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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-20 are original. The amendment dated July 17, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2025 and 07/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 line 14, “an object side a refractive” should be “an object side surface”.
In Claim 9 line 17, “an object side a refractive” should be “an object side surface”.
In Claim 17 line 19, “an object side a refractive” should be “an object side surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 6-9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (US 20260036789 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses (Fig. 1; Para. [0014]) having refractive power (see at least [Claim 1]), from an object side to an image side along an optical axis of the optical system, the sixth lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens (110; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, and an image side surface of the first lens being concave near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a second lens (120; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the second lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a third lens (130; Para. [0049]) having positive refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a fourth lens (140; Para. [0049]) having refractive power;
a fifth lens (150; Para. [0049]) having refractive power; and
a sixth lens (160; Para. [0049]) having refractive power, and an object side a refractive of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis (Para. [0180] “The sixth lens 160 is a biconvex lens”);
wherein the optical system satisfies following relational expression:
1.2 < IMGH/EPD < 1.4;
wherein, IMGH is half of an image height corresponding to a maximum field of view of the optical system, and EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system (from Example 1; f = 4.765 mm, F-number = 1.560 and the image height = 3.645 mm, thereby EPD = 4.765/1.560 = 3.0545 mm, and IMGH/EPD = 3.645/ 3.0545 = 1.193) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses satisfying following relational expression:
3.8 < TTL/F < 4.8;
wherein, TTL is a distance from an object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, and F is a focal length of the optical system (from Example 1, TTL/F is about 23.985/4.765 = 5.03) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions:
8.9 < TTL/CT6 < 19.5, 6 <TTL/CT12 < 12, 3 < TTL/(CT34+CT56) < 20;
wherein, TTL is a distance from an object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis, CT12 is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to the object side surface of the second lens along the optical axis, CT34 is a distance from the image side surface of the third lens to an object side surface of the fourth lens along the optical axis, and CT56 is a distance from an image side surface of the fifth lens to an object side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis (from Example 1, TTL = 23.985 mm, CT6 = D11 = 3.1953 mm, i.e., TTL/CT6 = 23.985/3.1953 = 7. 506. And CT12 = D1 + D2 = 0.7000 + 1.8200 = 2.5200 mm, i.e., TTL/CT12 = 23.985/2.5200 = 9.518. And CT34 = D6 = 1.0368 mm, CT56 = D10 = 0.2500 mm, i.e., TTL/(CT34+CT56) = 23.985/1.2868 = 18.637).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: -1.83 < F12/F < -1.25, 1 < |F45/F| < 7; wherein, F is a focal length of the optical system, F12 is a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens, and F45 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens and the fifth lens (from Example 1, |F45/F| is about 5.38).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions:
-12 < R6/R5 < -1, 1 < |R7/R8| < 150;
wherein, R5 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R6 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R7 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, and R8 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis (from Example 1, R6 = - 13.3518 mm and R5 = 13.5696 mm, i.e., R6/R5 = - 0.9839).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuda discloses a camera module (Fig. 1 and Paras. [0014], [0231]) comprising:
an image sensor (Para. [0047]); and
an optical system (Fig. 1), the image sensor located on an image side of the optical system (Fig. 1 and Para. [0047]), the optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power (see at least [Claim 1]), from an object side to an image side along an optical axis of the optical system, the sixth lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens (110; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, and an image side surface of the first lens being concave near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a second lens (120; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the second lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a third lens (130; Para. [0049]) having positive refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a fourth lens (140; Para. [0049]) having refractive power;
a fifth lens (150; Para. [0049]) having refractive power; and
a sixth lens (160; Para. [0049]) having refractive power, and an object side a refractive of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis (Para. [0180] “The sixth lens 160 is a biconvex lens”);
wherein the optical system satisfies following relational expression:
1.2 < IMGH/EPD < 1.4;
wherein, IMGH is half of an image height corresponding to a maximum field of view of the optical system, and EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system (from Example 1; f = 4.765 mm, F-number = 1.560 and the image height = 3.645 mm, thereby EPD = 4.765/1.560 = 3.0545 mm, and IMGH/EPD = 3.645/ 3.0545 = 1.193) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above, and further discloses satisfying following relational expression:
3.8 < TTL/F < 4.8;
wherein, TTL is a distance from an object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, and F is a focal length of the optical system (from Example 1, TTL/F is about 23.985/4.765 = 5.03) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 14, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions:
8.9 < TTL/CT6 < 19.5, 6 <TTL/CT12 < 12, 3 < TTL/(CT34+CT56) < 20;
wherein, TTL is a distance from an object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis, CT12 is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to the object side surface of the second lens along the optical axis, CT34 is a distance from the image side surface of the third lens to an object side surface of the fourth lens along the optical axis, and CT56 is a distance from an image side surface of the fifth lens to an object side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis (from Example 1, TTL = 23.985 mm, CT6 = D11 = 3.1953 mm, i.e., TTL/CT6 = 23.985/3.1953 = 7. 506. And CT12 = D1 + D2 = 0.7000 + 1.8200 = 2.5200 mm, i.e., TTL/CT12 = 23.985/2.5200 = 9.518. And CT34 = D6 = 1.0368 mm, CT56 = D10 = 0.2500 mm, i.e., TTL/(CT34+CT56) = 23.985/1.2868 = 18.637).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: -1.83 < F12/F < -1.25, 1 < |F45/F| < 7; wherein, F is a focal length of the optical system, F12 is a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens, and F45 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens and the fifth lens (from Example 1, |F45/F| is about 5.38).
Regarding claim 16, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above, and further discloses satisfying at least one of following relational expressions:
-12 < R6/R5 < -1, 1 < |R7/R8| < 150;
wherein, R5 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R6 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R7 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, and R8 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis (from Example 1, R6 = - 13.3518 mm and R5 = 13.5696 mm, i.e., R6/R5 = - 0.9839).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Shim (US 20250189761).
Regarding claim 17, Yasuda discloses a camera module (Fig. 1 and Paras. [0014], [0231]) comprising:
an image sensor (Para. [0047]); and
an optical system (Fig. 1), the image sensor located on an image side of the optical system (Fig. 1 and Para. [0047]), the optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power (see at least [Claim 1]), from an object side to an image side along an optical axis of the optical system, the sixth lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens (110; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, and an image side surface of the first lens being concave near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a second lens (120; Para. [0049]) having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the second lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a third lens (130; Para. [0049]) having positive refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis (Fig. 1);
a fourth lens (140; Para. [0049]) having refractive power;
a fifth lens (150; Para. [0049]) having refractive power; and
a sixth lens (160; Para. [0049]) having refractive power, and an object side a refractive of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis (Para. [0180] “The sixth lens 160 is a biconvex lens”);
wherein the optical system satisfies following relational expression:
1.2 < IMGH/EPD < 1.4;
wherein, IMGH is half of an image height corresponding to a maximum field of view of the optical system, and EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system (from Example 1; f = 4.765 mm, F-number = 1.560 and the image height = 3.645 mm, thereby EPD = 4.765/1.560 = 3.0545 mm, and IMGH/EPD = 3.645/ 3.0545 = 1.193) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Yasuda does not explicitly disclose a terminal device comprising: a fixing member; and
the camera module located on the fixing member.
However, Shim teaches a terminal device (Fig. 39; Para. [0295]) comprising: a fixing member (1200; Para. [0279]); and a camera module located on the fixing member (Para. [0279]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the camera module as disclosed by Yasuda with the teachings of Sim, to have a terminal device comprising: a fixing member; and the camera module located on the fixing member, for the purpose of utilizing the camera module for a terminal device (Shim: Para. [0295]).
Regarding claim 20, Yasuda as modified by Shim discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Yasuda further discloses satisfying following relational expression:
3.8 < TTL/F < 4.8;
wherein, TTL is a distance from an object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, and F is a focal length of the optical system (from Example 1, TTL/F is about 23.985/4.765 = 5.03) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close [MPEP 2144.05]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 10-11, 13 and 18-19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 0.89 < CT2/SD3 < 1.3; wherein, CT2 is a thickness of the second lens at the optical axis, and SD3 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the second lens”. Yasuda teaches from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm, but does not explicitly teach SD3 and the required relation.
Rather, Yasuda teaches away from the claimed range, because CT2/SD3 is about 0. 2761 (from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm and the estimated maximum effective diameter of S3 is 5.795 mm, and SD3 = 5.795/2 = 2.8975, i.e., CT2/SD3 is about 0.8000/2.8975 = 0.2761). The examiner further considered Chang et al. (US 20190246016, hereinafter “Chang”), Zhang et al. (US 20220334353, hereinafter “Zhang”) and Hagiwara (US 20210018727). However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 7 < |SD2/SAGS2| < 255; wherein, SD2 is half of a maximum effective aperture of an object side surface of the first lens, and SAGS2 is a vector height at the maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the first lens”. The examiner considers Yasuda teaches, from Example 1, S2 radius, R2 = 3.9783 where |SAGS2| =
R
2
2
+
S
D
2
2
, but fails to explicitly teach SD2 and the required relation. The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “a aperture stop located between the second lens and the third lens, wherein the optical system further satisfies following relational expression: -1.5 < F12/F3456 < -0.9; wherein, F12 is a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens, and F3456 is a combined focal length of the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens”. Rather, Yasuda teaches away from the claimed invention, because Yasuda teaches the aperture stop between the third lens and the fourth lens (see Fig. 1). The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 0.89 < CT2/SD3 < 1.3; wherein, CT2 is a thickness of the second lens at the optical axis, and SD3 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the second lens”. Yasuda teaches from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm, but does not explicitly teach SD3 and the required relation.
Rather Yasuda teaches away from the claimed range, because CT2/SD3 is about 0. 2761 (from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm and the estimated maximum effective diameter of S3 is 5.795 mm, and SD3 = 5.795/2 = 2.8975, i.e., CT2/SD3 is about 0.8000/2.8975 = 0.2761). The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 7 < |SD2/SAGS2| < 255; wherein, SD2 is half of a maximum effective aperture of an object side surface of the first lens, and SAGS2 is a vector height at the maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the first lens”. The examiner considers Yasuda teaches, from Example 1, S2 radius, R2 = 3.9783 where |SAGS2| =
R
2
2
+
S
D
2
2
, but fails to explicitly teach SD2 and the required relation. The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Yasuda discloses the limitations of claim 9 above.
However, Yasuda fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “a aperture stop located between the second lens and the third lens, wherein the optical system further satisfies following relational expression: -1.5 < F12/F3456 < -0.9; wherein, F12 is a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens, and F3456 is a combined focal length of the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens”. Rather, Yasuda teaches away from the claimed invention, because Yasuda teaches the aperture stop between the third lens and the fourth lens (see Fig. 1). The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, Yasuda as modified by Shim discloses the limitations of claim 17 above.
However, Yasuda and Shim, fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 0.89 < CT2/SD3 < 1.3; wherein, CT2 is a thickness of the second lens at the optical axis, and SD3 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the second lens”. Yasuda teaches from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm, but does not explicitly teach SD3 and the required relation.
Rather Yasuda teaches away from the claimed range, because CT2/SD3 is about 0. 2761 (from Example 1 and Table 3, CT2 = D3 = 0.8000 mm and the estimated maximum effective diameter of S3 is 5.795 mm, and SD3 = 5.795/2 = 2.8975, i.e., CT2/SD3 is about 0.8000/2.8975 = 0.2761). The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Yasuda as modified by Shim discloses the limitations of claim 3 above.
However, Yasuda and Shim, fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “further satisfying following relational expression: 7 < |SD2/SAGS2| < 255; wherein, SD2 is half of a maximum effective aperture of an object side surface of the first lens, and SAGS2 is a vector height at the maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the first lens”. The examiner considers Yasuda teaches, from Example 1, S2 radius, R2 = 3.9783 where |SAGS2| =
R
2
2
+
S
D
2
2
, but fails to explicitly teach SD2 and the required relation. The examiner further considered the prior art of Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara. However, Yasuda, Chang, Zhang and Hagiwara, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights