao discloses the optical imaging system of claim 1, and Liao further discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7A, fifth lens element 750 has object-side surface 751 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0164], refer to Table 18).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US PGPub 2017/0299846 A1 (hereinafter, “Lin”).
Regarding independent claim 8, Lin discloses an optical imaging system (Lin discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, refer to at least title and abstract, and see at least Fig. 7) comprising:
a first lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 7 depicting a fourth embodiment has a first lens element 410 with positive refractive power, par. [0154]);
a second lens having a refractive power (Fig. 7, second lens element 420 has positive refractive power, par. [0155]);
a third lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 7, third lens element 430 has negative refractive power, par. [0156]);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 7, fourth lens element 440 has positive refractive power, par. [0157]) and a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (fourth lens 440 has object-side surface 441 that is convex, par. [0157], refer also to Table 7 for optical data of the fourth embodiment);
a fifth lens having a negative refractive power (Fig. 7, fifth lens element 450 has negative refractive power, par. [0158]); and
a sixth lens having a positive refractive power (Fig. 7, sixth lens element 460 has positive refractive power, par. [0159]),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis of the optical imaging system from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Fig. 7 shows the fourth embodiment with first to sixth lenses 410 to 460 arranged from object side to image side, par. [0153], see Table 7), the optical imaging system has a total number of six lenses having a refractive power (the fourth embodiment of the optical imaging lens assembly has a total of six lens elements, 410-460, par. [0153]),
an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens at the optical axis is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens at the optical axis (Table 7, second lens 420 has object-side surface 421, par. [0155], where the radius of curvature of surface 421 is given as 46.512, refer to surface 4 in Table 7, and sixth lens 460 has image-side surface 462, par. [0159], where the radius of curvature of surface 462 is 2.765, refer to surface 13 in Table 7, thus the fourth embodiment has lens parameters satisfying the instant limitation),
an absolute value of a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens at the optical axis (Table 7, fourth lens 440 has object-side surface 441, par. [0157], where the radius of curvature of surface 441 is given as 69.706, refer to surface 8 in Table 7, and second lens 420 has image-side surface 422, par. [0155], where the radius of curvature of surface 422 is -7.885, refer to surface 5 in Table 7, the absolute of which is 7.885, thus the fourth embodiment has lens parameters satisfying the instant limitation).
Lin in the fourth embodiment does not disclose 0.2 ≤ L1R1/f ≤ 0.3, where L1R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (Table 7, the radius of curvature of the object-side surface 411 of first lens element 410 is L1R1 = 3.395, and f is given as 8.61 in Table 7, thus the fourth embodiment discloses L1R1/f = 0.39, which is 30% different from the upper limit).
However, Lin in the ninth embodiment discloses a first lens 910 with positive refractive power (par. [0229]), a second lens 920 with positive refractive power (par. [0230]), and a third lens 930 with negative refractive power (par. [0231]), refer to Table 17 for parameters of the ninth embodiment, where the first lens has L1R1 = 2.686 and the focal length is f = 10.14 so the ratio L1R1/f is 0.26 for the ninth embodiment, within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lin in the ninth embodiment to the disclosure of the fourth embodiment of Lin and adjusted the radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the first lens element, and additionally or alternatively adjusted the focal length of the imaging system, to satisfy the condition L1R1/f = 0.26, to favorably provide for the main converging ability of the incident light in the optical imaging lens assembly, so that the photographing range can be controlled effectively so as to avoid the excessive total track length of the optical imaging lens assembly (Lin par. [0041]) and Lin teaches that such an arrangement is favorable for balancing aberrations of the object side and the image side of the optical imaging lens assembly so as to enhance the sharpness and clarity of the image (Lin, par. [0048]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Lin (fourth embodiment) as modified by the teachings of Lin (ninth embodiment) (hereinafter, “modified Lin”) discloses the optical imaging system of claim 8, and the fourth embodiment of Lin further discloses wherein the object-side surface of the first lens is convex in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7, first lens element 410 has object-side surface 411 that is convex, par. [0154], refer to Table 7).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Gross.
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Lin discloses the optical imaging system of claim 8, but the fourth embodiment of Lin does not disclose wherein the third lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Fig. 7, third lens element 430 has object-side surface 431 that is convex, par. [0156], Table 7).
Lin, in the ninth embodiment, discloses third lens element 930 with negative refractive power and an object-side surface 931 that is concave (par. [0231], see Table 17 for parameters of the ninth embodiment).
In the general field of lens design, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bend the object-side surface 431 of the third lens 430 from convex in the paraxial region to concave in the paraxial region, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and Lin teaches in the ninth embodiment lens surface 931 is concave (Lin, par. [0231], see Table 17), and Lin teaches such a condition is favorable for balancing aberrations of the object side and the image side of the optical imaging lens assembly so as to enhance the sharpness and clarity of the image (Lin, par. [0048]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Lin discloses the optical imaging system of claim 8, but Lin in the fourth embodiment does not disclose wherein the sixth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (sixth lens element 460 has object-side surface 461 that is convex, par. [0159], Table 7).
In the general field of lens design, Gross teaches (refer to page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Flipping a lens into reverse orientation does not modify the curvatures of the two surfaces, thus keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power’). Gross teaches that flipping a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Gross to the disclosure of Lin according to the fourth embodiment and flip sixth lens element 460 into a reverse orientation, such that surface 461 would be facing the image side, and surface 462 would be facing the object side of the imaging lens assembly, because such an operation is taught by Gross to be a zero power operation that is a typical operation done to find a design with a better performance (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4), and Lin in the ninth embodiment discloses a sixth lens element 960 with an object-side surface 961 that is concave in a paraxial region (Lin, par. [0234]), thus demonstrating the feasibility of such an operation, and Lin further teaches that when at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the sixth lens element can be concave in a paraxial region, it is favorable for positioning the principal point closer to the object side so as to reduce the back focal length and avoid the excessive total track length, and it is also favorable for correcting the off-axial aberration so as to enhance the image quality (Lin, par. [0045]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Lin discloses the optical imaging system of claim 8, but Lin in the fourth embodiment does not disclose wherein the image-side surface of the sixth lens is convex in a paraxial region thereof (sixth lens element 460 has image-side surface 462 that is concave in a paraxial region, par. [0159], Table 7).
In the general field of lens design, Gross teaches (refer to page 378 section 33.1.4) that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Flipping a lens into reverse orientation does not modify the curvatures of the two surfaces, thus keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power’). Gross teaches that flipping a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Gross to the disclosure of Lin according to the fourth embodiment and flip sixth lens element 460 into a reverse orientation, such that surface 461 would be facing the image side, and surface 462 would be facing the object side of the imaging lens assembly, because such an operation is taught by Gross to be a zero power operation that is a typical operation done to find a design with a better performance (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4), and Lin further teaches that when at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of the sixth lens element can be concave in a paraxial region, it is favorable for positioning the principal point closer to the object side so as to reduce the back focal length and avoid the excessive total track length, and it is also favorable for correcting the off-axial aberration so as to enhance the image quality (Lin, par. [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872