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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/17/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 2/27/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the following Figures 10, 13-18, 20, 22, 24-29, 31, 33, 34a, 34b, 35-40, 42 include tables where the numbers are too small to read properly. CFR 1.84(l)(p). Further, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
aperture stop of claim 1,
the slope angle SA1_O_3 or SA1_S_3 in terms of a range of diameter distances between 75-95% of claim 3,
the slope angle SA1_O_4 or SA1_S_4 in terms of a range of diameter distances between 75-95% of claim 4,
the slope angle SA1_O_x_5 or SA1_O_y_5 in terms of a range of diameter distances between 75-95% of claim 5,
the max SA1_O_4, SA1_O_3, SA1_S_4, and SA1_S_3 of claim 7,
and finally D_mx_5/I of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 3-9 include definitions for various variables in parentheses. Parenthesis are customarily used for enclosing reference characters (MPEP 608.01(m)), not positively recited limitations. Examiner suggests removing parentheses.
Claim 6 states a range of 450
μ
mmm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m. This should be amended to state 450
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m for consistency, otherwise it might be interpreted as 450
μ
mm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m which would change the bounds of the equation and which art reads on said equation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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, claim 1 recites the genus “an optical system including a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens arranged sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side” for an 5-lens system but fails to provide any tables including each of the necessary species of powers which would evidence possession of the entire claimed genus of “an optical system including a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens arranged sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side” for an 5-lens system (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)).
As discussed above, Applicant’s claims cover the entire genus of a 5-lens system having a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens arranged sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side which fall within the claimed ranges of |max Sag_O_x_5|≠|max Sag_O_y_5|, 60°≤FOV≤90°, 0.50≤TTL/ImgH≤1.0, and CA_O_x<CA_O_5, yet Applicant has disclosed only one species of powers – (+ - + + -) for a 5-lens system. This is not a sufficient number of species of powers to evidence possession of the entire claimed genus. Since none of the lenses have any specified refractive powers in the claim as written, this leaves five lenses in the system with arbitrary power which fall within the claimed ranges of |max Sag_O_x_5|≠|max Sag_O_y_5|, 60°≤FOV≤90°, 0.50≤TTL/ImgH≤1.0, and CA_O_x<CA_O_5. In terms of combinations of power distributions that would meet these qualifications, this would lead to having
2
5
=
32
remaining combinations for positive or negative power lenses, and
3
5
=
243
remaining combinations for positive, negative, or zero power lenses which meet the claimed range for a 5-lens system. In other words, Applicant has failed to disclose a representative number of species to evidence possession of the entire genus (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.ii).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an aperture stop" in parentheses in the last three lines of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and is also unclear because the definition for CA_O_x requires an aperture stop in the optical module, however the aperture stop is only referred to in the parentheses of this limitation. Since this is not itself an included feature of the optical module (i.e., claimed as a limitation rather than mentioned in the parentheses of a definition), would an aperture stop be required structure of the optical module? If not, then how is CA_O_x defined? Also, which lens is the aperture stop “closest to”? CA_O_x could also be the fifth lens, which would therefore render Equation 3 incorrect. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will assume an aperture stop is required structure.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6, claims recite range limitations claiming the absolute value of a maximum Sag value in the X-direction from the object side of a lens and the absolute value of a maximum Sag value in the Y-direction of the object side surface of a lens in lines 10-14 of claim 1, line 4 of claim 2, and lines 4-12 of claim 6. These limitations are unclear because there is not a definition for the math used to find the Sag in the specification. There is the known aspheric equation which is used to calculate Sag for lenses, but freeform lenses are claimed rather than aspheric lenses. Without an equation to calculate the maximum Sag for a freeform lens in this application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a way to determine what the maximum Sag is for a lens surface in these claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will estimate the Sag for a lens.
Regarding claims 3-5, claims state “a slope angle between a normal line of an object-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface” in lines 6-7 of claims 3-5 and “a slope angle between a normal line of a sensor-side surface and the optical axis” in line 9 of claims 3-5. These limitations are unclear because which lens the object-side surface and image-side surface to which the slope angle should be calculated from are not specified in the claims. One can infer which lens the limitations refer to from line 2 of each claim or the numbers used in equations 4-6, however these could also be referring to other lenses within the device. Without specifying which lens the normal line and slope angle are being drawn on, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b),(e)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will assume that the third lens is the lens referred to in claim 3, the fourth lens is the lens referred to in claim 4, and the fifth lens is the lens referred to in claim 5.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7, the claims state a slope angle SA1_O_3, SA1_S_3, in claim 3, SA1_O_4, SA1_S_4 in claim 4, SA1_O_x_5, SA_O_y_5 in claim 5, and max |SA_O_4|, max |SA_O_3|, max |SA_S_4|, max |SA_S_3| in claim 7. These limitations are unclear because the definitions written in the parentheses detail a single value being drawn from a range of diameter distances from 75% to 95%. Which slope angle at which diameter distance is the slope angle used in each claim? The one calculated at 75%, the one at 85%, the one at 95%, or whichever value at whichever diameter meets the claimed equations? Due to the fact a single value is taken from a range of possible values with no specification as to which value is chosen or how, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will choose a relative diameter value that gives a value meeting the claimed equations.
Regarding claim 6, claim states that the fifth lens satisfies equation 12 in the second line of the claim, then in the rest of the claim the range limitations are drawn to the fourth lens. This renders the claim unclear because which lens the range limitations truly pertain to is not specified based on the language. Is line 2 of the claim stating that the fifth lens satisfies equation 12 incorrect, so it should say the fourth lens satisfies the equation? Or are the range limitations incorrect and the fifth lens is the correct lens as recited in the claim? The interpretation of this claim will change the nature of how prior art reads on the claim – is this drawn to the maximum and minimum sagittal values of the fourth lens or is it drawn to the maximum and minimum sagittal values of the fifth lens? If this is to be drawn to the fifth lens, then which equation should be used for the fifth lens? Due to the uncertainty between which lens these range limitations pertain to, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this claim to recite the sagittal ranges for the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 10, claim states that a critical point on the fifth lens is located at “a distance of more than 30% to 50% of an effective radius of the fifth lens from the optical axis” in the last two lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear because where exactly the critical point is on the lens based on this range is not specified. Is the critical point supposed to be within 30% to 50% of the effective radius of the fifth lens, is it at more than 30%, is it at more than 50%, or is there some other interpretation different from those listed for where the critical point would be based on the effective radius of the fifth lens from the optical axis? Due to the ambiguity of this range, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention nor would they be able to determine where the critical point of the fifth lens would be based on this limitation and range. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will estimate the location of a critical point on a lens.
Also, claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et. al WO 2021134324 (hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches an optical module comprising:
a sensor (Sun fig. 7 - Si); and
an optical system including a first lens (Sun fig. 7 – L1), a second lens (Sun fig. 7 – L2), a third lens (Sun fig. 7 – L3), a fourth lens (Sun fig. 7 – L4), and a fifth lens (Sun fig. 7 – L5) arranged sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side,
wherein an object-side surface of the second lens (L2) has a convex shape on the optical axis (Sun fig. 7 – L2 is convex on the object side, see also table 10),
wherein at least one of an object-side and sensor-side surfaces of the fifth lens (L5) includes a freeform surface (Sun fig. 7 – L5, see also para. 0035 and 0151), wherein the fifth lens (L5) satisfies the following Equation A:
[Equation A]
|max Sag_O_x_5|≠|max Sag_O_y_5|(L5 is a freeform lens, therefore the max Sag in the X-axis direction and the max Sag in the Y-axis direction will be different inherently, but using equation D in the instant application, max Sag_O_x_5 ≈ 16.4
μ
m and max Sag_O_y_5 ≈ 15.2
μ
m as calculated)
(In Equation A, max |Sag_O_x_5| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in an X-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fifth lens, and max |Sag_O_y_5| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a Y-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fifth lens);
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equations 1 to 3:
[Equation 1]
60°≤FOV≤90° (Sun para. 0164 – FOV = 87.75◦)
(FOV in Equation 1 means field of view)
[Equation 2]
0.50≤TTL/ImgH≤1.0 (Sun table 10 and para. 0164 – TTL ≈ 3.59, and IH = 4.76, so TTL/IH ≈ 0.76)
(In Equation 2, TTL means a distance in the optical axis direction from a vertex of an object-side surface of the first lens to an image surface of the image sensor unit, and ImgH means twice a diagonal distance from the image surface of the image sensor unit overlapping the optical axis to a 1.0 field region of the image sensor);
[Equation 3]
CA_O_x<CA_O_5 (Sun fig. 7 – the effective diameter of L5 is larger than L1 which is closest to S1)
(In Equation 3, CA_O_x means an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a lens closest to an aperture stop among lenses between the aperture stop and the sensor, and CA_O_5 means an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the fifth lens).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the fifth lens satisfies Equation B below:
[Equation B]
0.1
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_5|-max|Sag_O_y_5|≤5
μ
m (as calculated using Sun table 10 and instant application equation D, 16.4-15.2 ≈ 1.2
μ
m).
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the third lens satisfies Equation 4 below:
[Equation 4]
15°<|SA1_O_3|≤40° (Sun fig. 7, SA1_O_3 ≈ 22◦ as calculated),
20°<|SA1_S_3|≤50° (Sun fig. 7, SA1_S_3 ≈ 29◦ as calculated)
(In Equation 4, SA1_O_3 means a slope angle between a normal line of an object-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in a range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, and SA1_S_3 means a slope angle between a normal line of a sensor-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the sensor-side surface at a distance ranging from 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the fourth lens (L4) satisfies Equation 5 below:
[Equation 5]
20°<|SA1_O_4|≤50° (Sun fig. 7, SA1_O_4 ≈ 25◦ as calculated),
15°<|SA1_S_4|≤40° (Sun fig. 7, SA1_S_4 ≈ 31◦ as calculated)
(In Equation 5, SA1_O_4 means a slope angle between a normal line of an object-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in a range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter, and SA1_S_4 means a slope angle between a normal line of a sensor-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the sensor-side surface at a distance ranging from 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the fifth lens satisfies Equation 6 below:
[Equation 6]
15°≤|SA1_O_x_5|≤30° (Sun fig. 7 – SA1_O_x_5 ≈ 29◦),
15°≤|SA1_O_y_5|≤30° (Sun fig. 7 – SA1_O_x_5 ≈ 28◦)
(In Equation 6, SA1_O_x_5 means a slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in the range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis to an effective diameter in the X-axis direction from the optical axis of the fifth lens, and SA1_O_y_5 means an angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in the range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis to an effective diameter in the Y-axis direction from the optical axis of the fifth lens).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the third lens (L3) and the fourth lens (L4) satisfy Equation 21 below:
[Equation 21]
max|SA_O_4|>max|SA_O_3| (Sun fig. 7 – where max|SA_O_4| ≈ 25◦ as calculated using the figure, and max|SA_O_3| ≈ 18◦ as calculated using the figure, 25◦ > 18◦),
max|SA_S_4|<max|SA_S_3|(Sun fig. 7 – where max|SA_S_4| ≈ 29◦ as calculated using the figure, and max|SA_S_3| ≈ 31◦ as calculated using the figure, 29◦ < 31◦),
max|SA_O_4|<50° (Sun fig. 7 – where max|SA_O_4| ≈ 25◦ as calculated using the figure),
max|SA_S_4|<40° (Sun fig. 7 – where max|SA_S_4| ≈ 29◦ as calculated using the figure)
(In Equation 21, max |SA_O_3| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on an object-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, max |SA_S_3| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on a sensor-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, max |SA_O_4| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on an object-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter, and max |SA_S_4| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on a sensor-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape on the optical axis, wherein the first lens and the second lens satisfy Equation 24 below:
[Equation 24]
P_1sign≠P_2sign (Sun table 19, f1 is positive and f2 is negative),
V_1>V_2 (Sun table 10, 55.81 > 20.53),
10<V2<50<V1 (Sun table 10, 10 < 20.53 < 50 < 55.81),
N_1<N_2 (Sun table 10, 1.545 < 1.661)
(In Equation 24, the P_1 sign is the refractive power sign of the first lens having a positive (+) or negative (−) sign, P_2 sign is a refractive power sign of the second lens having a positive (+) or negative (−) sign, V_1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, V_2 is an Abbe number of the second lens, N_1 is a refractive index of the first lens, and N_2 is a refractive index of the second lens).
Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the sensor-side surface of the fifth lens includes a critical point located at a distance of more than 30% to 50% of an effective radius of the fifth lens from the optical axis (see annotated Sun fig. 7 below for the location of the critical point on the fifth lens).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Sun further teaches
wherein the first lens and the fifth lens have different thicknesses at the optical axis (Sun fig. 7 – L1 and L5 have different thicknesses on the optical axis).
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 (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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohmann (Scaling laws for lens systems; pages 4996-4998)1.
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches the optical module of claim 1.
Sun does not teach wherein the fifth lens satisfies 550
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_4|-min|Sag_O_x_4|≤800|
μ
m and 450
μ
mmm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m (In Equation 12, max |Sag_O_x_4| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a X-axis direction from an object-side surface of the fourth lens, min |Sag_O_x_4| means an absolute value of a minimum Sag value that is not zero in the X-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fourth lens, max |Sag_O_y_4| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a Y-axis direction from the object-side surface of the fourth lens, and min |Sag_O_y_4| means an absolute value of a minimum Sag value that is not zero in the Y-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fourth lens), however the max and min Sag values represent scalable values for a lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiSung date to satisfy 550
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_4|-min|Sag_O_x_4|≤800|
μ
m and 450
μ
mmm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m (In Equation 12, max |Sag_O_x_4|, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. ScaSung up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Further, as taught by Lohmann, scaSung optical systems is trivial (Lohman pg. 4996, Section II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fiSung date of the claimed invention to scale the fifth lens of Sun in order to correct aberrations.
Claims 1-5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et. al US 20210255429 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an optical module comprising:
a sensor (Lin para. 0074); and
an optical system including a first lens (Lin fig. 15 - 810), a second lens (Lin fig. 15 - 820), a third lens (Lin fig. 15 - 840), a fourth lens (Lin fig. 15 - 850), and a fifth lens (Lin fig. 15 - 860) arranged sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to a sensor side (Lin fig. 15),
wherein an object-side surface of the second lens (820) has a convex shape on the optical axis (Lin fig. 15 – 821 is convex),
wherein at least one of an object-side and sensor-side surfaces of the fifth lens (860) includes a freeform surface (Lin para. 0230, 0233), wherein the fifth lens (860) satisfies the following Equation A:
[Equation A]
|max Sag_O_x_5|≠|max Sag_O_y_5|(Lin para. 0233 – since the object side of 860 is freeform, this would inherently be met, however para. 0098 teaches 0.1[µm] < |DSagMax|, or 0.1[µm] < SagY-SagX for 860, which illustrates |max Sag_O_x_5|≠|max Sag_O_y_5| for 860, para. 0248 teaches |DSagMax| = 0.32)
(In Equation A, max |Sag_O_x_5| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in an X-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fifth lens, and max |Sag_O_y_5| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a Y-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fifth lens);
wherein the optical system satisfies the following Equations 1 to 3:
[Equation 1]
60°≤FOV≤90° (Lin para. 0080 – teaches a range 85°≤FOV≤175° which encompasses part of the claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of enhancing the wide-view angle feature (Lin para. 0080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 60°≤FOV≤90° in order to enhance the wide-angle feature (Lin para. 0080);
(FOV in Equation 1 means field of view)
[Equation 2]
0.50≤TTL/ImgH≤1.0 (Lin para. 0083 – Lin teaches TL/ImgH<1.75 which encompasses the entire claimed range – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of providing a large field of view while miniaturizing the imaging optical lens (Lin para. 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.50≤TTL/ImgH≤1.0 in order to provide a large field of view while miniaturizing the imaging optical lens (Lin para. 0083);
(In Equation 2, TTL means a distance in the optical axis direction from a vertex of an object-side surface of the first lens to an image surface of the image sensor unit, and ImgH means twice a diagonal distance from the image surface of the image sensor unit overlapping the optical axis to a 1.0 field region of the image sensor);
[Equation 3]
CA_O_x<CA_O_5 (Lin fig. 15 – the effective diameter of 861 is larger than the effective diameter of 821)
(In Equation 3, CA_O_x means an effective diameter of an object-side surface of a lens closest to an aperture stop among lenses between the aperture stop and the sensor, and CA_O_5 means an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the fifth lens).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the fifth lens (860) satisfies Equation B below:
[Equation B]
0.1
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_5|-max|Sag_O_y_5|≤5
μ
m (Lin para. 0098 and 0248 - |DSagMax| = 0.32µm).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the third lens (840) satisfies Equation 4 below:
[Equation 4]
15°<|SA1_O_3|≤40° (Lin fig. 15, |SA1_O_3| ≈ 16◦ as calculated from the figure),
20°<|SA1_S_3|≤50° (Lin fig. 15, |SA1_S_3| ≈ 25◦ as calculated from the figure)
(In Equation 4, SA1_O_3 means a slope angle between a normal line of an object-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in a range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, and SA1_S_3 means a slope angle between a normal line of a sensor-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the sensor-side surface at a distance ranging from 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the fourth lens (850) satisfies Equation 5 below:
[Equation 5]
20°<|SA1_O_4|≤50° (Lin fig. 15, SA1_O_4 ≈ 20◦ as calculated from the figure),
15°<|SA1_S_4|≤40° (Lin fig. 15, SA1_S_4 ≈ 35◦ as calculated from the figure)
(In Equation 5, SA1_O_4 means a slope angle between a normal line of an object-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in a range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter, and SA1_S_4 means a slope angle between a normal line of a sensor-side surface and the optical axis at any point on the sensor-side surface at a distance ranging from 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the fifth lens (860) satisfies Equation 6 below:
[Equation 6]
15°≤|SA1_O_x_5|≤30° (Lin fig. 15, |SA1_O_x_5| ≈ 24◦ as calculated from the figure),
15°≤|SA1_O_y_5|≤30° (Lin fig. 15, |SA1_O_y_5| ≈ 30◦ as calculated from the figure)
(In Equation 6, SA1_O_x_5 means a slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in the range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis to an effective diameter in the X-axis direction from the optical axis of the fifth lens, and SA1_O_y_5 means an angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on the object-side surface at a distance in the range of 75% to 95% of a distance from the optical axis to an effective diameter in the Y-axis direction from the optical axis of the fifth lens).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1,
wherein the third lens and the fourth lens satisfy Equation 21 below:
[Equation 21]
max|SA_O_4|>max|SA_O_3| (Lin fig. 15 – where max|SA_O_4| ≈ 21◦ as calculated using the figure, and max|SA_O_3| ≈ 18◦ as calculated using the figure, 21◦ > 18◦),
max|SA_S_4|<max|SA_S_3|(Lin fig. 15 – where max|SA_S_4| ≈ 16◦ as calculated using the figure, and max|SA_S_3| ≈ 22◦ as calculated using the figure, 16◦ < 22◦),
max|SA_O_4|<50° (Lin fig. 15 – where max|SA_O_4| ≈ 21◦ as calculated using the figure),
max|SA_S_4|<40° (Lin fig. 15 – where max|SA_S_4| ≈ 16◦ as calculated using the figure)
(In Equation 21, max |SA_O_3| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on an object-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, max |SA_S_3| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on a sensor-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the third lens to an effective diameter, max |SA_O_4| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on an object-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter, and max |SA_S_4| means a maximum slope angle between a normal line and the optical axis at any point on a sensor-side surface in a distance range from the optical axis of the fourth lens to an effective diameter).
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein a sensor-side surface of the second lens (820) has a concave shape on the optical axis (Lin fig. 15 – 822 is concave), wherein the first lens (810) and the second lens (820) satisfy Equation 24 below:
[Equation 24]
P_1sign≠P_2sign (Lin para. 0225-0226, 810 is negative and 820 is positive),
V_1>V_2 (Lin table 15, 56.1>28.3),
10<V2<50<V1 (Lin table 15, 10<28.3<50<56.1),
N_1<N_2 (Lin table 15, -12.58<11.67)
(In Equation 24, the P_1 sign is the refractive power sign of the first lens having a positive (+) or negative (−) sign, P_2 sign is a refractive power sign of the second lens having a positive (+) or negative (−) sign, V_1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, V_2 is an Abbe number of the second lens, N_1 is a refractive index of the first lens, and N_2 is a refractive index of the second lens).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the fifth lens (860) satisfies Equation 35 below:
[Equation 35]
0.8mm<D_mx_5/I<1.5mm (Lin fig. 15 and table 15 – D_mx_5 ≈ 1.389 as calculated using fig. 15 and the values in table 15)
(In Equation 41, D_mx_5/I means a distance in the optical axis direction from a point having an absolute value of a maximum Sag value on the sensor-side surface of the fifth lens to the image surface of the image sensor unit).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the sensor-side surface of the fifth lens (Lin fig. 15 - 862) includes a critical point located at a distance of more than 30% to 50% of an effective radius of the fifth lens from the optical axis (see the annotated Lin fig. 15 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
536
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein an object-side surface of the third lens (840) has a concave shape on the optical axis (Lin fig. 15 – 841 is concave).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the first lens (810) and the fifth lens (860) have different thicknesses at the optical axis (Lin table 15, 810 thickness = 0.494, 860 thickness = 0.500).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1, and Lin further teaches
wherein the second lens (820) has positive refractive power on the optical axis (Lin para. 0226).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohmann (Scaling laws for lens systems; pages 4996-4998)2.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the optical module of claim 1.
Lin does not teach wherein the fifth lens satisfies 550
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_4|-min|Sag_O_x_4|≤800|
μ
m and 450
μ
mmm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m (In Equation 12, max |Sag_O_x_4| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a X-axis direction from an object-side surface of the fourth lens, min |Sag_O_x_4| means an absolute value of a minimum Sag value that is not zero in the X-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fourth lens, max |Sag_O_y_4| means an absolute value of a maximum Sag value in a Y-axis direction from the object-side surface of the fourth lens, and min |Sag_O_y_4| means an absolute value of a minimum Sag value that is not zero in the Y-axis direction on the object-side surface of the fourth lens), however the max and min Sag values represent scalable values for a lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to satisfy 550
μ
m≤max|Sag_O_x_4|-min|Sag_O_x_4|≤800|
μ
m and 450
μ
mmm≤max|Sag_O_y_4|-min|Sag_O_y_4|≤750|
μ
m (In Equation 12, max |Sag_O_x_4|, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Further, as taught by Lohmann, scaling optical systems is trivial (Lohman pg. 4996, Section II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to scale the fifth lens of Lin in order to correct aberrations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et. al US Patent 11,719,911, patent of Lin et. al US 20210255429;
Sun et. al US 20210263265 and Chen et. al US 20220066134, teache a similar lens system to the instant application.
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.
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
1 Adolf W. Lohmann, Scaling laws for lens systems, 1 December 1989, APPLIED OPTICS, Vol. 28, 4996-4998
2 Adolf W. Lohmann, Scaling laws for lens systems, 1 December 1989, APPLIED OPTICS, Vol. 28, 4996-4998
Prosecution Insights