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
The instant application having Application No. 18/607,975 filed on March 18, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on November 10, 2023 (Korea KR 10-2023-0155782).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on March 18, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 3/18/2024; 11/01/2024; and 7/16/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “v2 has an Abbe number of the second lens, and v5 has an Abbe number of the fifth lens” are grammatically incorrect and should instead be written as “v2 [[has]] is an Abbe number of the second lens, and v5 [[has]] is an Abbe number of the fifth lens. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an optical imaging system comprising only eight lenses having non-zero refractive power arranged PNPPNPPN or PNPPNNPN (where P is positive and N is negative refractive power) and meeting the claimed conditions, does not reasonably provide enablement for optical imaging systems having any number of lenses greater than or equal to eight lenses and with any arrangement of lens powers having the fourth lens positive. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case, (A) the breadth of the claims includes imaging systems with an unlimited number of lenses, whereas it becomes increasingly difficult to have additional lenses while maintaining the ratio of TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.00 such that it is not at all clear that there could be more than 9 lenses. Further the breadth of claim 1 includes almost any arrangement of lens powers including such unlikely possibilities as NNNPNNNN or every lens being positive. Even claims 6 and 8 still include lens arrangements such as PPPPNNNN that are significantly different than the +-++-?+- embodiments in the specification.
(B) The nature of the invention appears to be drawn to systems with eight lenses that achieve both low Fno values and low TTL/IMG HT ratios by effective use of four or more positive lenses interspersed with negative lenses to achieve desirable optical performance characteristics.
(C) The prior art which achieves values of TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno near to or less than 1.0 contain at most nine lenses, and have approximately equal numbers of positive and negative lenses interspersed, and thus the prior art does not appear to enable an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers.
(D) The level of ordinary skill in the art is high, such that minor variations from the disclosed embodiments would reasonably be enabled by the present specification, but this would not include an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers.
(E) The level of predictability in the art for a given lens system is high, however, the predictability of achieving workable lens systems through optimization when making a large number of changes to the system is low.
(F/G) The specification provides examples and direction for obtaining desirable imaging systems comprising eight lenses arranged PNPPNPPN or PNPPNNPN, but does not provide any guidance or examples of systems with an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers.
(H) An undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make the invention that encompasses the full breadth of the claims based on the content of the disclosure. An ordinary skilled artisan will typically employ lens optimization software to design workable lens systems that are similar to those disclosed, but one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success for any arrangement of powers or for systems with more than nine lenses.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and do not overcome this scope of enablement issue. The additional limitations with respect to the powers of the third, fifth and sixth lenses lessen the breadth of the claims, but not sufficiently to overcome the issues explained above.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an optical imaging system comprising only eight lenses and meeting the claimed conditions, does not reasonably provide enablement for optical imaging systems having any number of lenses greater than or equal to eight lenses where the additional lenses could have any arrangement of powers. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case, (A) the breadth of the claims includes imaging systems with an unlimited number of lenses, whereas it becomes increasingly difficult to have additional lenses while maintaining the ratio of TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.00 such that it is not at all clear that there could be more than 9 lenses, nor what the power arrangement of those additional lenses could be.
(B) The nature of the invention appears to be drawn to systems with eight lenses that achieve both low Fno values and low TTL/IMG HT ratios by effective use of four or more positive lenses interspersed with negative lenses to achieve desirable optical performance characteristics.
(C) The prior art which achieves values of TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno near to or less than 1.0 contain at most nine lenses and thus the prior art does not appear to enable an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers of the additional lenses.
(D) The level of ordinary skill in the art is high, such that minor variations from the disclosed embodiments would reasonably be enabled by the present specification, but this would not include an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers of the additional lenses.
(E) The level of predictability in the art for a given lens system is high, however, the predictability of achieving workable lens systems through optimization when making a large number of changes to the system is low.
(F/G) The specification provides examples and direction for obtaining desirable imaging systems comprising eight lenses, but does not provide any guidance or examples of systems with an unlimited number of lenses or an unconstrained arrangement of lens powers for the additional lenses.
(H) An undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make the invention that encompasses the full breadth of the claims based on the content of the disclosure. An ordinary skilled artisan will typically employ lens optimization software to design workable lens systems that are similar to those disclosed, but one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success for systems with more than nine lenses where the additional lenses have any arrangement of powers.
Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 and do not overcome this scope of enablement issue.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the limitation “TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000” is indefinite because the division symbol “/” followed by the multiplication symbol “*” is ambiguous. In particular it is unclear whether this expression should be treated as
T
T
L
2
*
I
M
G
H
T
×
F
n
o
or as
T
T
L
2
*
I
M
G
H
T
×
F
n
o
. The specification provides the values of the parameters that compose the expression, but does not tabulate the values of the claimed expression for each embodiment. Given the values disclosed, both of the above interpretations would be less than 1.0 for all of the embodiments. The prior art abounds with variations on the claimed ratios without any consistent application thereof. Thus, there is no way to unambiguously determine which expression it is that the applicant intended to claim. In one case the examiner recommends presenting the expression as (TTL x Fno)/(2 x IMG HT). Alternatively, claiming TTL/(2 x IMG HT x Fno) would unambiguously place the Fno in the denominator. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of applying prior art, the examiner assumed (TTL x Fno)/(2 x IMG HT) < 1.0 was the intended meaning, since this expression would produce larger values given that the Fno of a system is generally greater than 1.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issue from claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. US 2021/0191084 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Dong).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches (embodiment 1 Figs. 6-9) “An optical imaging system (embodiment 1 Figs. 6-9) comprising:
a first lens (L1, 1st lens element), a second lens (L2, 2nd lens element), a third lens (L3, 3rd lens element), a fourth lens (L4, 4th lens element) having a positive refractive power (see positive focal length of 47.462 in Fig. 8), a fifth lens (L5, 5th lens element), a sixth lens (L6, 6th lens element), a seventh lens (L7, 7th lens element), and an eighth lens (L8, 8th lens element) having a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0095]: “the object-side surface L8A1, an optical axis region L8A1C may be convex”), sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 6 and from the Object to the Image plane in Fig. 8),
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno={5.179/(2*4.5)}*1.6=0.9207 which is in the claimed range),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (Fig. 8 TTL=5.179 mm), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (Fig. 8 Image Height =4.500 mm), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Fig. 8 Fno=1.600).”
Regarding claim 4, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0091]: “On the object-side surface L4A1, an optical axis region L4A1C may be convex”).”
Regarding claim 5, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0091]: “On the image-side surface L4A2, an optical axis region L4A2C may be convex”).”
Regarding claim 8, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the third lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0090]: “the third lens element L3, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8), and the fifth lens has a negative refractive power (paragraph [0092]: “the fifth lens element L5, may have negative refracting power” see also Fig. 8).”
Regarding claim 9, Dong teaches (embodiment 1 Figs. 6-9) “An optical imaging system (embodiment 1 Figs. 6-9) comprising:
a first lens (L1, 1st lens element) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0088]: “the first lens element L1, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a second lens (L2, 2nd lens element) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0089]: “the second lens element L2, may have negative refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a third lens (L3, 3rd lens element) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0090]: “the third lens element L3, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a fourth lens (L4, 4th lens element) having a refractive power (paragraph [0091]: “the fourth lens element L4, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a fifth lens (L5, 5th lens element) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0092]: “the fifth lens element L5, may have negative refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a sixth lens (L6, 6th lens element) having a refractive power (paragraph [0093]: “the sixth lens element L6, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8);
a seventh lens (L7, 7th lens element) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0094]: “the seventh lens element L7, may have positive refracting power” see also Fig. 8); and
an eighth lens (L8, 8th lens element) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0095]: “the eighth lens element L8, may have negative refracting power” see also Fig. 8),
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 6 and from the Object to the Image plane in Fig. 8), and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno={5.179/(2*4.5)}*1.6=0.9207 which is in the claimed range),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (Fig. 8 TTL=5.179 mm), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (Fig. 8 Image Height =4.500 mm), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Fig. 8 Fno=1.600).”
Regarding claim 11, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0091]: “the fourth lens element L4, may have positive refracting power.”) and a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0091]: “On the image-side surface L4A2, an optical axis region L4A2C may be convex”).”
Regarding claim 12, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the eighth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0095]: “the object-side surface L8A1, an optical axis region L8A1C may be convex”).”
Regarding claim 13, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0091]: “the image-side surface L4A2, an optical axis region L4A2C may be convex”).”
Regarding claim 14, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0093]: “the sixth lens element L6, may have positive refracting power”).”
Regarding claim 15, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0093]: “the object-side surface L6A1, an optical axis region L6A1C may be convex”) and a concave image-side surface (paragraph [0093]: “the image-side surface L6A2, an optical axis region L6A2C may be concave”).”
Regarding claim 16, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
0.500 ≤ TTL/(2*IMG HT) < 0.620 (given the values above TTL/(2*IMG HT)=5.179/(2x4.500)=0.575 which is in the claimed range).”
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ao et al. CN 116299977 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter Ao, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ao teaches (embodiment 7, paragraphs [0152]-[0154],[0173], Figs. 13-14D) “An optical imaging system (embodiment 7, paragraphs [0152],[0173], Figs. 13-14D) comprising:
a first lens (E1), a second lens (E2), a third lens (E3), a fourth lens (E4) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0153] the fourth lens has a positive focal length of 71.26), a fifth lens (E5), a sixth lens (E6), a seventh lens (E7), and an eighth lens (E8) having a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0152] the radius of surface S15 is positive and thus convex to the object-side), sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 13 and from OBJ to surface S19 in paragraph [0153]-[0154]),
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={8.74/(2*8.42)}*1.90)=0.986),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (paragraph [0173] TTL=8.74), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0173] ImgH=8.42), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (paragraph [0173] Fno=1.9).”
Regarding claim 4, Ao teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0153] the radius of surface S7 is positive and thus convex to the object side).”
Regarding claim 5, Ao teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0153] the radius of surface S8 is negative and thus convex to the image-side).”
Regarding claim 6, Ao teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens has a negative refractive power (paragraph [0154] the focal length of the sixth lens is -57.21 and thus the sixth lens has a negative refractive power.).”
Regarding claim 7, Ao teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200 (TTL/f=8.74/7.42=1.1779 which is in the claimed range),
where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (paragraph [0173] f=7.42).”
Claims 9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh).
Regarding claim 9, Hsueh teaches (5th embodiment Figs. 9-10, Table 9 and paragraphs [0168]-[0180]) “An optical imaging system (5th embodiment Figs. 9-10, Table 9 and paragraphs [0168]-[0180]) comprising:
a first lens (510 Lens 1) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0169]: “first lens element 510 with positive refractive power”);
a second lens (520 Lens 2) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0170]: “second lens element 520 with negative refractive power”);
a third lens (530 Lens 3) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0171]: “third lens element 530 with positive refractive power”);
a fourth lens (540 Lens 4) having a refractive power (paragraph [0172]: “fourth lens element 540 with positive refractive power”);
a fifth lens (550 Lens 5) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0173]: “fifth lens element 550 with negative refractive power”);
a sixth lens (560 Lens 6) having a refractive power (paragraph [0174]: “sixth lens element 560 with negative refractive power”);
a seventh lens (570 Lens 7) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0175]: “seventh lens element 570 with positive refractive power”); and
an eighth lens (580 Lens 8) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0176]: “eighth lens element 580 with negative refractive power”),
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 9 and from Object to Image in Table 9), and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={1.37/2}*1.40=0.96),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL” the value of TL is the sum of the thicknesses of surfaces 2-22 in Table 9 which is 7.745, also TL/IMGH is explicitly listed in paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “the maximum image height of the photographing lens assembly is ImgH” as shown in Fig. 10 ImgH=5.64 which is consistent with paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Table 9 Fno=1.40).”
Regarding claim 11, Hsueh teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0172]: “fourth lens element 540 with positive refractive power”) and a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0172]: “an image-side surface 542 being convex in a paraxial region thereof”).”
Regarding claim 13, Hsueh teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0172]: “an object-side surface 541 being convex in a paraxial region thereof”).”
Regarding claim 15, Hsueh teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0174]: “an object-side surface 561 being convex in a paraxial region thereof”) and a concave image-side surface (paragraph [0174]: “an image-side surface 562 being concave in a paraxial region thereof.”).”
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. US 2021/0191084 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Dong) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh).
Regarding claim 2, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a stop (paragraph [0085]: “aperture stop STO”).” However, Dong fails to teach “a stop disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens.”
Hsueh teaches (claim 1) “An optical imaging system (5th embodiment Figs. 9-10, Table 9 and paragraphs [0168]-[0180]) comprising:
a first lens (510 Lens 1), a second lens (520 Lens 2), a third lens (530 Lens 3), a fourth lens (540 Lens 4) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0172]: “fourth lens element 540 with positive refractive power”), a fifth lens (550 Lens 5), a sixth lens (560 Lens 6), a seventh lens (570 Lens 7), and an eighth lens (580 Lens 8) … sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 9 and from Object to Image in Table 9),
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={1.37/2}*1.40=0.96),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL” the value of TL is the sum of the thicknesses of surfaces 2-22 in Table 9 which is 7.745, also TL/IMGH is explicitly listed in paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “the maximum image height of the photographing lens assembly is ImgH” as shown in Fig. 10 ImgH=5.64 which is consistent with paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Table 9 Fno=1.40).”
(claim 2) The optical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a stop (Fig. 9 stop 501, Table 9 surface 8 “Stop”) disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens (see Fig. 9, paragraph [0168] and Table 9).”
Hsueh further teaches (paragraphs [0075]-[0076]): “According to the present disclosure, the photographing lens assembly can include at least one stop, such as an aperture stop, a glare stop or a field stop. Said glare stop or said field stop is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof.
According to the present disclosure, an aperture stop can be configured as a front stop or a middle stop. A front stop disposed between an imaged object and the first lens element can provide a longer distance between an exit pupil of the photographing lens assembly and the image surface to produce a telecentric effect, and thereby improves the image-sensing efficiency of an image sensor (for example, CCD or CMOS). A middle stop disposed between the first lens element and the image surface is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a middle stop between the third and fourth lenses as taught by Hsueh in the imaging system of Dong because Hsueh teaches the use of more than one stop including a middle stop which is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same (Hsueh paragraph [0076]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ao et al. CN 116299977 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter Ao where reference will be made to the attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh).
Regarding claim 2, Ao teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a stop (paragraph [0153]: “STO”).” However, Ao fails to teach “a stop disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens.”
Hsueh teaches (claim 1) “An optical imaging system (5th embodiment Figs. 9-10, Table 9 and paragraphs [0168]-[0180]) comprising:
a first lens (510 Lens 1), a second lens (520 Lens 2), a third lens (530 Lens 3), a fourth lens (540 Lens 4) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0172]: “fourth lens element 540 with positive refractive power”), a fifth lens (550 Lens 5), a sixth lens (560 Lens 6), a seventh lens (570 Lens 7), and an eighth lens (580 Lens 8) … sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 9 and from Object to Image in Table 9),
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={1.37/2}*1.40=0.96),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL” the value of TL is the sum of the thicknesses of surfaces 2-22 in Table 9 which is 7.745, also TL/IMGH is explicitly listed in paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “the maximum image height of the photographing lens assembly is ImgH” as shown in Fig. 10 ImgH=5.64 which is consistent with paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Table 9 Fno=1.40).”
(claim 2) The optical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a stop (Fig. 9 stop 501, Table 9 surface 8 “Stop”) disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens (see Fig. 9, paragraph [0168] and Table 9).”
Hsueh further teaches (paragraphs [0075]-[0076]): “According to the present disclosure, the photographing lens assembly can include at least one stop, such as an aperture stop, a glare stop or a field stop. Said glare stop or said field stop is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof.
According to the present disclosure, an aperture stop can be configured as a front stop or a middle stop. A front stop disposed between an imaged object and the first lens element can provide a longer distance between an exit pupil of the photographing lens assembly and the image surface to produce a telecentric effect, and thereby improves the image-sensing efficiency of an image sensor (for example, CCD or CMOS). A middle stop disposed between the first lens element and the image surface is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a middle stop between the third and fourth lenses as taught by Hsueh in the imaging system of Ao because Hsueh teaches the use of more than one stop including a middle stop which is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same (Hsueh paragraph [0076]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. US 2021/0191084 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Dong) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang et al. US 2021/0278632 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1,” however, Dong fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second lens and the fifth lens have an Abbe number of less than 20.” instead teaching that the second lens and the fifth lens both have an Abbe number of 20.373 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Wang teaches, similarly to Dong and the instant application, an optical imaging system (Embodiment 1, Table 1, Figs 1 to 2D) having eight lenses arranged PNPPNPPN where TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (paragraph [0068] TTL=7.86, ImgH=6.26 and Fno=1.59 thus {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={7.86/(2*6.26}*1.59=0.998).
(claim 3) “wherein the second lens and the fifth lens have an Abbe number of less than 20 (Table 1 the Abbe number of surface S3 and surface S9 are both 19.2 which is in the claimed range).”
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Dong value of 20.373 for v2 and v5 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 20.0 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 20.373 and the endpoint of 20.0 is insubstantial, representing only a 1.9% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the disclosed v2 and v5 values 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 less than 20.0.
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 20.373 for v2 and v5, from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 20.0 to render it obvious because the difference between 20.373 and the endpoint of 20.0 is insubstantial, a value of 20.373 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for v2 and v5, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Wang teaches a similar eight lens system arranged PNPPNPPN with TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 where the Abbe numbers of the second and fifth lens are both equal to 19.2 which is in the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. US 2021/0191084 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Dong) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh) and Wang et al. US 2021/0278632 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 10, Dong teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, further comprising a stop (Fig. 8 “STO Aperture stop”)…
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
v2+v5 … (given the values that follow v2+v5=40.746),
where v2 has an Abbe number of the second lens (Fig. 8 Abbe number of the 2nd lens element v2=20.373), and v5 has an Abbe number of the fifth lens (Fig. 8 Abbe number of the 5th lens element v5=20.373).”
However, Dong fails to teach “a stop disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens”.
Hsueh teaches (claim 9) “An optical imaging system (5th embodiment Figs. 9-10, Table 9 and paragraphs [0168]-[0180]) comprising:
a first lens (510 Lens 1) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0169]: “first lens element 510 with positive refractive power”);
a second lens (520 Lens 2) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0170]: “second lens element 520 with negative refractive power”);
a third lens (530 Lens 3) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0171]: “third lens element 530 with positive refractive power”);
a fourth lens (540 Lens 4) having a refractive power (paragraph [0172]: “fourth lens element 540 with positive refractive power”);
a fifth lens (550 Lens 5) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0173]: “fifth lens element 550 with negative refractive power”);
a sixth lens (560 Lens 6) having a refractive power (paragraph [0174]: “sixth lens element 560 with negative refractive power”);
a seventh lens (570 Lens 7) having a positive refractive power (paragraph [0175]: “seventh lens element 570 with positive refractive power”); and
an eighth lens (580 Lens 8) having a negative refractive power (paragraph [0176]: “eighth lens element 580 with negative refractive power”),
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 9 and from Object to Image in Table 9), and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (given the values that follow {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={1.37/2}*1.40=0.96),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL” the value of TL is the sum of the thicknesses of surfaces 2-22 in Table 9 which is 7.745, also TL/IMGH is explicitly listed in paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0054]: “the maximum image height of the photographing lens assembly is ImgH” as shown in Fig. 10 ImgH=5.64 which is consistent with paragraph [0180] as TL/ImgH=1.37), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (Table 9 Fno=1.40).”
(claim 10) The optical imaging system of claim 9, further comprising a stop (Fig. 9 stop 501, Table 9 surface 8 “Stop”) disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens (see Fig. 9, paragraph [0168] and Table 9).”
Hsueh further teaches (paragraphs [0075]-[0076]): “According to the present disclosure, the photographing lens assembly can include at least one stop, such as an aperture stop, a glare stop or a field stop. Said glare stop or said field stop is set for eliminating the stray light and thereby improving image quality thereof.
According to the present disclosure, an aperture stop can be configured as a front stop or a middle stop. A front stop disposed between an imaged object and the first lens element can provide a longer distance between an exit pupil of the photographing lens assembly and the image surface to produce a telecentric effect, and thereby improves the image-sensing efficiency of an image sensor (for example, CCD or CMOS). A middle stop disposed between the first lens element and the image surface is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a middle stop between the third and fourth lenses as taught by Hsueh in the imaging system of Dong because Hsueh teaches the use of more than one stop including a middle stop which is favorable for enlarging the viewing angle of the photographing lens assembly and thereby provides a wider field of view for the same (Hsueh paragraph [0076]).
However, Dong fails to teach “v2 + v5 < 40” instead teaching a value of 40.746 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Wang teaches, similarly to Dong and the instant application, an optical imaging system (Embodiment 1, Table 1, Figs 1 to 2D) having eight lenses arranged PNPPNPPN where TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 (paragraph [0068] TTL=7.86, ImgH=6.26 and Fno=1.59 thus {TTL/(2*IMG HT)}*Fno={7.86/(2*6.26}*1.59=0.998).
(claim 10) “wherein the optical system satisfies:
v2 + v5 < 40 (given the values that follow v2 + v5 = 19.2 + 19.2 = 38.4 which is in the claimed range),
where v2 has an Abbe number of the second lens (Table 1 the Abbe number of surface S3 is 19.2), and v5 has an Abbe number of the fifth lens (Table 1 the Abbe number of surface S9 is 19.2).”
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Dong value of 40.746 for v2 + v5 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 40 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 40.746 and the endpoint of 40 is insubstantial, representing only a 1.9% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the disclosed v2 + v5 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 less than 40.
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 40.746 for v2 + v5, from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 40 to render it obvious because the difference between 40.746 and the endpoint of 40 is insubstantial, a value of 40.746 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for v2 + v5, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Wang teaches a similar eight lens system arranged PNPPNPPN with TTL/(2*IMG HT)*Fno < 1.000 where the Abbe numbers of the second and fifth lens are both equal to 19.2 and thus v2+v5=38.4 which is in the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Although prior rejections over the following prior art references are possible, they were considered both duplicative and burdensome to applicant at this time.
Jeong US 20240184084 A1 “Optical Imaging System” embodiment 1, Table 1, pertinent to at least claims 1, 3 and 4 and the state of the prior art for the scope of enablement considerations above.
Xiao CN 113985577 A “Optical Imaging Lens” all embodiments pertinent to at least claim 1 and the state of the prior art for the scope of enablement considerations above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872