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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 13, 18 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (PGPUB 20170285299) in view of Chang et al. (PGPUB 20190243103).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a fixed-focus imaging lens, comprising:
a first lens group, an aperture stop and a second lens group arranged in order from an object side to an image side of the fixed-focus imaging lens (G1, St and G2),
wherein a total number of lenses with refractive powers of the imaging lens is 7 or 8 (Figs. 1-5, L1-L7),
the first lens group comprises two plastic aspheric lenses ([0037] where L1-L7 may be glass or plastic and [0038] where any of L1-L7 may be spherical, aspheric or free-form), the second lens group comprises three plastic aspheric lenses and a lens in the first lens group closest to the object side is a glass lens, ([0037]-[0038]),
the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 45<LT/GD (Tables 2A or 5),
where LT is a distance measured along the optical axis between two outermost lens surfaces with refractive powers at opposite ends of the imaging lens, and GD is a distance measured along the optical axis between the first lens group and the second lens group (Applicant’s definition of GD is broad because its definition does not limit GD to be the total distance between G1 and G2, but rather allows for GD to be “a distance” between those two points).
Chen teaches an FOV of 170 degrees but does not disclose a diagonal field of view of the imaging lens ranges from 140 to 165 degrees. However, a difference of 5 degrees is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the FOV to be within 140 to 165 degrees since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce peripheral aberrations.
Chen does not explicitly disclose a distance between a focal plane for infrared light with a wavelength of 850nm and a focal plane for visible light with a wavelength of 550nm along an optical axis of the imaging lens is less than 0.01mm.
However, Chang teaches a fixed focus lens wherein the focal plane for infrared light with a wavelength of 850nm and a focal plane for visible light with a wavelength of 550nm along an optical axis of the imaging lens is less than 0.01mm ([0189], under Table 4, gives FS = 0.005 and [0174] defines FS as the difference between focal points between infrared light and visible light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Chen and Chang such that the focal plane of the infrared and visible light were within 0.01 mm motivated by improving chromatic aberration correction.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen discloses wherein the second lens group includes a cemented doublet (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen teaches wherein a lens in the second lens group closest to the aperture stop is a molded-glass aspheric lens ([0038] where any of L1-L7).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chen discloses wherein the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.2<IMH/LT<0.3 (Fig. 2A and Fig. 7 where 3.513/16.8 = 0.21), where IMH is a maximum image height of the fixed-focus imaging lens.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen discloses wherein the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.15<EFL/LT<0.25, wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the fixed-focus imaging lens.
However, Chen teaches EFL/LT = 0.149 (Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A), which is a difference of 0.001 and is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust EFL and/or LT to be within the claimed range since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses wherein a back focal length of the fixed-focus imaging lens ranges from 4 to 8 mm (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen does not disclose wherein a total track length of the fixed-focus imaging lens ranges from 24 to 28 mm.
However, Chen teaches TTL = 22.1 (Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A), which is a difference of 1.9 and is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust TTL to be within the claimed range since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to improve the depth of field.
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen discloses wherein the first lens group has a negative refractive power and the second lens group has a positive refractive power ([0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses a fixed-focus imaging lens, comprising:
comprising: a first lens group comprising a first lens, a second lens and a third lens arranged in order from an object side to an image side of the fixed-focus imaging lens; a second lens group comprising a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, and a seventh lens arranged in order from the object side to the image side (Figs. 2A and 5 G1 and G2);
and an aperture stop disposed between the third lens and the fourth lens (St);
wherein the first lens and the fourth lens are glass lenses, the second lens, the third lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens and the seventh lens are plastic aspheric lenses ([0037] where L1-L7 may be glass or plastic and [0038] where any of L1-L7 may be spherical, aspheric or free-form);
the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 45<LT/GD (Tables 2A or 5),
where LT is a distance measured along the optical axis between two outermost lens surfaces with refractive powers at opposite ends of the imaging lens, and GD is a distance measured along the optical axis between the first lens group and the second lens group (Applicant’s definition of GD is broad because its definition does not limit GD to be the total distance between G1 and G2, but rather allows for GD to be “a distance” between those two points).
Chen teaches an FOV of 170 degrees but does not disclose a diagonal field of view of the imaging lens ranges from 140 to 165 degrees. However, a difference of 5 degrees is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the FOV to be within 140 to 165 degrees since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce peripheral aberrations.
Chen does not explicitly disclose a distance between a focal plane for infrared light with a wavelength of 850nm and a focal plane for visible light with a wavelength of 550nm along an optical axis of the imaging lens is less than 0.01mm.
However, Chang teaches a fixed focus lens wherein the focal plane for infrared light with a wavelength of 850nm and a focal plane for visible light with a wavelength of 550nm along an optical axis of the imaging lens is less than 0.01mm (Table 4 gives FS = 0.005 and [0174] defines FS as the difference between focal points between infrared light and visible light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Chen and Chang such that the focal plane of the infrared and visible light were within 0.01 mm motivated by improving chromatic aberration correction.
Regarding claim 12, modified Chen discloses wherein the fifth lens and the sixth lens form a cemented doublet (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen teaches wherein the fourth lens is a molded glass aspheric lens ([0038]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen discloses wherein the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.2<IMH/LT<0.3 (Fig. 2A and Fig. 7 where 3.513/16.8 = 0.21), where IMH is a maximum image height of the fixed-focus imaging lens.
Regarding claim 16, modified Chen discloses wherein the fixed-focus imaging lens satisfies a condition of 0.15<EFL/LT<0.25, wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the fixed-focus imaging lens.
However, Chen teaches EFL/LT = 0.149 (Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A), which is a difference of 0.001 and is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust EFL and/or LT to be within the claimed range since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 17, modified Chen discloses wherein a back focal length of the fixed-focus imaging lens ranges from 4 to 8 mm (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chen does not disclose wherein a total track length of the fixed-focus imaging lens ranges from 24 to 28 mm.
However, Chen teaches TTL = 22.1 (Fig. 7 and Fig. 2A), which is a difference of 1.9 and is close but not overlapping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust TTL to be within the claimed range since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to improve the depth of field.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 3 of 10, the applicant argues that Chen does not disclose “coordinated glass/plastic and aspheric-lens distributions”. The office respectfully disagrees. Chen states in [0038] that the lenses may be aspheric glass or aspheric plastic lenses.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 4, the applicant argues that the combination of Chan and Chang can not be combined to result in the claimed focal plane limitation. The office respectfully disagrees. The optical systems need not be identical in order to combine or to appreciate specific teachings. In this case, Chang teaches a similar lens system for use in a small electronic devices ([0003] of Chen and Chang) that emphasizes that importance of controlling focus shift ([0007]) and specific focus shift limitations ([0016]-[0018]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce the focus shift as taught by Chang using at least one of the examples provided in the embodiments as a reference.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 5, the applicant argues that the LT and GD measurements are not consistent with the definition. The office respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim defines both terms very broadly as “…a distance measured along the optical axis between…” in both cases. This definition of the term allows for a measurement of any distance between the two points, not that the distance is measured from the two points. Applicant should amend the claim to make it clear from which two points the measurements are calculated.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 6, the applicant argues that the office has not provided an adequate reason to modify Chen in view of Chang. The office respectfully disagrees. The examiner has provided a motivation for any and all modifications as required by the MPEP.
Regarding applicant’s remarks on page 7, the applicant argues that the office has not provided a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art of optical engineering would have the tools and capability to make general modifications to a lens system as part of the optimization process. Further, limiting aberrations is a known and core goal in the optimization process of a lens system whose intended purpose is to provide high-quality images. The office does not believe it to be outside the skillset of one ordinary skill to change the focus shift of an optical system since it is directly tied to spherical and chromatic aberration control.
With respect to applicant’s remarks about claims 13 and 20, the office agrees and these rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights