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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Sekine does not teach a concave object-side surface of the fifth lens, examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims as written, the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface with no specific placement of said surface aside from being on the object-side surface. Sekine, as shown in Fig. 15, teaches a fifth lens with two concave object-side surfaces, therefore still meets the limitations of the claim as filed.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claims 1, 8, and 17 recite the genus of lenses with specifying only the powers of the first (+), third (+), and fourth (+) lenses, however Applicant’s disclosed species for all 6-lens systems provide the second and fifth lenses as negative. Thus, the claims cover the genus of second and fifth lenses being either positive or negative, however the disclosed species are (+ - + + - +) or (+ - + + - - ). Such species are not a representative number to evidence possession of the entire genus of lens powers including combinations with second and fifth lenses being other than negative (MPEP 2163.ii.A.3.a.ii - A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claims 2-7, 9-16 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 and 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 states that the fifth lens has “a concave object-side surface”, but this limitation was amended into claim 1 which claim 5 depends on. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine US 20140355134 (hereinafter “Sekine”).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L1) having positive refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a second lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L2) having refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a third lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L3) having positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface (Sekine table 8);
a fourth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L4) having positive refractive power (Sekine table 8);
a fifth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L5) having refractive power (Sekine table 8) and a concave object side surface (Sekine fig. 15 – L5 has two regions which are concave on the object side); and
a sixth lens (Sekine fig. 15 – L6) having refractive power (Sekine table 8),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Sekine fig. 15),
wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Sekine fig. 15), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Sekine para. 0045 and conditional expression 10 teach a range TTL/f<1.6 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)), and
0.9<f1/f4<1.4 (Sekine table 8 Constituent Lens Data f1/f4 ≈ 1.4),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 2, Sekine teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the first lens (L1) has a convex object-side surface (Sekine fig. 15).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the second lens (L2) has a concave image-side surface (Sekine fig. 15).
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et. al US 20140111876 (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 410, see also table 7);
a second lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 420);
a third lens having a positive refractive power and convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 7 – 430, 431 is convex on the object side, see also table 7);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 440, see also table 7);
a fifth lens having refractive power and a concave object-side surface (Tang fig. 7 – 450, 851 is concave on the object side, see also table 7); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 460),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Tang fig. 7),
wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Tang fig. 7), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Tang para. 0050 and 0052 – para. 0052 teaches TTL/ImgH<1.8 and para. 0050 teaches 0.72<ImgH/f<1.0, these ranges combined would give a range of TTL/f<1.3 and TTL/f<1.8, where all the possible values for TTL/f are below 1.8, fully encompasses the claimed range – which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP §2131.03)), and
0.9<f1/f4<1.4 (Tang table 7 - f1/f4 ≈ 1.1),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the first lens (410) has a convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the second lens (420) has a concave image-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the fifth lens (450) has a concave object-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et. al US 20120188654 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power (Huang fig. 5a – 510, see also table 13);
a second lens having refractive power (Huang fig. 5a – 520);
a third lens having positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface (Huang fig. 5a – 530, which is convex on the object side, see also table 13);
a fourth lens having positive refractive power (Huang fig. 5a – 540, see table 13);
a fifth lens having refractive power (Huang fig. 5a – 550) and a concave object-side surface (Huang fig. 5a, see also table 13); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Huang fig. 5a – 560),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Huang fig. 5a),
wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Huang fig. 5a), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.2<D56/BFL<0.50 (Huang table 13 D56 = 0.270, BFL = (0.4+0.303) ≈ 0.703, 0.270/0.703 ≈ 0.38),
where D56 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object-side surface of the sixth lens and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the sixth lens to the imaging plane.
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 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et. al US 20140111876 (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 410, see also table 7);
a second lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 420);
a third lens having a positive refractive power and convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 7 – 430, 431 is convex on the object side, see also table 7);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 440, see also table 7);
a fifth lens having refractive power and a concave object-side surface (Tang fig. 7 – 450, 851 is concave on the object side, see also table 7); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 7 – 460),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Tang fig. 7),
wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Tang fig. 7), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Tang para. 0050 and 0052 – para. 0052 teaches TTL/ImgH<1.8 and para. 0050 teaches 0.72<ImgH/f<1.0, these ranges combined would give a range of TTL/f<1.3 and TTL/f<1.8, where all the possible values for TTL/f are below 1.8, fully encompasses the claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of keeping the image capturing optical lens system compact (para. 0050 and 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of TTL/f<1.0 in order to have keep the image capturing optical lens system compact (para. 0050 and 0052).), and
0.9<f1/f4<1.4 (Tang table 7 - f1/f4 ≈ 1.1),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, f is a focal length of the imaging lens system, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the first lens (410) has a convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Regarding claim 3, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the second lens (420) has a concave image-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches the imaging lens system of claim 1, and Tang further teaches wherein the fifth lens (450) has a concave object-side surface (Tang fig. 7, see also table 7).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et. al US 20140111876 (hereinafter “Tang”) in view of Liao et. al US 20210048630 (hereinafter “Liao”) of record.
Regarding claim 8, Liao teaches an imaging lens system, comprising:
a first lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 13 – 710, see also table 13);
a second lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 13 – 720);
a third lens having a positive refractive power (Tang fig. 13 – 730, see also table 13);
a fourth lens having a positive refractive power and a convex image-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 740, 742 is convex on the image side, see also table 13);
a fifth lens having refractive power and a concave object-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 750, 751 is concave on the object side, see also table 13); and
a sixth lens having refractive power (Tang fig. 13 – 760),
wherein the first lens to the sixth lens are sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (Tang fig. 13),
wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Tang fig. 13), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
TTL/f<1.0 (Tang para. 0050 and 0052 – para. 0052 teaches TTL/ImgH<1.8 and para. 0050 teaches 0.72<ImgH/f<1.0, these ranges combined would give a range of TTL/f<1.3 and TTL/f<1.8, where all the possible values for TTL/f are below 1.8, fully encompasses the claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of keeping the image capturing optical lens system compact (para. 0050 and 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of TTL/f<1.0 in order to have keep the image capturing optical lens system compact (para. 0050 and 0052).),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
Tang does not teach wherein one or more of the first lens to the sixth lens are formed such that an effective radius (Xc) in a first direction, intersecting an optical axis, is different from an effective radius (Yc) in a second direction, intersecting the optical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches wherein one or more of the first lens to the sixth lens are formed such that an effective radius (Xc) in a first direction, intersecting an optical axis, is different from an effective radius (Yc) in a second direction, intersecting the optical axis (Liao fig. 19-22, 26-27 and para. 0057, the trimmed lenses would have an effective radius Xc in a first direction different from an effective radius Yc in a second direction) for the purpose of further miniaturizing the imaging lens assembly (Liao para. 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be formed such that an effective radius (Xc) in a first direction, intersecting an optical axis, is different from an effective radius (Yc) in a second direction, intersecting the optical axis as taught by Liao in the imaging lens system of Tang in order to further miniaturize the imaging lens assembly (Liao para. 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the first lens (710) has a convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 711 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 10, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the second lens (720) has a concave image-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 722 is concave on the image side).
Regarding claim 11, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the third lens (730) has a convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 731 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 12, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the sixth lens (760) has a convex object-side surface (Tang fig. 13 – 761 is convex on the object side).
Regarding claim 13, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Liao further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.5<AR1<1.0 (Liao fig. 20, where LRmin is Yc1 and LRmax is Xc1, para. 0079 teaches 0.50<LRmin/LRmax<0.85, which lies within the claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of reducing one axial dimension of any single lens element so as to further miniaturize the imaging lens system (Liao para. 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of 0.5<AR1<1.0 in order to reduce one axial dimension of any single lens element so as to further miniaturize the imaging lens system (Liao para. 0079).),
where AR1 is a ratio (Yc1/Xc1) of an effective radius (Yc1) in a short axis direction (the second direction) of the first lens and an effective radius (Xc1) in a long axis direction (the first direction) of the first lens.
Regarding claim 14, Tang and Liao teach the imaging lens system of claim 8, and Tang further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0<(D12+D23)/D34<0.5 (Tang table 13 – (0.078+0.178)/0.522 ≈ 0.49),
where D12 is a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens, D23 is a distance from an image-side surface of the second lens to an object-side surface of the third lens, and D34 is a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface” in combination with all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
2.0<TTL/BFL<3.0,
where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, to the imaging plane” in combination with all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the imaging lens system of claim 1, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.42<ImgHT/BFL<0.60,
where ImgHT is a height of the imaging plane, and BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of a rearmost lens disposed closest to the imaging plane, to the imaging plane” in combination with all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the imaging lens system of claim 8, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.3<Xc1/SumT<0.8,
where Xc1 is an effective radius in a long axis direction (the first direction) of the first lens, and SumT is a sum of thicknesses of all lenses disposed between an object and the imaging plane” in combination with all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the imaging lens system of claim 8, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
2.0<TTL/SumT<3.0,
where SumT is a sum of thicknesses of all lenses disposed between an object and the imaging plane” in combination with all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
