DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180045921 A1 (Kumazawa)
WO 2014073685 (Fukuda)
US 20190129137 A1 (Nitta)
US 20150198790 A1 (para 9; see equation 3, f tan (w) is the image height; column 3, please note w=claimed Y; the equations are different), specifically does not teach Yw {imaging height for half angle of view is 40 degree} and related relations)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant arguments and argues that Cited portion of Kumazawa teaches half angle w =48.45, therefore angle of view is 2w or greater than 90.
Similarly other argued limitations are also taught by prior art. Using the simple trigonometric calculations (as cited in the rejection) one can see the result would fall within the ranges of claimed expressions. Please note to teach each expressions, only one of the values in from each ranges needed to be taught.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa in view of Fukuda.
Regarding Claim 1: Kumazawa teaches an imaging lens, comprising: a lens group of one or more lenses which forms an optical image of an object on an imaging surface having a curved shape [(Fig.3, imaging surface “I” )] , wherein
a maximum angle of view is 90 degrees or larger [(Table 2 in para 107 also see para 137; maximum angle is 2xw)] , and
when a first imaging height that is an imaging height in a case where a half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by Yw, a second imaging height that is an imaging height in a case of a maximum half view angle which is a half of the maximum angle of view is denoted by Y [(Table 4)] , a total optical length that is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a lens closest to an object in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by TL [(Table 4)] , a focal length of the entire imaging lens is denoted by f [(table 4)] , and a focal length of the lens closest to the object is denoted by f1, the following expressions are satisfied
0.27≤(Yw/Y)^2≤0.7 [(Yw/Y =tan(40 degree)/tan(50.72 deg); applying simple trigonometric principal and values from Table 4)]
0.3≤TL/2Y≤0.695 [(Table 4)]
Kumazawa does not explicitly show -0.35≤f/f1≤0.73.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Fukuda teaches -0.35≤f/f1≤0.73 [(para 12, equation 2)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities. [(Kumazawa teaches in system with a curved imaging surface, wide angle view that f/f12 falls within limit, where f12 is the combined for first two lens {para 44 & 50}; therefore, there is good indication that the f/f1 would fall within the range. Fukuda explicitly teaches that in system with a curved imaging surface {Fig.2}, wide angle view {para 75, 62} f/f1 falls within the range )]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 3. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein, when a peripheral illumination ratio with respect to a center of the imaging surface in a case where the half angle of view is 40 degrees is denoted by RIYw and the maximum half view angle is denoted by ω, the following expression is satisfied 1.2≤RIYw/(cos(ω)4)≤35. [(Kumazawa RIYw=Y tan(40 degree)/tan(50.72 deg); (cos(50.72))^4; and values from Table 4)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 4. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein, when a distance of a light beam having the second imaging height on an optical axis from the imaging surface to an exit pupil is denoted by EXPY and a curvature radius of a center of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri, the following expression is satisfied 0.01≤EXPY/Ri≤0.39. [(para 86; For instance, table 2 Ri=-30.51089 {column R} and EXPY=-Y=-5.6 or lower )]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 5. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein, when the second imaging height is denoted by Y, and a distance on an optical axis from an imaging-surface-side surface of a lens closest to the imaging surface in the lens group to the imaging surface is denoted by fb, the following expression is satisfied 9.7≤fb×2Y≤28.4. [(Table 4 and distance “D” from surface R11 teaches fb; see para 86)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 6. The imaging lens according to claim 1, further comprising: an aperture stop, wherein when a curvature radius of a center of the imaging surface is denoted by Ri and a distance on an optical axis from the aperture stop to the imaging surface is denoted by Ts, the following expression is satisfied -50≤Ri/Ts≤-1.95. [(para 86; For instance, table 2 Ri=-30.51089 {column R} and Ts is the summation of distance “D” from row 11 till row 3, about 7.5 )]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 7. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the imaging surface is concavely curved toward the object side, and an imaging-surface-side surface of a lens closest to the imaging surface in the lens group is a spherical surface concave toward the object side or an aspherical surface concave toward the object side as a whole in which a sign of an inclination of the surface is not reversed while a distance from the optical axis increases. [(Fig. 1; L5 and I; para 85)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 8. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the imaging surface has an aspherical shape curved concavely toward the object side, and a displacement amount of the imaging surface with respect to a spherical surface increases in a direction in which the imaging surface is away from the imaging lens while a distance from the optical axis increases. [(Fig. 1; L5 and I; para 85)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 9. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein, when optical distortion at the second imaging height is denoted by DY, optical distortion at the first imaging height is denoted by Dw, the second imaging height is denoted by Y, and the first imaging height is denoted by Yw, the following expression is satisfied -0.16≤(DY-Dw)/(Y-Yw)≤0.16. [(Fig.2 shows less than 10% distortion i.e. -0.1 to 0.1 range)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 10. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein, when a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the lens closest to the object is denoted by Ha and a maximum effective radius of an imaging-surface-side surface of a lens closest to the imaging surface in the lens group is denoted by Hb, the following expression is satisfied 0.475≤Ha/Hb≤0.68. [(Table 5 Ha=R1=5.55 and Hb=R11=8.63108; para 86 description of parameters)]
Kumazawa additionally teaches with regards to claim 11. The imaging lens according to claim 1, further comprising: an aperture stop, wherein when a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the imaging surface is denoted by Ts and the total optical length is denoted by TL, the following expression is satisfied 0.73≤Ts/TL≤0.9. [(Fig.1, Table 1 or Fig.6, Table 6 or Table 4; considering the TL and “D” the distance to the next lens surface )]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa in view of Fukuda in view of Nitta.
Regarding Claim 2: Kumazawa teaches F value lest than 2 for 5 Lense with aspherical lens [(para 3)]
Kumazawa in view of Fukuda does not explicitly show includes six or more lenses including at least one aspherical lens, and an F value is 2.5 or smaller
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Nitta teaches lens group includes six or more lenses including at least one aspherical lens, and an F value is 2.5 or smaller. [( Nitta Equation 14 para 132, 129-130)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to achieve high resolving power [(Kumazawa para 3)] .
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights