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.
The amended claims submitted April 20, 2026 in response to the office action mailed January 26, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are amended and pending. Claim 8 is cancelled.
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.
Claim Objections
The claim objection of the previous office action has been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the examiner notes the following new objection.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 “satisfied” should be “satisfies”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: because of the amendment to claim 9 the meanings of TTL and IMG HT have not been introduced and should be defined herein. Appropriate correction is required. No indefiniteness issue is raised because (1) these acronyms are defined in the specification and (2) these are the standard, accepted meanings of these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 claim 1, the limitation “TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000” is indefinite because the division symbol “/” followed by the multiplication symbol “x” 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. To put it another way, as written there is no way to distinguish if the Fno is in the numerator or the denominator. Changing “*” to “x” does nothing to mitigate this indefiniteness issue.
For the purpose of applying prior art, given that the applicant has not corrected this issue, nor provided any guidance as to the intended interpretation, this limitation will have to be interpreted broadly as encompassing either of the above interpretations.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issue from claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. CN 115291363 A (hereafter Zhu, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches (embodiment 7, Tables 13 and 15, Figs. 13-14D) “An optical imaging system (The optical imaging lens according to Embodiment 7) comprising:
a first lens (E1) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “first lens E1 has positive focal power”);
a second lens (E2) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “second lens E2 has a negative power”);
a third lens (E3) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “third lens E3 has positive focal power”);
a fourth lens (E4) having-a positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “fourth lens E4 has a positive focal power”);
a fifth lens (E5) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “fifth lens E5 has a negative power”);
a sixth lens (E6) having refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “sixth lens E6 has negative focal power”);
a seventh lens (E7) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “seventh lens E7 has positive focal power”); and
an eighth lens (E8) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “eighth lens E8 has a negative focal power”);
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses (E1 to E8), sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (second paragraph under heading embodiment 7 on page 17: “the optical imaging lens from the object side to the image side orderly comprises”), and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
10< T56/T12 (given the values that follow T56/T12=0.8122/0.0300=27.07 which is greater than 10),
where T12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens (Table 13 the thickness of surface S2 T12=0.0300), and T56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object- side surface of the sixth lens (Table 13 the thickness of surface S10 T56=0.8122).”
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “the image side surface S8 is a convex surface”).”
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the eighth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “the object side S15 is a convex surface”).”
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “the sixth lens E6 has negative focal power, the object side S11 is a convex surface, the image side S12 is a concave surface”).”
Regarding claim 16, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the optical imaging system satisfies: 0.500 ≤ TTL/(2xlMG HT) ≤ 0.620 (Page 18 third paragraph TD=8.04mm TTL is TD plus the thicknesses of surfaces S16, S17 and S18 in Table 13, thus TTL=10.1521 and page 18 third paragraph ImgH=8.25mm. Thus TTL/(2xlMG HT)=10.1521/(2x8.25)=0.615 which is in the claimed range).”
Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2023/0168467 A1 (hereafter Lee).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, although reference Lee could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is also applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches (optical imaging system 1000 according to a tenth example embodiment, Fig. 19, Table 19) “An optical imaging system (optical imaging system 1000 according to a tenth example embodiment) comprising:
a first lens (first lens 1010) having positive refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0273]: “1010 may have positive refractive power”);
a second lens (second lens 1020) having negative refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0274]: “1020 may have negative refractive power”);
a third lens (third lens 1030) having positive refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0275]: “1030 may have positive refractive power”);
a fourth lens (fourth lens 1040) having positive refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0276]: “1040 may have positive refractive power”);
a fifth lens (fifth lens 1050) having negative refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0277]: “1050 may have negative refractive power”);
a sixth lens (sixth lens 1060/260) having refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0278]: “260 may have positive refractive power”);
a seventh lens (seventh lens 1070/270) having positive refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0280]: “the seventh lens 270 may have positive refractive power”); and
an eighth lens (eighth lens 1080/280) having negative refractive power (Table 19 and paragraph [0282]: “eighth lens 280 may have negative refractive power”);
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses (lenses 1010 to 1080) sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 19 and from surface S1 to S19 in Table 19); and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
10< T56/T12 (given the values that follow T56/T12=0.445/0.025=17.8 which is in the claimed range),
where T12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens (Table 19 the distance of surface S2 T12=0.025), and T56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object- side surface of the sixth lens (Table 19 the distance of surface S11 T56=0.445).”
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0276]: “the first and second surfaces of the fourth lens 1040 may be convex.” see also surface S8 in Table 19).”
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the eighth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0282]: “the first surface of the eighth lens 180 may be convex in the paraxial region” see also surface S15 in Table 19).”
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0276]: “the first and second surfaces of the fourth lens 1040 may be convex.” see also surface S7 in Table 19).”
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a positive refractive power (paragraph [0278]: “sixth lens 260 may have positive refractive power” see also Table 19).”
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface (paragraph [0278]: “the first surface of the sixth lens 260 may be convex, and the second surface of the sixth lens 260 may be concave.” see also surfaces S11 and S12 in Table 19).”
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9, wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
0.500 ≤ TTL/(2xlMG HT) ≤ 0.620 (TTL is the sum of all of the thicknesses in Table 19, thus TTL=7.839, paragraph [0272] MGHT=7.145, thus TTL/(2xIMG HT)=7.839/(2x7.145)=0.549 which is in the claimed range)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu et al. CN 115291363 A (hereafter Zhu, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches (embodiment 7, Tables 13 and 15, Figs. 13-14D) “An optical imaging system (The optical imaging lens according to Embodiment 7) comprising:
a first lens (E1) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “first lens E1 has positive focal power”),
a second lens (E2) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “second lens E2 has a negative power”),
a third lens (E3) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “third lens E3 has positive focal power”),
a fourth lens (E4) having-a positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “fourth lens E4 has a positive focal power”),
a fifth lens (E5) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “fifth lens E5 has a negative power”),
a sixth lens (E6) having refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “sixth lens E6 has negative focal power”),
a seventh lens (E7) having positive refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “seventh lens E7 has positive focal power”), and
an eighth lens (E8) having negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “eighth lens E8 has a negative focal power”) and having a convex object-side surface (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “the object side S15 is a convex surface”),
sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (second paragraph under heading embodiment 7 on page 17: “the optical imaging lens from the object side to the image side orderly comprises”),
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses (E1 to E8), and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfied:
TTL/(2xlMG HT)xFno < 1.000 (given the values that follow TTL/(2xlMG HT)xFno = 10.1521/(2x8.25x1.67)=0.368 which is less than 1.000) and
10< T56/T12 (given the values that follow T56/T12=0.8122/0.0300=27.07 which is greater than 10),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (page 18 third paragraph TD=8.04mm TTL is TD plus the thicknesses of surfaces S16, S17 and S18 in Table 13, thus TTL=10.1521), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (page 18 third paragraph ImgH=8.25mm), and Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (page 18 third paragraph ImgH=8.25mm and Table 15 ImgHxEPD/f=4.95, thus f/EPD=1.67 where the Fno of a lens system is f/EPD), T12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens (Table 13 the thickness of surface S2 T12=0.0300), and T56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object- side surface of the sixth lens (Table 13 the thickness of surface S10 T56=0.8122).”
In the alternative that TTL/(2xlMG HT)xFno is interpreted as [TTL/(2xlMG HT)]xFno, this limitation would also be obvious as follows.
Zhu alternatively may fail to teach TTL/(2xlMG HT)xFno < 1.000, instead given the values above TTL/(2xlMG HT)xFno = [10.1521/(2x8.25)]x1.67=1.0275 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Zhu, value of 1.0275 for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno is sufficiently close to the claimed range of TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 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 1.0275 and the endpoint of 1.000 is insubstantial, representing only a 2.75% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno 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 TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000.
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 1.0275 for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 to render it obvious because the difference between 1.0275 and the endpoint of 1.000 is insubstantial, a value of 1.0275 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno, 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.
Regarding claim 5, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “image side surface S8 is a convex surface”).”
Regarding claim 6, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens has a negative refractive power (paragraph spanning pages 17-18: “the sixth lens E6 has negative focal power”).”
Regarding claim 7, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200, (given TTL=10.1521 as explained for claim 1, and f=8.47 from page 18 third paragraph TTL/f=10.1521/847=1.199 which is in the claimed range)
where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (f=8.47 from page 18 third paragraph).”
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. US 2023/0168467 A1 (hereafter Lee) as evidenced by Kimura US 2021/0096343 A1 (hereafter Kimura).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
However, although reference Lee could be excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is also applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).
Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (optical imaging system 800 according to a eighth example embodiment, Fig. 15, Table 15) “An optical imaging system (optical imaging system 800 according to a eighth example embodiment) comprising:
a first lens (first lens 810) having positive refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0237]: “810 may have positive refractive power”),
a second lens (second lens 820) having negative refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0238]: “820 may have negative refractive power”),
a third lens (third lens 830) having positive refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0239]: “830 may have positive refractive power”),
a fourth lens (fourth lens 840) having positive refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0240]: “840 may have positive refractive power”),
a fifth lens (fifth lens 850) having negative refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0241]: “850 may have negative refractive power”),
a sixth lens (sixth lens 860/260) having refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0242]: “260 may have negative refractive power”),
a seventh lens (seventh lens 870/270) having positive refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0244]: “the seventh lens 270 may have positive refractive power”), and
an eighth lens (eighth lens 880/280) having negative refractive power (Table 15 and paragraph [0246]: “eighth lens 280 may have negative refractive power”) and having a convex object-side surface (Table 15 surface S15 and paragraph [0246]: “the first surface of the eighth lens 180 may be convex in the paraxial region”) sequentially arranged from an object side to an imaging plane side (from left to right in Fig. 15 and from surface S1 to S19 in Table 15),
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses (lenses 810 to 880) and
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 (given the values that follow TTL/(2xIMG HT x Fno)=7.839/(2x7.145x1.966)=0.279 which is in the claimed range) and
10< T56/T12 (given the values that follow T56/T12=0.440/0.025=17.6 which is in the claimed range),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane (Table 15, TTL is the sum of all of the thicknesses/distances therein thus TTL=7.839), IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane (paragraph [0236] MGHT=7.145 mm), Fno is an F value of the optical imaging system (the Fno of a system is the effective focal length divided by the entrance pupil diameter, f/EPD. Although Lee does not list the numerical value of EPD, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the Figures are the output of a lens design program and thus to scale. Therefor, one can use the fact that TTL=7.839 which is measured to be 3.64 inches, while EPD is measured to be 1.71 inches, to determine that EPD=7.839x1.71/3.64=3.6826. See examiner’s markup of Fig. 15 below. That this is a legitimate method for deducing EPD is evidenced by Kimura, paragraph [0040]: “The effective diameter may not be described in the lens data of the literature. In that case, the simplest way to obtain the effective ray diameter is to find the drawing magnification from the actual overall length of the lens drawn in the sectional view of the zoom lens and the known overall lens length shown by numerical data, and to multiply the actual size of the diameter of the drawn curved part by the drawing magnification.” Then using EPD=3.6826 and f=7.24 from paragraph [0236] one can calculate Fno=f/EPD=7.24/3.6826=1.966), T12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens (Table 15 the distance of surface S2 T12=0.025), and T56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object- side surface of the sixth lens (Table 15 the distance of surface S11 T56=0.440).”
PNG
media_image1.png
834
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, that TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 is interpreted as [TTL/(2xIMG HT)]xFno < 1.000, this would also have been obvious over Lee as follows.
Given the values of TTL=7.839, Fno=1.966 and MGHT=7.145 explained above, the calculated value of [TTL/(2xIMG HT)]xFno is [7.839/(2x7.145)]x1.966=1.064, which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Lee, value of 1.064 for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno is sufficiently close to the claimed range of TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 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 1.064 and the endpoint of 1.000 is insubstantial, representing only a 6.4% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno value from the prior art is similarly close to Applicant’s claimed range as 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 TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000.
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 1.064 for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno < 1.000 to render it obvious because the difference between 1.064 and the endpoint of 1.000 is insubstantial, a value of 1.064 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for TTL/(2xIMG HT)xFno, 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.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the second lens and the fifth lens have an Abbe number of less than 20 (Table 15 the Abbe numbers of the second and fifth lenses are both 18.2).”
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (paragraph [0240]: “first and second surfaces of the fourth lens 840 may be convex.”).”
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (paragraph [0240]: “first and second surfaces of the fourth lens 840 may be convex.”).”
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens has a negative refractive power (see Table 15 and paragraph [0242]: “sixth lens 260 may have negative refractive power”).”
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 Zhu et al. CN 115291363 A (hereafter Zhu, 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, Zhu teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1” However, Zhu fails to teach “further comprising 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) 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 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 Zhu 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 Lee et al. US 2023/0168467 A1 (hereafter Lee) as evidenced by Kimura US 2021/0096343 A1 (hereafter Kimura) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 1” However, Lee fails to teach “further comprising 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) 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 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 Lee 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2023/0168467 A1 (hereafter Lee) as evidenced by Kimura US 2021/0096343 A1 (hereafter Kimura).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as evidenced by Kimura teaches or renders obvious “The optical imaging system of claim 1,” and Lee further teaches “where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (paragraph [0236] f is 7.24 mm). However, Lee fails to teach “wherein the optical imaging system satisfies: 1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200, instead teaching a value of TTL/f=7.839/7.24=1.083 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Lee, value of 1.083 for TTL/f is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200 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 1.083 and the endpoint of 1.100 is insubstantial, representing only a 1.6% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated TTL/f 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 1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200.
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 1.083 for TTL/f, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.100 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 1.200 to render it obvious because the difference between 1.083 and the endpoint of 1.100 is insubstantial, a value of 1.083 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for TTL/f, 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2023/0168467 A1 (hereafter Lee) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hsueh et al. US 2021/0149158 A1 (hereafter Hsueh).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches “The optical imaging system of claim 9…
wherein the optical imaging system satisfies:
v2+v5 < 40, (given the values that follow v2+v5=18.2+18.2=36.4 which is in the claimed range)
where v2 is an Abbe number of the second lens (Table 19 the Abbe number of the second lens is 18.2), and v5 is an Abbe number of the fifth lens (Table 19 the Abbe number of the fifth lens is 18.2).”
However, Lee fails to teach “further comprising 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)...”
(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 Lee 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights