DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota (US 20160313536 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Kubota discloses an optical imaging system (Fig. 1, Table 1, i.e. Numerical Example 1), comprising:
a first lens having a refractive power (L1);
a second lens having a refractive power (L2);
a third lens having a refractive power (L3);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (L4);
a fifth lens having a refractive power and an inflection point formed on an object-side surface (L5, Fig. 1); and
a sixth lens having a concave image-side surface (L6, Fig. 1), and an inflection point formed on each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface (Fig. 1, ¶66),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially arranged in numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Fig. 1),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Table 1, 10.641 > 1.803).
Numerical Examples 3 and 4 also anticipate the claimed features (Tables 5 and 7, Figs. 7 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kubota teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1, see also ¶63).
Regarding claim 15, Kubota teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (Figs. 7 and 10, see ¶65).
Claims 9, 12, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhao (US 10795125 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses an optical imaging system (Figs. 1, 5, 9), comprising:
a first lens having a refractive power (L1);
a second lens having a refractive power (L2);
a third lens having negative refractive power (L3);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (L4);
a fifth lens (L5) having a refractive power and an inflection point formed on an object-side surface (Table 11); and
a sixth lens (L6) having a concave image side surface (Table 1), and an inflection point formed on each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface (Table 11),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially arranged in numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Figs. 1, 5, 9),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Tables 1, 7.395 > 2.032).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches an optical imaging system (Figs. 1, 5, 9), comprising:
a first lens having a refractive power (L1);
a second lens having a refractive power (L2);
a third lens having negative refractive power (L3, Table 13);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (L4);
a fifth lens having a refractive power (L5); and
a sixth lens having a refractive power (L6),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially arranged in numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Figs. 1, 5, 9),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (e.g. Table 1, 7.395 > 2.032),
wherein the total optical length TTL of the optical imaging system is less than or equal to 6.01mm (C. 6, ll. 4-5), and that low TTL is desirable (C. 3, ll. 30).
wherein a refractive index of the second lens is 1.65 or greater (e.g. Table 1, nd2 = 1.651).
Zhao does not explicitly show wherein TTL/f < 1.0 (Table 13, 5.567/4.055 = 1.37), where TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane and f is an overall focal length of the optical imaging system.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, the disclosed TTL range overlaps values less than the disclosed focal length, and the disclosed desire for low TTL results motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to explore them such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have followed the express teachings of Zhao, e.g. further shortening the TTL, thereby achieving the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the second lens has a concave object-side surface.
However, Zhao discloses the second lens as having negative optical power (C. 3, ll. 49-52), and a positive radius of curvature (Table 1). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, small variation of Zhao’s second lens object side curvature to negative would result in a biconcave lens and therefore be expected to have the same properties since biconcave lenses inherently exhibit negative optical power.
Accordingly, modifying Zhao’s second lens to have a concave object-side surface would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the radius of curvature is close to negative, and minor variation would result in an optical imaging system of the same type, i.e. have a high expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and further discloses show wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross1.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Zhao teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and explicitly shows that the third lens is a negative lens (C. 4, ll. 12-14), but does not explicitly show wherein the third lens has a concave image-side surface.
However, Gross identifies radii of curvature as results effective variables for optimization (p. 347). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefit of optimizing results effective variables includes reducing optical aberration and improving quality of the image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the radius of curvature of the image-side surface while maintaining the negative optical power, e.g. changing the third lens to a biconcave lens, for the purpose of reducing optical aberration, and thus achieving the claimed geometry.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US 20170017064 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches an optical imaging system (Fig. 10, first lens 410, second lens 420, … sixth lens 460)), comprising: a first lens having a refractive power; a second lens having a refractive power ; a third lens having negative refractive power; a fourth lens having a refractive power; a fifth lens having a refractive power; and a sixth lens having a refractive power, wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially arranged in numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Fig. 1),
wherein TTL/f < 1.3 (¶12).
wherein a refractive index of the second lens is 1.65 or greater (Fig. 12).
Jo does not explicitly show wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, or wherein TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane and f is an overall focal length of the optical imaging system.
Regarding the requirement that TTL/f < 1.0, since Jo discloses TTL/f < 1.3, the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" and a prima facie case of obviousness before the effective filing date of the claimed invention exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding the relationship between radius of curvature of the fourth and first lenses, Gross identifies radii of curvature as results effective variables for optimization (p. 347). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefit of optimizing results effective variables includes reducing optical aberration and improving quality of the image. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the radii of curvatures of the first and fourth lens toward reducing optical aberration and thereby achieved the claimed geometry.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Jo teaches the optical imaging system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 10, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Jo teaches an optical imaging system (Figs. 10 and 12), comprising:
a first lens having a refractive power (410);
a second lens having a refractive power (420);
a third lens having negative refractive power (430);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (440);
a fifth lens (450) having a refractive power and an inflection point formed on an object-side surface (Fig. 10); and
a sixth lens (460) having a concave image side surface (Figs. 10 and 12), and an inflection point formed on each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface (Fig. 10),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially arranged in numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Fig. 10).
Jo does not explicitly show wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Tables 1, 7.395 > 2.032).
Regarding the relationship between radius of curvature of the fourth and first lenses, Gross identifies radii of curvature as results effective variables for optimization (p. 347). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefit of optimizing results effective variables includes reducing optical aberration and improving quality of the image. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the radii of curvatures of the first and fourth lens toward reducing optical aberration and thereby achieved the claimed geometry.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Jo teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and explicitly shows the third lens is a positive lens (e.g. Claim 1), but does not explicitly show wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface.
However, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, small variation of Jo’s third lens object side radius of curvature to positive would result in a biconvex lens and therefore be expected to have the same properties since biconvex lenses inherently exhibit positive optical power.
Accordingly, modifying Jo’s third lens to have a convex object-side surface would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the radius of curvature is close to flat, and minor variation would result in an optical imaging system of the same type, i.e. have a high expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Jo teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses show wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (Fig. 10, ¶128).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Jo teaches the optical imaging system of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (Figs. 10 and 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Herbert Gross. Handbook of Optical Systems: Vol. 3. Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. 2007.