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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species C1 (figures 3A and 16A; claims 1-13 and 15-30) in the reply filed on 05/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the species are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because claim 14 and figures 2A-8A and 16B-16C directed to multiple species. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10-13, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2017/0059816).
Regarding claim 1, Mori (figure 1) discloses an optical lens system comprising six lens elements from an object side to an image side, the six lens elements being, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element and a sixth lens element (L1-L6);
each of the six lens elements has an object-side surface towards the object side and an image-side surface towards the image side (figure 1);
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L2);
the third lens element has positive refractive power (L3; see at least abstract);
the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L4); and
the image-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one inflection point (L6).
Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a focal length of the optical lens system is f, a focal length of the first lens element is f1, a composite focal length of the first lens element and the second lens element is f12, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is TD, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image surface is TL, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.25 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.40; 0.20 < Ri1/R10< 3.30; 6.00 < TL/f < 13.00; -1.60 < R11/f12 < -0.50; and -6.40 < fl/CT1 < 0.00. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.25 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.40; 0.20 < Ri1/R10< 3.30; 6.00 < TL/f < 13.00; -1.60 < R11/f12 < -0.50; and -6.40 < fl/CT1 < 0.00, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 2, Mori (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens element has negative refractive power, the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof; the object-side surface of the third lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (L1, L2, and L3; see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.9 < R12/R11|< 20.0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.9 < R12/R11|< 20.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, an axial distance between the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element is T56, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.05 < T56/T45 < 10.00, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.05 < T56/T45 < 10.00, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 6, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the focal length of the first lens element is f1, an axial distance between the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and the image surface is BL, the central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, and the following conditions are satisfied: -2.60 < fl/BL < 0.00; and -5.50 < fl/CT1 < -2.00. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -2.60 < fl/BL < 0.00; and -5.50 < fl/CT1 < -2.00, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 7, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, a central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.65 < CT2/CT4 < 1.70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.65 < CT2/CT4 < 1.70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 9, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for an Abbe number of the first lens element is V1, an Abbe number of the second lens element is V2, an Abbe number of the third lens element is V3, an Abbe number of the fourth lens element is V4, an Abbe number of the fifth lens element is V5, an Abbe number of the sixth lens element is V6, a minimum among V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 is Vmin, and the following condition is satisfied: 8.≤Vmin≤22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 8.≤Vmin≤22, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 10, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the third lens element is R6, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, and the following condition is satisfied: -20.00 < R6/R8 < -0.20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -20.00 < R6/R8 < -0.20, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 11, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a distance in parallel with an optical axis from an axial vertex on the object-side surface of the first lens element to a maximum effective radius position on the object-side surface of the first lens element is SAGlR1, a distance in parallel with the optical axis from an axial vertex on the image-side surface of the first lens element to a maximum effective radius position on the image-side surface of the first lens element is SAG1R2, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element is Y1R1, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the second lens element is Y2R1, and the following conditions are satisfied: 1.00 < SAG1R2/SAG1R1 < 4.50; and 1.60 <Y1R1/Y2R1 <4.50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.00 < SAG1R2/SAG1R1 < 4.50; and 1.60 <Y1R1/Y2R1 <4.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 12, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a distance in parallel with an optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the object-side surface of the first lens element to a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the image-side surface of the first lens element is ET1, a distance in parallel with the optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element to a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is ETS, and the following condition is satisfied:1.50 < ET1/ETS< 5.00. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.50 < ET1/ETS< 5.00, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 13, Mori (figure 1) discloses an imaging apparatus, comprising: the optical lens system of claim 1; and an image sensor disposed on the image surface of the optical lens system (see at least paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 23, Mori (figure 1) discloses an optical lens system comprising six lens elements from an object side to an image side, the six lens elements being, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element and a sixth lens element (L1-L6);
each of the six lens elements has an object-side surface towards the object side and an image-side surface towards the image side (figure 1);
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L2);
the image-side surface of the third lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (L3);
the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L4);
the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (L5); and
the image-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one inflection point (L6);
wherein.
Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a focal length of the optical lens system is f, a focal length of the first lens element is f1, a composite focal length of the first lens element and the second lens element is f12, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, a central thickness of the sixth lens element is CT6, an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is TD, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image surface is TL, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.25 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.40; -1.60 < R11/f12 < -0.50; 1.0 < f/CT1 < 2.3; -0.40 < fl/TL < 0.00; and 10 < TD/CT6 < 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.25 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.40; -1.60 < R11/f12 < -0.50; 1.0 < f/CT1 < 2.3; -0.40 < fl/TL < 0.00; and 10 < TD/CT6 < 21, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 24, Mori (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens element has negative refractive power (L1), the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof; the third lens element (L3) has positive refractive power, the object-side surface of the third lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for an f-number of the optical lens system is Fno, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.5<Fno<2.1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 01.5<Fno<2.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 26, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the composite focal length of the first lens element and the second lens element is f12, an axial distance between the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and the image surface is BL, and the following condition is satisfied: -1.5 < f12/BL <-0.1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -1.5 < f12/BL <-0.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 27, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, a central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.65 < CT2/CT4 < 1.70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.65 < CT2/CT4 < 1.70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 28, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: -35 <(R11+R12)/(R11-R12) <0.5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -35 <(R11+R12)/(R11-R12) <0.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 29, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the composite focal length of the first lens element and the second lens element is f12, an axial distance between the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and the image surface is BL, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.75 <V2/V3 < 1.32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.75 <V2/V3 < 1.32, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 30, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the focal length of the optical lens system is f, the focal length of the first lens element is f1, the composite focal length of the first lens element and the second lens element is f12, the central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, the central thickness of the sixth lens element is CT6, the axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, the curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, an axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, the axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is TD, the axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image surface is TL, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.28 ≤ (CT1+T12)/TD ≤ 0.37; 0.39 <Ril/R10 ≤ (CT1+T12)/TD ≤ 0.37; 0.39 ≤ Ril/R10 0.96; 6.74 TL/f S10.11; -4.72 fl/CT1≤ -2.85; -1.16S|Riil/fi2≤-0.67; 0.06 ≤ T45/T23 0.28; 1.30 S f/CT1≤ 2.02; -0.29 ≤fl/TL ≤ -0.25; and 12.16 ≤ TD/CT6 ≤ 16.65. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.28 ≤ (CT1+T12)/TD ≤ 0.37; 0.39 <Ril/R10 ≤ (CT1+T12)/TD ≤ 0.37; 0.39 ≤ Ril/R10 0.96; 6.74 TL/f S10.11; -4.72 fl/CT1≤ -2.85; -1.16S|Riil/fi2≤-0.67; 0.06 ≤ T45/T23 0.28; 1.30 S f/CT1≤ 2.02; -0.29 ≤fl/TL ≤ -0.25; and 12.16 ≤ TD/CT6 ≤ 16.65, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Claims 3 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2017/0059816) in view of Chen (US 20150316749).
Regarding claim 3, Mori (figure 1) discloses wherein the image-side surface of the third lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof; the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof. However, Mori is silent regarding an air gap between each of adjacent lens elements of the six lens elements. Chen (figure 1) teaches there is an air gap on an optical axis between each of adjacent lens elements of the six lens elements (each of the six lens elements of the photographing optical lens assembly is separated from each other in the present disclosure for improving the problem generated by the cemented lens elements; see at least paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens system as taught by Chen in order to achieve accurate curvature and improve the image quality of the photographing optical lens assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Mori (figure 1) discloses an optical lens system comprising six lens elements from an object side to an image side, the six lens elements being, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element and a sixth lens element (L1-L6);
each of the six lens elements has an object-side surface towards the object side and an image-side surface towards the image side (figure 1);
wherein the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L2);
the third lens element with positive refractive power (L3; see at least abstract) has the object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof and the image-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof (L3);
the image-side surface of the fourth lens element (L4) is concave in a paraxial region thereof; the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof; and
the image-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one inflection point (L6).
Mori (figure 1) discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above. However, Mori is silent regarding there is an air gap on an optical axis between each of adjacent lens elements of the six lens elements. Chen (figure 1) teaches there is an air gap on an optical axis between each of adjacent lens elements of the six lens elements (each of the six lens elements of the photographing optical lens assembly is separated from each other in the present disclosure for improving the problem generated by the cemented lens elements; see at least paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens system as taught by Chen in order to achieve accurate curvature and improve the image quality of the photographing optical lens assembly.
Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a focal length of the optical lens system is f, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, the axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, the axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is TD, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image surface is TL, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.22 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.45; 0.20 <R11/R10 < 1.50; 6.00 < TL/f < 13.00; and 0.04 < T45/T23 < 1.10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.22 < (CT1+T12)/TD < 0.45; 0.20 <R11/R10 < 1.50; 6.00 < TL/f < 13.00; and 0.04 < T45/T23 < 1.10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 16, Mori (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens element has negative refractive power, the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof, the image-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one concave critical point (L1 and L6; see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is R9, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.20 < R8/R9 < 2.50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.20 < R8/R9 < 2.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 18, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for he axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image surface is TL, a maximum image height of the optical lens system is ImgH, and the following condition is satisfied: 2.50 < TL/ImgH < 5.50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2.50 < TL/ImgH < 5.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 19, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the image-side surface of the fourth lens element comprises at least one inflection point, a distance in parallel with the optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the object-side surface of the fourth lens element to a maximum effective radius position of an optically effective area of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is ET4, a central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.75 < ET4/CT4 < 2.00. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 00.75 < ET4/CT4 < 2.00, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 20, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the object-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one inflection point, a maximum image height of the optical lens system is ImgH, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is Y6R2, and the following condition is satisfied:1.20 < ImgH/Y6R2 < 2.20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.20 < ImgH/Y6R2 < 2.20, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 21, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for the focal length of the optical lens system is f, half of a maximum field of view of the optical lens system is HFOV, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.0 mm < f/tan(HFOV) < 1.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.0 mm < f/tan(HFOV) < 1.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Regarding claim 22, Mori (figure 1) discloses the object-side surface and the image-side surface of each of at least two of the six lens elements are aspheric (L5 and L6) and Chen (figure 1) teaches wherein at least two of the six lens elements are made of plastic material, (see at least paragraph 0052).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2017/0059816) in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems: Volume 3, Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems", pages 376-379, 2007.
Regarding claim 8, Mori (figure 1) discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Mori is silent regarding an aperture stop, disposed between the second lens element and the third lens element. Gross et al. teaches an aperture stop, disposed between the second lens element and the third lens element (see at least Zero Power Operations, pages 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an aperture stop as taught by Gross et al. in order to regulate light entry, control depth of field, define image brightness and resolution, prevent vignetting, and standardize performance metrics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights