DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 12/23/2025) with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered, but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 8179616 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses an optical imaging lens (Fig. 1A), from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 1A, 110), a second lens element (Fig. 1A, 120), a third lens element (Fig. 1A, 130) and a fourth lens element (Fig. 1A, 140), the first lens element to the fourth lens element each having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through as well as an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (Fig. 1A), the optical imaging lens comprising:
the first lens element has negative refracting power (Fig. 8, lens 1, -17.66) and an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (Fig. 8, surface 1 has a curvature of 33.35050);
the second lens element has positive refracting power (Fig. 8, lens 2, 8.16); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the four lens elements described above (Fig. 1A);
wherein TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis and ImgH is an image height of the optical imaging lens to satisfy: TTL/ImgH≥3.000 (column 10 line 30, 4.85), and wherein the optical imaging lens further satisfies one of the following relationships: an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is convex (Fig. 8, surface 5 has a curvature of -3.68940), and an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the third lens element is concave.
Hsu fails to disclose HFOV/(TTL+EFL)≥18.000 degrees/mm, wherein HFOV is a half field of view of the optical imaging lens and EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the TTL value of Hsu such that HFOV/(TTL+EFL)≥18.000 degrees/mm was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the thickness value(s) of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hsu discloses wherein Tmax is the largest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and T2 is a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: Tmax-T2≤90μm (Fig. 8, Tmax=3.000 and T2=2.980, giving 0.020mm or 20μm).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hsu fails to disclose wherein T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: T3-Tmin≤150m.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the T3 value of modified Hsu such that T3-Tmin≤150 μm was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the T3 value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hsu fails to disclose wherein ALT is a sum of thicknesses of all the four lens elements along the optical axis, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis and G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: ALT/(T1+G34)≤5.000.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the ALT value of modified Hsu such that ALT/(T1+G34)≤5.000 was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the ALT value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hsu discloses wherein 3 is an Abbe number of the third lens element and u4 is an Abbe number of the fourth lens element, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: v3+v4≥70.000 (Fig. 8, ARTON-D4532 generally has an Abbe value of 57 and MGC EP5000 general has an Abbe value of 23.9, giving 80.9).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hsu fails to disclose wherein AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: AAG/T1≤3.500.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the AAG value of modified Hsu such that AAG/T1≤3.500 was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the AAG value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hsu discloses wherein AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: AAG/Tmin≤7.700 (Fig. 8, AAG=6.944 and Tmin=1.189, giving 5.840).
5. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN 112130286 A).
Regarding claim 8, Geng discloses an optical imaging lens (Fig. 5), from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 5, E1), a second lens element (Fig. 5, E2), a third lens element (Fig. 5, E3) and a fourth lens element (Fig. 5, E4), the first lens element to the fourth lens element each having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through as well as an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (Fig. 5), the optical imaging lens comprising:
the first lens element has negative refracting power ([0115], -2.15);
the second lens element has positive refracting power ([0115], 1.01) and an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is convex ([0115], S4 has a curvature of -0.7203); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the four lens elements described above (Fig. 5);
wherein G23 is an air gap between the second lens element and the third lens element along the optical axis, T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis, and G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis to satisfy: EFL/(G23+T3+G34)≥1.490 ([0101], EFL=1.13; [0115], G23= 0.0332, T3=0.2987, G34=0.3245; giving 1.722).
Geng fails to disclose HFOV/(TTL+EFL)≥18.000 degrees/mm, wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens, HFOV is a half field of view of the optical imaging lens, and TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the TTL of Hsu such that HFOV/(TTL+EFL)≥18.000 degrees/mm was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the thickness value(s) of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 9, modified Geng discloses wherein Gmax is the largest value of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: Gmax/Tmin≥1.000 ([0115], Gmax=1.0021 and Tmin=0.2931, giving 3.419).
