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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 05/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argues: “Applicant appreciates the indication that claims 2, 4, 13, and 14 contain allowable subject matter. As mentioned above, claim 4 has been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer and the allowable subject matter thereof incorporated into claim 1, there being no intervening claims, rendering claim 1 allowable. Claims 2, 13, and 14 have not been amended because Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2, 13, and 14 depend from an allowable base claim and are allowable at least for this reason.”
Examiner’s Response: The indicated allowability of dependent claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) and Cheng et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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(s) 1, 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2007/0024737 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oniki et al. (hereafter referred as Oniki) teaches an imaging device (Oniki, Figs. 21-23) comprising:
a first lens assembly comprising a plurality of first lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8111a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single first image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8201, Paragraphs 0181); and
a second lens assembly comprising a plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8141a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single second image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8202, Paragraphs 0181),
wherein the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly are arranged to be adjacent to each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0181),
wherein a field of view of each first lens module of the plurality of first lens modules is wider than a field of view of each second lens module of the plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0187),
However, Oniki does not teach wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module, and wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor.
In reference to Nakamura et al. (hereafter referred as Nakamura), Nakamura teaches wherein a field of view of a first lens module is wider than a field of view of a second lens module, wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module (Nakamura, Paragraph 0048).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Oniki with the teaching of having the wide angle lens having a 35 mm film equivalent focal length of 22 mm and a zoom (tele) lens having a 35 mm film equivalent focal length of 40 mm-120 mm since they are known 35 mm film equivalent focal length used in wide and zoom lenses and would provide similar and expected results for capturing both a wide-angle and zoom image.
However, the combination of Oniki and Nakamura does not teach wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor.
In reference to Li et al. (hereafter referred as Li), Li teaches a telephoto lens assembly wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor (Li, Paragraphs 0004 and 0049-0051, “1.0<TTL/ImgH<1.5”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki and Nakamura with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Li since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens. Further, by using the telephoto lens as the optical systems 8141a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.275 <TTL/ImgH<0.375 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single second image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first lens assembly includes a plurality of wide-angle lens arrays arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182),
the plurality of wide-angle lens arrays respectively include a plurality of lenses (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182), and
the first lens module includes a plurality of lenses arranged in different lens arrays and sharing a single optical axis (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the second lens assembly includes a plurality of tele-lens arrays arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182),
the plurality of tele-lens arrays respectively include a plurality of lenses (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182), and
the second lens module includes a plurality of lenses arranged in different lens arrays and sharing a single optical axis (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of first lens modules all have the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of second lens modules all have the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2007/0024737 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li does not teach wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor.
In reference to Chen et al. (hereafter referred as Chen), Chen teaches a wide-angle configuration wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor (Chen, Paragraphs 0058-0059, “0.8<TL/ImgH≤1.6”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Chen since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens. Further, by using the wide angle lens as the optical systems 8111a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.2 <TL/ImgH<0.4 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single first image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2007/0024737 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2021/0405324 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li does not teach wherein Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw is satisfied, where Fno_w is an F-number of the first lens module, fw is total focal length of the first lens module, and IMG HT_Aw is half a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of first lens modules.
In reference to Song et al. (hereafter referred as Song1), Song1 teaches a wide-angle lens wherein Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw is satisfied, where Fno_w is an F-number of the first lens module, fw is total focal length of the first lens module, and IMG HT_Aw is half a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of first lens modules (Song1, Paragraph 0065, Fno_w=2.2, fw=1.99, IMG HT_Aw=1.85).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Chen since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2007/0024737 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0400662 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li does not teach wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules.
In reference to Song et al. (hereafter referred as Song2), Song2 teaches a tele-lens wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules (Song2, Paragraph 0079, ft=5.77mm, IMG HT_At=5.38mm, Fno_t=1.46).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Nakamura and Li with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Song2 since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens.
Claim(s) 1, 6-12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0091395 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oniki et al. (hereafter referred as Oniki) teaches an imaging device (Oniki, Figs. 21-23) comprising:
a first lens assembly comprising a plurality of first lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8111a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single first image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8201, Paragraphs 0181); and
a second lens assembly comprising a plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8141a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single second image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8202, Paragraphs 0181),
wherein the first lens assembly and the second lens assembly are arranged to be adjacent to each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0181),
wherein a field of view of each first lens module of the plurality of first lens modules is wider than a field of view of each second lens module of the plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0187),
However, Oniki does not teach wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module, and wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor.
In reference to Huang et al. (hereafter referred as Huang), Huang teaches wherein a field of view of a first lens module is wider than a field of view of a second lens module (Huang, Paragraph 0065-0066, The second image capturing unit is a first lens module with FOV_2. The first image capturing unit is a second lens module with FOV_1. FOV_2 is wider than FOV_1.), wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module (Huang, Paragraph 0061 and 0065-0066, fs_1 is the 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module. fs_2 is the 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module. fs_1/fs_2 > 2.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Oniki with the teaching of having the wide and narrow field of view parameters and 35mm equivalent focal lengths as seen in Huang since they are known values for different lens modules with different FOVs and would provide similar and expected results for capturing both a wide and narrow images.
However, the combination of Oniki and Huang does not teach wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor.
In reference to Li et al. (hereafter referred as Li), Li teaches a telephoto lens assembly wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor (Li, Paragraphs 0004 and 0049-0051, “1.0<TTL/ImgH<1.5”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki and Huang with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Li since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens. Further, by using the telephoto lens as the optical systems 8141a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.275 <TTL/ImgH<0.375 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single second image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first lens assembly includes a plurality of wide-angle lens arrays arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182),
the plurality of wide-angle lens arrays respectively include a plurality of lenses (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182), and
the first lens module includes a plurality of lenses arranged in different lens arrays and sharing a single optical axis (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the second lens assembly includes a plurality of tele-lens arrays arranged in order from an object side to an image side (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182),
the plurality of tele-lens arrays respectively include a plurality of lenses (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182), and
the second lens module includes a plurality of lenses arranged in different lens arrays and sharing a single optical axis (Oniki, Figs. 21-22, Paragraph 0182).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the first lens module includes a first lens (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1310), a second lens (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1320), a third lens (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1340), a fourth lens (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1360), and a fifth lens (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1370) arranged along an optical axis from an object side toward an image side (Huang, Fig. 25, Paragraph 0268),
the first lens has positive refractive power (Huang, Fig. 25, Paragraph 0269), and
the second lens has negative refractive power (Huang, Fig. 25, Paragraph 0267).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 8 (see claim 8 analysis), wherein: a difference in Abbe numbers between the first lens and the second lens is greater than 30 and less than 50 (Huang, Paragraph 0278, Table 25, first lens Abbe # is 56.1, second lens Abbe # is 18.2.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 9 (see claim 9 analysis), wherein the second lens has a refractive index greater than 1.67 and an Abbe number less than 21 (Huang, Paragraph 0278, Table 25, Index is 1.686, Abbe # is 18.2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 8 (see claim 8 analysis), wherein: wherein the third lens has positive refractive power (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1340, Paragraph 0272), and the fourth lens has negative refractive power (Huang, Fig. 25, lens element 1360, Paragraph 0274).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein:
the second lens module includes a first lens (Huang, Fig. 3, lens element 210), a second lens (Huang, Fig. 3, lens element 220), a third lens (Huang, Fig. 3, lens element 230), a fourth lens (Huang, Fig. 3, lens element 240), and a fifth lens (Huang, Fig. 3, lens element 250) arranged along an optical axis from an object side toward an image side (Huang, Fig. 3),
the first lens has positive refractive power (Huang, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0155), and
the second lens has negative refractive power (Huang, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0156).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 12 (see claim 12 analysis), wherein the fourth lens has positive refractive power (Huang, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0158), and
the fifth lens has negative refractive power (Huang, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0159).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of first lens modules all have the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of second lens modules all have the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0091395 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li does not teach wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor.
In reference to Chen et al. (hereafter referred as Chen), Chen teaches a wide-angle configuration wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor (Chen, Paragraphs 0058-0059, “0.8<TL/ImgH≤1.6”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Chen since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens. Further, by using the wide angle lens as the optical systems 8111a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.2 <TL/ImgH<0.4 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single first image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0091395 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2021/0405324 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li does not teach wherein Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw is satisfied, where Fno_w is an F-number of the first lens module, fw is total focal length of the first lens module, and IMG HT_Aw is half a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of first lens modules.
In reference to Song1, Song1 teaches a wide-angle lens wherein Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw is satisfied, where Fno_w is an F-number of the first lens module, fw is total focal length of the first lens module, and IMG HT_Aw is half a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of first lens modules (Song1, Paragraph 0065, Fno_w=2.2, fw=1.99, IMG HT_Aw=1.85).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Chen since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0091395 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0400662 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li does not teach wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules.
In reference to Song2, Song2 teaches a tele-lens wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules (Song2, Paragraph 0079, ft=5.77mm, IMG HT_At=5.38mm, Fno_t=1.46).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki, Huang and Li with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Song2 since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens.
Claim(s) 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Oniki et al. (hereafter referred as Oniki) teaches an imaging device (Oniki, Figs. 21-23) comprising:
a first lens assembly comprising a plurality of first lens modules having the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8111a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single first image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8201, Paragraphs 0181); and
a second lens assembly disposed adjacent to the first lens assembly (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0181), and comprising a plurality of second lens modules having the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8141a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single second image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8202, Paragraphs 0181),
wherein a field of view of each first lens module of the plurality of first lens modules is wider than a field of view of each second lens module of the plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0187).
However, Oniki, does not teach wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor.
In reference to Chen et al. (hereafter referred as Chen), Chen teaches a wide-angle configuration wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor (Chen, Paragraphs 0058-0059, “0.8<TL/ImgH≤1.6”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Oniki with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Chen since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens. Further, by using the wide angle lens as the optical systems 8111a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.2 <TL/ImgH<0.4 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single first image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Oniki and Chen teaches the imaging device of claim 18 (see claim 18 analysis), wherein optical axes of the plurality of first lens modules are parallel to each other (Oniki, Fig. 21, Paragraph 0185), and
wherein optical axes of the plurality of second lens modules are parallel to each other (Oniki, Fig. 21, Paragraph 0185).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1) ) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2007/0024737 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Oniki and Chen teaches the imaging device of claim 18 (see claim 18 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki and Chen does not teach wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module.
In reference to Nakamura et al. (hereafter referred as Nakamura), Nakamura teaches wherein a field of view of a first lens module is wider than a field of view of a second lens module, wherein f35t/f35w ≥ 2 is satisfied, where f35t is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the second lens module, and f35w is a 35mm equivalent focal length of the first lens module (Nakamura, Paragraph 0048).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki and Chen with the teaching of having the wide angle lens having a 35 mm film equivalent focal length of 22 mm and a zoom (tele) lens having a 35 mm film equivalent focal length of 40 mm-120 mm since they are known 35 mm film equivalent focal length used in wide and zoom lenses and would provide similar and expected results for capturing both a wide-angle and zoom image.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0196144 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0173185 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Oniki and Chen teaches the imaging device of claim 18 (see claim 18 analysis). However, the combination of Oniki and Chen does not teach wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor.
In reference to Li et al. (hereafter referred as Li), Li teaches a telephoto lens assembly wherein TTL_t/IMG HT_Ft < 1.45 is satisfied, where TTL_t is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the second lens module to an imaging plane of the single second image sensor, and IMG HT_Ft is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor (Li, Paragraphs 0004 and 0049-0051, “1.0<TTL/ImgH<1.5”).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki and Chen with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Li since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens. Further, by using the telephoto lens as the optical systems 8141a-d of Oniki, the condition 0.275 <TTL/ImgH<0.375 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single second image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet.
Claim(s) 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2021/0405324 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Oniki et al. (hereafter referred as Oniki) teaches an imaging device (Oniki, Figs. 21-23) comprising:
a first lens assembly comprising a plurality of first lens modules having the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8111a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single first image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8201, Paragraphs 0181); and
a second lens assembly disposed adjacent to the first lens assembly (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0181), and comprising a plurality of second lens modules having the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, optical systems 8141a-d, Paragraphs 0181 and 0187) and a single second image sensor (Oniki, Fig. 21, image pickup elements 8202, Paragraphs 0181),
wherein a field of view of each first lens module of the plurality of first lens modules is wider than a field of view of each second lens module of the plurality of second lens modules (Oniki, Figs. 21-23, Paragraph 0187).
However, Oniki, does not teach wherein TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 is satisfied, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor.
In reference to Song1, Song1 teaches a wide-angle configuration wherein TTL_w=2.68 and IMG HT_Fw=1.85, where TTL_w is a distance on an optical axis from an object-side surface of a front lens of the first lens module to an imaging plane of the single first image sensor, and IMG HT_Fw is half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor (Song1, Paragraph 0065).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Oniki with the wide-angle configuration characteristics as seen in Song1 since it is a known lens configuration for a wide angle optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a wide angle lens. Further, by using the wide angle lens as the optical systems 8111a-d of Oniki, the condition TTL_w/IMG HT_Fw < 0.85 would be satisfied since the half diagonal length of the single first image sensor is four times the half diagonal length of a single facet. That is, in the combination, TTL_w=2.68 and IMG HT_Fw=5.85.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Oniki and Song1 teaches the imaging device of claim 18 (see claim 18 analysis), wherein optical axes of the plurality of first lens modules are parallel to each other (Oniki, Fig. 21, Paragraph 0185), and
wherein optical axes of the plurality of second lens modules are parallel to each other (Oniki, Fig. 21, Paragraph 0185).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniki et al. (US 2015/0256745 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2021/0405324 A1) in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0400662 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Oniki and Song1 teaches the imaging device of claim 18 (see claim 18 analysis), wherein Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw is satisfied, where Fno_w is an F-number of the first lens module, fw is total focal length of the first lens module, and IMG HT_Aw is half a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single first image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of first lens modules (Song1, Paragraph 0065, Fno_w=2.2, fw=1.99, IMG HT_Aw=1.85).
However, the combination of Oniki and Song1 does not teach wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules.
In reference to Song2, Song2 teaches a tele-lens wherein Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) x 0.9 is satisfied, where Fno_t is an F-number of the second lens module, ft is total focal length of the second lens module, and IMG HT_At is half of a diagonal length of a region of the imaging plane of the single second image sensor divided to correspond to the plurality of second lens modules (Song2, Paragraph 0079, ft=5.77mm, IMG HT_At=5.38mm, Fno_t=1.46).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Oniki and Song1 with the telephoto lens assembly characteristics as seen in Song2 since it is a known lens configuration for a long focal length optical system and would provide similar and expected results as a telephoto lens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13-14 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 13, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The imaging device of claim 12, wherein: a difference in Abbe numbers between the first lens and the second lens is greater than 30 and less than 50, and a difference in Abbe numbers between the second lens and the third lens is greater than 10 and less than 20.”
Claim 14 depends on and further limits claim 13. Therefore, claim 14 is objected to for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights