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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2024 and 05/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw” in line 1. The term “fw” is not defined in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) × 0.9” in line 1. The term “ft” is not defined in the claims.
Claim 21 recites “Fno_w > fw/IMG HT_Aw” in line 1. The term “fw” is not defined in the claims.
Claim 21 recites “Fno_t > (ft/IMG HT_At) × 0.9” in line 5. The term “ft” is not defined in the claims.
The term "substantially" in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term "substantially" in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term "substantially" in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected as being dependent on claim 18.
The term "substantially" in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially " is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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).
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.
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.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oniki and Nakamura 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 and Nakamura 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 and Nakamura teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of first lens modules all have substantially the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Oniki and Nakamura teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of second lens modules all have substantially the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
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).
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.
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.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oniki and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang 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 and Huang teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of first lens modules all have substantially the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Oniki and Huang teaches the imaging device of claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the plurality of second lens modules all have substantially the same configuration as each other (Oniki, Paragraphs 0183-0187).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 4 and 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 2, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The imaging device of claim 1, 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.”
With regard to claim 4, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The imaging device of claim 1, 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.”
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