Regarding claim 10, modified Geng fails to disclose wherein ImgH is an image height of the optical imaging lens, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: TTL/ImgH≥3.000.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the ImgH of modified Geng such that TTL/ImgH≥3.000 was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the ImgH of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Geng fails to disclose wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: BFL/(G23+T4)≥1.500.
However, modified Geng provides a BFL/(G23+T4) value that is only 1.4% less than 1.500 ([0115], BFL=0.7301, G23=0.0300, and T4=0.4635, giving 1.479).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the BFL value of modified Geng such that BFL/(G23+T4)≥1.500 was satisfied, 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), motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 12, modified Geng discloses wherein ALT is a sum of thicknesses of all the four lens elements along the optical axis, BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship:(ALT+BFL)/(AAG+EFL)≥0.900 ([0115], ALT=1.9345, BFL=0.7301, AAG=1.3356, and EFL=1.07, giving 1.11).
Regarding claim 13, modified Geng discloses wherein an Abbe number of the first lens element is v1 and an Abbe number of the second lens element is v2, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: |v1-v2|≤30.000 ([0115], v1=v2=56.1, giving 0).
Regarding claim 14, modified Geng discloses wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: BFL/(G12+G34)<2.900 ([0115], BFL=0.7301, G12=1.0021, G34=0.3035, giving 0.5592).
6. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Marason (US 9332181 B1, of record) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 111766678 A).
Regarding claim 15, Marason discloses an optical imaging lens, from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 2A, 120), a second lens element (Fig. 2A, 130), a third lens element (Fig. 2A, 150) and a fourth lens element (Fig. 2A, 160), the first lens element to the fourth lens element each having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through as well as an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (Fig. 2A), the optical imaging lens comprising:
the first lens element has negative refracting power (column 3 line 3) and an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (Fig. 2, 121);
the second lens element has positive refracting power (column 3 lines 20-21); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the four lens elements described above (Fig. 2A);
wherein HFOV is a half field of view of the optical imaging lens, TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis, EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens, ALT is a sum of thicknesses of all the four lens elements along the optical axis, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis and G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis to satisfy: HFOV/(TTL+EFL)≥18.000 degrees/mm (column 5 lines 17-36, HFOV=63.5, TTL=2.165, and EFL=0.9655, giving 20.3) and ALT/(T1+G34)≤5.000 (Table 1, ALT=1.066, T1=0.402, and G34=0.151, giving 1.93).
Marason fails to disclose wherein an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is convex.
However, Zhou teaches a similar four-lens system having a - + + - refractive power arrangement ([0082]-[0083]), and discloses wherein the optical axis region of an image-side surface of a second lens is convex ([0082], surface 5 has curvature of -6.7770).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Marason and Zhou such that the optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element was convex, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 16, modified Marason discloses wherein TL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the fourth lens element along the optical axis and G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: TL/(G12+G34)≤5.100 (Zhou - [0082]-[0083], TL=11.8894, G12=3.3152, G34=0.9922, giving 2.760).
Regarding claim 17, modified Marason discloses wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (EFL+BFL)/(T1+T4)≤3.700 (Marason - column 5 line 17, EFL=0.9655; Table 1, BFL=0.600, T1=0.402, and T4=-0.168; giving 2.75).
Regarding claim 18, modified Marason discloses wherein G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (ALT+EFL)/(G12+T3+T4)≤3.200 (Zhou - [0082]-[0083], ALT=6.9734, G12=3.3152, T3=2.0855, and T4=1.4043; [0091], EFL=3.5330; giving 1.544).
Regarding claim 19, modified Marason discloses wherein G23 is an air gap between the second lens element and the third lens element along the optical axis and T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: EFL/(G23+T3+G34)≥1.490.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to decrease the thickness and/or spacing value of modified Geng such that EFL/(G23+T3+G34)≥1.490 was satisfied, since 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to decrease the thickness and/or spacing values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 20, modified Marason discloses wherein Gmax is the largest value of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: EFL/Gmax≤3.500 (Marason - column 5 line 17, EFL=0.9655; Table 1, Gmax=0.296; giving 3.26).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 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 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights