DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 7/9/2024 and 8/26/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao et al. (2010/0046096), hereinafter Hirao.
Regarding claim 1, Hirao, discloses, in figure 4, an image pickup apparatus (100, image pickup lens) (paragraph 0135) comprising: an optical system including a first substrate (1, first lens substrate) and a first optical element (12, second lens) having refractive power (paragraph 0148) disposed on the first substrate (paragraph 0146); and a light receiving element (4, image sensor) having a light receiving surface on which an image is formed by the optical system (paragraph 0135), wherein the following inequality is satisfied: s/Rimmax where s is a distance from an intersection of an optical axis of the optical system and the light receiving surface to a center of the light receiving surface, and Rimmax is a distance from a farthest position from the center of the light receiving surface to the center (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus Hirao discloses the claimed invention except for satisfying 0.2 ≤ s/Rimmax ≤ 1.1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the placement of the lenses within the optical system in order to satisfy 0.2 ≤ s/Rimmax ≤ 1.1, 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 the current instance, s/Rimmax is an art recognized results effective variable in that it can define the lens’s horizontal extent from the center to the outermost edge as well as determine the lens’s diameter in order to fit within a box/frame. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize s/Rimmax because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP $2144.05(II)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process." Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Hirao shows in figure 4 the distances of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Hirao discloses wherein the first optical element (12, second lens) has negative refractive power (paragraph 0148) and is disposed on a surface of an image side of the first substrate (1, first lens substrate) (figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hirao discloses wherein the optical system includes: a second substrate (2, second lens substrate) disposed adjacent to the image side of the first substrate (1, first lens substrate) (paragraph 0146 and figure 1); and a second optical element (24, fourth lens) having positive refractive power (paragraph 0148) disposed on the image side of the second substrate (2, second lens substrate) (figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Hirao discloses wherein each of the first optical element and the second optical element has an aspherical surface (paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 5 Hirao discloses wherein an aperture stop is formed on the second substrate (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 6, Hirao discloses wherein the optical system further includes a third optical element (11, first lens) disposed on an object side of the first substrate (1, first lens substrate) (paragraph 0146 and figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hirao discloses wherein the third optical element (11, first lens) includes an aspheric surface (paragraph 0138) having positive refractive power at an end of an effective area (paragraph 0148).
Regarding claim 15, Hirao discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0 < f ≤ 10 where f [mm] is a focal length of the optical system (Table 33 shows that f is the focal length of the total lens system and is within the claimed limitation range).
Regarding claim 17, Hirao discloses further comprising a main optical system having an optical axis that coincides with the center of the light receiving surface on the light receiving surface (see annotated figure 4 above), wherein the optical axis of the optical system is tilted relative to the optical axis of the main optical system (figures 2a and 2b).
Regarding claim 18, Hirao discloses wherein on the light receiving surface, a center of an effective area that contributes to imaging does not coincide with the center of the light receiving surface (paragraphs 0135-0137).
Regarding claim 19, Hirao discloses, in figure 4, an optical system (100, image pickup lens) (paragraph 0135) comprising: a first substrate (1, first lens substrate); a first optical element (12, second lens) having refractive power (paragraph 0148) disposed on the first substrate (paragraph 0146); and an optical element having a plane that contacts air (paragraph 0138).
Thus Hirao discloses the claimed invention except for satisfying 0.5 ≤ θ ≤ 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 alter the placement of the lenses within the optical system in order to satisfy 0.5 ≤ θ ≤ 20.0, 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 the current instance, lens having a plane that contacts air is an art recognized results effective variable in that it can define focusing the light beam travelling along the lens to a focal point. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize lens having a plane that contacts air because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP $2144.05(II)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process." Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Hirao shows in figures 2a and 2b and paragraph 0138 the lens in contact with the air.
Regarding claim 19, Hirao discloses a detection system comprising: the image pickup apparatus according to claim 1; and an acquiring unit configured to acquire information regarding an object using a signal from the image pickup apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim(s) 8, wherein the claimed invention comprises, in claim 8, further comprising an optical element having a plane that contacts air, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.5 ≤ 0 ≤ 20.0 where Θ is an angle [°] of the plane relative to the optical axis in a section having the optical axis; in claim 9, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.9 ≤ Φ2i /Φ ≤ 1.5 where Φ is refractive power of the optical system; in claim 10, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.0 ≤ |Φ1o/Φ| ≤ 0.4 where Φ is refractive power of the optical system, and Φ1o is refractive power of the third optical element; in claim 11, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -1.6 ≤ Φ1i /Φ ≤ -0.2 where Φ is refractive power of the optical system, and Φ1i is refractive power of the second optical element; in claim 12, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -1.9 ≤ Ф1i/Φ2i ≤ -0.1 where Φ1i is refractive power of the first optical element, and Φ2i is refractive power of the second optical element; in claim 13, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.1 ≤ d12/f ≤ 2.0 where d12 is a distance on the optical axis from a surface on the image side of the first optical element to a surface on the image side of the second substrate, and f is a focal length of the optical system; in claim 14, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 35 < ω < 150 where ω is an angle of view [°] in a direction connecting the center of the light receiving surface and the optical axis; in claim 16, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.02 ≤ f/id ≤ 1.0 where is a focal length of the optical system, and id is a distance from a surface of the optical system closest to an object to the object, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights