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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on continuation of application US # 17364815 filed on 06/30/2021 that claim foreign priority to application CN 202110459138.8, filed 04/27/2021 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh US 20200073090 A1 in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007), and Asami et al. (hereafter Asami) US 20220003973 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) an optical imaging lens (i.e. wide-angle imaging lens, see Abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-15, 28-42], embodiments 1-4 in Tables 1-12), comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (i.e. as lens 1-lens 5 from object to image side along optical axis I, see abstract, e.g. paragraphs [4-15, 28-42], Tables 1-12, Figs. 1,3,5,7), each of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (i.e. as object and image side surfaces of lens 1-lens 5 passing image rays as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12), wherein:
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave (i.e. as negative lens 1 with concave image side surface on optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (i.e. as lens 2 has concave image side surface on optical axis, see Fig. 7, Table 10-11);
the fifth lens element has positive refracting power (i.e. as lens 5 is positive, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a greatest thickness of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by Tmax (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a second greatest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmax2 (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has second greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno (i.e. as f-number of imaging lens, (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an image height of the optical imaging lens is represented by ImgH (i.e. as image height on image plane 100, given by f*tan(HFOV), where f is effective focal length EFL, and HFOV is half angle of view, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an abbe number of the second lens element is represented by V2; an abbe number of the third lens element is represented by V3 (i.e. as Abbe numbers of lens 2 and lens 3, see e.g. Tables 1, 4, 7, 10); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the five lens elements described above (as lens 1 through lens 5 are only lenses in wide-angle imaging lens, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42]);
the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
Tmax+Tmax2≦1000.000 μm, (i.e. as given lens data tables and values for Tmax and Tmax2, e.g. values 758, 920,746, 715 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12),
Fno/ImgH≧2.000 mm-1 (i.e. as given lens data tables for f-number and image height, e.g. values 4.3, 3.906)5 μm, Figs. 1-8, Tables 1-12)and
V2+V3≧70.000 (i.e. as given lens data tables and v2, v3 values e.g. values 77.4 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Thus, Hsieh teaches the claim invention except that optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as noted above, the lens 1 is negative and with concave image side surface on optical axis region but is slightly concave on object-side in the optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Gross in the same field of lens systems including aberration theory and correction and optimization of optical systems, and further teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Further, Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and further teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by T3, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, and T3 and T5 satisfy the inequality: T3/T5≧0.200 (i.e. as given lens 3 and lens 5 on axis thickness from lens data tables 1-12, e.g. values 0.96, 106, Tables 1,4,7,10),
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, a distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by G23, an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, and T2, G23 and EFL satisfy the inequality: (T2+G23)/EFL≦21.000 (i.e. as given lens 2 on axis thickness and gap lens2-lens3, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 1.56, 1.23).
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of four air gaps from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by AAG, an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, a smallest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmin, and AAG, EFL, Tmax and Tmin satisfy the inequality: (AAG+EFL)/(Tmax+Tmin)≧1.000 (i.e. as given the sum of airgaps, EFL and minimum and maximum thickness among lens 1-5, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 1.16, 1.14).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the object-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G45, and T1, G12, T4, T2 and G45 satisfy the inequality: (T1+G12+T4)/(T2+G45)≦5.000 (i.e. as given on axis thickness of lens 1, 2, 4 and airgaps between lenses 1-2 and 4-5, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 0.94, 1.13).
Regarding claim 6, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, and G12, T4, T5 and EFL satisfy the inequality: (G12+T4+T5)/EFL≦1.600 (i.e. as given on axis thickness of lens 4, 5 and airgap between lenses 1-2 and EFL, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 1.565, 1.429, 1.500).
Regarding claim 7, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by TL, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by BFL, and TL, T5 and BFL satisfy the inequality: TL/(T5+BFL)≦3.400 (i.e. as given on axis thickness of lens 5, back focal length from image side of lens 5 to image plane and lens length from object side of lens 1 to image side of lens 5, from data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 2.49, 3.11).
In regard to independent claim 8, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) an optical imaging lens (i.e. wide-angle imaging lens, see Abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-15, 28-42], embodiments 1-4 in Tables 1-12), comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (i.e. as lens 1-lens 5 from object to image side along optical axis I, see abstract, e.g. paragraphs [4-15, 28-42], Tables 1-12, Figs. 1,3,5,7), each of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (i.e. as object and image side surfaces of lens 1-lens 5 passing image rays as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12), wherein:
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave (i.e. as negative lens 1 with concave image side surface on optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (i.e. as lens 2 has concave image side surface on optical axis, see Fig. 7, Table 10-11);
the third lens element has positive refracting power, or an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the third lens element is convex (i.e. as lens 3 is positive or optical axis region of image side surface of lens 3 is convex, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a greatest thickness of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by Tmax (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a second greatest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmax2 (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has second greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno (i.e. as f-number of imaging lens, (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an image height of the optical imaging lens is represented by ImgH (i.e. as image height on image plane 100, given by f*tan(HFOV), where f is effective focal length EFL, and HFOV is half angle of view, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by TL; an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL (i.e. as total length from object side of lens 1 to image side of lens 5, and effective focal length of the lens system EFL, see e.g. Tables 1-12); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the five lens elements described above (as lens 1 through lens 5 are only lenses in wide-angle imaging lens, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42]);
the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
Tmax+Tmax2≦1000.000 μm, (i.e. as given lens data tables and values for Tmax and Tmax2, e.g. values 758, 920,746, 715 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12),
Fno/ImgH≧2.000 mm-1 (i.e. as given lens data tables for f-number and image height, e.g. values 4.3, 3.906)5 μm, Figs. 1-8, Tables 1-12)and
TL/EFL≧1.200 (i.e. as given lens data tables, EFL and TL, e.g. values 4.5, 4.13, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Thus, Hsieh teaches the claim invention except that optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as noted above, the lens 1 is negative and with concave image side surface on optical axis region but is slightly concave on object-side in the optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Gross in the same field of lens systems including aberration theory and correction and optimization of optical systems, and further teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Further, Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and further teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 9, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of four air gaps from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by AAG, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, and AAG, G12 and T4 satisfy the inequality: AAG/(G12+T4)≦8.100 (i.e. as given the sum of airgaps, airgap between lens 1-2 and on axis thickness of lens 4, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 1.132, 0.904).
Regarding claim 10, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of thicknesses of all five lens elements from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by ALT, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, and ALT, G12 and EFL satisfy the inequality: ALT/(G12+EFL)≦3.000 (i.e. as given the sum of on axis lens 1-5 thicknesses, airgap between lens 1-2 and EFL, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 2.334, 2.421).
Regarding claim 11, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by BFL, and EFL, BFL, Tmax and Tmax2 satisfy the inequality: (EFL+BFL)/(Tmax+Tmax2)≧0.800 (i.e. EFL and back focal length, and minimum and maximum thickness among lens 1-5, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 1.240, 3.969, 5.51).
Regarding claim 12, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by BFL, an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, and T5, BFL and EFL satisfy the inequality: (T5+BFL)/EFL <=2.200 (i.e. as given the values for EFL, back focal length BFL and thickness of lens 5, see Tables 1-3, 10-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42, 54-64], e.g. value 1.83, 1.329).
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of four air gaps from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by AAG, a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by BFL, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, and AAG, BFL, G12 and T5 satisfy the inequality: (AAG+BFL)/(G12+T5)≦9.000 (i.e. as given on axis the sum of all airgaps between lenses 1-5, back focal length BFL, air gab lens 1-2 and thickness of lens 5, see Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42, 54-64], e.g. value 2.216 1.469).
Regarding claim 14, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by TTL, and TTL and ImgH satisfy the inequality: TTL/ImgH≦11.000 (i.e. as given the total lens length from object side of lens 1 to image plane TTL, and image height at image plane ImgH, Tables 1-12, Figs. 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42, 54-64], e.g. value 2.004, 1.7605).
In regard to independent claim 15, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) an optical imaging lens (i.e. wide-angle imaging lens, see Abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-15, 28-42], embodiments 1-4 in Tables 1-12), comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (i.e. as lens 1-lens 5 from object to image side along optical axis I, see abstract, e.g. paragraphs [4-15, 28-42], Tables 1-12, Figs. 1,3,5,7), each of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (i.e. as object and image side surfaces of lens 1-lens 5 passing image rays as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12), wherein:
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave (i.e. as negative lens 1 with concave image side surface on optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (i.e. as lens 2 has concave image side surface on optical axis, see Fig. 7, Table 10-11);
the third lens element has positive refracting power, or an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the third lens element is convex (i.e. as lens 3 is positive or optical axis region of image side surface of lens 3 is convex, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a greatest thickness of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by Tmax (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a second greatest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmax2 (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has second greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno (i.e. as f-number of imaging lens, (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an image height of the optical imaging lens is represented by ImgH (i.e. as image height on image plane 100, given by f*tan(HFOV), where f is effective focal length EFL, and HFOV is half angle of view, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42]);
a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by TTL; an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL; a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis is represented by BFL (i.e. as total track length from object side of lens 1 to image plane TTL, , and effective focal length of the lens system EFL, and back focal length from image side of lens 5 to image plane, see e.g. Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [03, 28-42]); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the five lens elements described above (as lens 1 through lens 5 are only lenses in wide-angle imaging lens, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42]);
the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
Tmax+Tmax2≦1000.000 μm, (i.e. as given lens data tables and values for Tmax and Tmax2, e.g. values 758, 920,746, 715 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12),
Fno/ImgH≧2.000 mm-1 (i.e. as given lens data tables for f-number and image height, e.g. values 4.3, 3.906)5 μm, Figs. 1-8, Tables 1-12)and
TLL/(EFL+BFL)≧1.200 (i.e. as given lens data tables, EFL and BFL and TTL, e.g. values 2.58, 2.84, see Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Thus, Hsieh teaches the claim invention except that optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as noted above, the lens 1 is negative and with concave image side surface on optical axis region but is slightly concave on object-side in the optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Gross in the same field of lens systems including aberration theory and correction and optimization of optical systems, and further teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Further, Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and further teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 16, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of four air gaps from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by AAG, and AAG, BFL and Tmax satisfy the inequality: (AAG+BFL)/Tmax≧1.000 (i.e. as given on axis the sum of all airgaps between lenses 1-5, back focal length BFL, and maximum thickness among lenses 1-5, see Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42, 54-64], e.g. value 1.798, 1.386).
Regarding claim 17, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that TTL, EFL, and Tmax satisfy the inequality: (TTL+EFL)/Tmax) => 3.800 (i.e. given the TTL, effective EFL focal length and first thickest lens thickness, see Tables 1-3, 7-12, e.g. value 5.19, 6.15).
Regarding claim 18, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that an average thickness of five lens elements along the optical axis from the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tavg, and BFL and Tavg satisfy the inequality: BFL/Tavg≧1.000 (i.e. as given back focal length BFL, and average thickness of lenses 1-5, see Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42, 54-64], e.g. value 1.802, 1.045).
Regarding claim 19, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a sum of four air gaps from the first lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by AAG, a smallest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmin, and AAG, Tmax and Tmin satisfy the inequality: AAG/(Tmax+Tmin)≦2.200 (i.e. as given the sum of airgaps, and minimum and maximum thickness among lens 1-5, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 0.613, 0.505).
Regarding claim 20, Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, and T5 and T1 satisfy the inequality: T5/T1≧0.300 (i.e. as given thickness of lens 1 and 5, from lens data Tables 1-12, e.g. values 01.165, 1.290).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 07/16/2026 regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 10-13 of the remarks that the cited prior art of Hsieh with Gross and Asami does not disclose claimed features namely (1), that “an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex ... the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities: Tmax+Tmax2 1000.000 mm”, because allegedly the Hsieh teaches that the object side surface of first lens is concave and therefore teaches away from the claimed invention, and therefore there is no motivation for modification; further since Gross teaches that modifications are only appropriate to be implemented without causing any great perturbation to the existing optical system, and that the proposed modification would render the lens of Hsieh unsatisfactory for the intended purpose; and lastly since incorporating convex object-side surface of the first lens element in the optical axis region of Asami would not satisfy the miniaturization requirement including the thicknesses of two thickest lenses in the optical system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue (1), as noted in the rejection above, the cites prior art of Hsieh teaches most and in combination with cited prior art of Gross and Asami teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1 (as well as claims 8 and 18), as Hsieh teaches (see Figs. 1-8) an optical imaging lens (i.e. wide-angle imaging lens, see Abstract, paragraphs [02, 04-15, 28-42], embodiments 1-4 in Tables 1-12), comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element and a fifth lens element sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (i.e. as lens 1-lens 5 from object to image side along optical axis I, see abstract, e.g. paragraphs [4-15, 28-42], Tables 1-12, Figs. 1,3,5,7), each of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (i.e. as object and image side surfaces of lens 1-lens 5 passing image rays as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12), wherein:
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave (i.e. as negative lens 1 with concave image side surface on optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (i.e. as lens 2 has concave image side surface on optical axis, see Fig. 7, Table 10-11);
the fifth lens element has positive refracting power (i.e. as lens 5 is positive, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a greatest thickness of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by Tmax (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a second greatest thickness of a lens element along the optical axis among the first lens element to the fifth lens element is represented by Tmax2 (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has second greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12);
a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno (i.e. as f-number of imaging lens, (i.e. as one of the lens 1-5 has greatest thickness on axis, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an image height of the optical imaging lens is represented by ImgH (i.e. as image height on image plane 100, given by f*tan(HFOV), where f is effective focal length EFL, and HFOV is half angle of view, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42);
an abbe number of the second lens element is represented by V2; an abbe number of the third lens element is represented by V3 (i.e. as Abbe numbers of lens 2 and lens 3, see e.g. Tables 1, 4, 7, 10); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the five lens elements described above (as lens 1 through lens 5 are only lenses in wide-angle imaging lens, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, e.g. paragraphs [28-42]);
the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
Tmax+Tmax2≦1000.000 μm, (i.e. as given lens data tables and values for Tmax and Tmax2, e.g. values 758, 920,746, 715 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12),
Fno/ImgH≧2.000 mm-1 (i.e. as given lens data tables for f-number and image height, e.g. values 4.3, 3.906)5 μm, Figs. 1-8, Tables 1-12)and
V2+V3≧70.000 (i.e. as given lens data tables and v2, v3 values e.g. values 77.4 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Thus, Hsieh teaches the claim invention except that optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as noted above, the lens 1 is negative and with concave image side surface on optical axis region but is slightly concave on object-side in the optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Gross in the same field of lens systems including aberration theory and correction and optimization of optical systems, and further teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Further, Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and further teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Specifically, Hsieh expressly teaches the condition Tmax+Tmax2≦1000.000 μm, i.e. as given lens data tables and values for Tmax and Tmax2, e.g. values 758, 920,746, 715 μm, Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12, where none of the values used for either Tmax or Tmax2 are from first lens, which is much thinner than the two thickest lenses in embodiments of Hsieh, whose values are used for teaching the above condition. Therefore, proposed bending modification of lens 1, does not affect the above teaching of Hsieh.
Applicant argues that the reference teaches away. However, it has been held that such nonpreferred embodiments failing to assert discovery beyond that known in the art does not constitute a “teaching away” unless such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), (see MPEP §2124).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” 27 F.3d at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP §2124).
In this case, Examiner finds neither discredit of the combination, nor destruction of the reference because Hsieh reference does not expressly criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. Rather, as noted by the Applicant, Hsieh teaches the beneficial effect of the wide-angle imaging lens of the embodiments of the present invention is: by concave and convex shape design and arrangement of the object-side surfaces or image-side surfaces of the lens elements and combination of the refractive power of the lens elements, the wide-angle imaging lens can achieve a wide visual angle effect, a shorter lens length, and have good imaging quality (paragraph [15]). Hence the lens surface can have convex and concave shape. Additionally, Hsieh, allows for modifications of the lens system, disclosing that Those of ordinary knowledge in the art may make certain modifications and embellishments without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention (see paragraph [68]). Specifically, contrary to Applicant’s statement, Hsieh teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art may make certain modifications to the imaging system lens. Moreover, the motivation for modification of the lens comes from the secondary references, and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider such available art, for proposed modification(s) including the benefits for such modification. Notably, one of ordinary skill in the art would not make a modification detrimental to the existing lens setup. Applicant’s argument regarding “teaching away” of the Hsieh prior art is not found persuasive.
The Hsieh reference, as noted teaches the claim invention except that optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as noted above, the lens 1 is negative and with concave image side surface on optical axis region but is slightly concave on object-side in the optical axis region, as depicted Figs. 1,3,5,7, Tables 1-12).
Gross in the same field of lens systems including aberration theory and correction and optimization of optical systems, and further teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Further, Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and further teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex (i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Regarding Gross reference, it is noted that Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) specifically that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Notably, ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ bending of a lens to slightly change surface curvature, but not the focal length of the lens, in order to find a lens design with better performance, not to somehow deteriorate lens performance as alleged by the Applicant. To this point it is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Gross further teaches that bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Namely, gross would not suggest bending the lens in a way that would greatly perturb the existing setup, as suggested by the Applicant’s sole simulation representing great perturbation to the existing lens setup, with the object side surface change to the entire object surface instead the optical axis region. Moreover, an ordinary artisan working in lens design, would consider iterative process using lens design software to find and optimize performance, not make single large modification with great perturbation to the optical setup as presented by the Applicant. Moreover, regarding Applicant’s allegations regarding Examiner’s misinterpretation of the Gross reference, including the painless “zero power operation”, it is noted that Gross expressly teaches what and how the modifications to the lens system are done. The proposed modification, would change the curvature around the optical axis without great perturbation to the lens setup, but to improve overall design and performance. The Gross reference does not disclose causing great perturbation to the lens system, or fundamental disruptive alternation of the lens system, by bending the lens without changing the lens power, as suggested by the Applicant.
Regarding the Asami reference, it is noted that Asami was relied for showing a very similar lens system that has a convex object side surface of first lens around optical axis, specifically, as Asami teaches a similar five lens imaging optical system (see abstract, Figs. 1, 9, 17, 25, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237]) and teaches that the optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex, i.e. as optical axis region of object side surface of negative lens L1 is convex as convex meniscus-shape lens, see Figs. 1,9,17,25,33, Tables 1,4,7,10,13, abstract, paragraphs [07-29, 216-217,230-237,271], providing proper range of negative power and allowing smaller size of the imaging optical system). Moreover, Asami reference was used as additional motivation, but not for simple substitution of the first lens as suggested by the applicant. Specifically, the motivation for the proposed change was that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bend the first lens such that object side surface becomes slightly convex, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4), and given that Asami shows that similar lens system has first (negative) lens with convex object side surface as convex meniscus-shape lens, that provides proper range of negative power and allows for a smaller size of the imaging optical system, paragraphs [216-217,230-237,271]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
As noted, Applicant’s arguments of the unworkability of the combination, due to disclosure of Asami reference, appear to be based on a literal application of the actual structure of the first lens of Asami as the actual structure first lens structure of Hsieh. However, that is not the proper standard for the analysis required under 35 USC 103(a). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Keller at 881, goes on to revisit the long history of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) regarding the nature of suggestion established by the combined teachings of the references rather than the actual results of a physical, bodily incorporation:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. In re Griver, 53 CCPA 815, 354, F.2d 377, 148 USPQ 197 (1966); In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d 689, 126 USPQ 370 (1960). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979); In re Passal, 57 CCPA 1151, 426 F.2d 828, 165 USPQ 720 (1970); In re Richman, 57 CCPA 1060, 424 F.2d 1388, 165 USPQ 509 (1970); In re Rosselet, 52 CCPA 1533, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (1965).
The structure taught in the combined teachings of the references, as set forth above, is a proper combination. Because the structure of the combined system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of the lens imaging system. See MPEP § 2112.01. Notably, the proposed combination never involved making a substitution of the first lens of Asami for the first lens in Hsieh imaging lens system. Applicant’s suggestions do not appear to be commensurate with the rejection of record. Moreover, the proposed modification is regarding bending of the existing first lens of Hsieh, not substituting it with another lens from a different lens system, such as Asami’s lens system. In addition, the combination does not change the teachings of Hsieh, regarding the condition for lens thickness of the two thickest lenses. Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination, Gross and Hsieh references is not found persuasive. The same responses equally apply for same limitations in claims 8 and 15.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 13 of the remarks dated 07/16/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights