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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figure 1A), including claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (CN 115421281; US 2023/0168466 is used as a tentative translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses an optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens group including a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens (410-430); and
a second lens group including a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens (440-460) and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction (see at least paragraph 0066),
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group are disposed in order from an object side toward an image plane side.
Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein conditional expression 1.50<(v1−v2)/(v3−v2)<2.50 is satisfied, where v1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, v2 is an Abbe number of the second lens, and v3 is an Abbe number of the third lens. Kim et al. discloses (v1−v2)/(v3−v2) = (55.7-23.5)/(55.7-23.5) = 1 (table 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.50<(v1−v2)/(v3−v2)<2.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens is formed of a glass material, wherein the first lens has positive refractive power, and wherein the second lens has negative refractive power (see at least paragraphs 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the third lens has positive refractive power, and wherein both an object-side surface and an image-side surface of the third lens are convex (see at least paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression −1.50<f2/fG1<−0.85 is satisfied, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group (f2/fG1 = -9.456/8.562 = -1.141; table 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression 0.38<CT1/ΣCTG1≤0.60 is satisfied, where CT1 is a central thickness of the first lens, and ΣCTG1 is a sum of central thicknesses of the lenses included in the first lens group
(CT1/ΣCTG1 = 1.758/(1.758+0.6866+0.8557) = 0.533; table 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein conditional expression 2.00<Fno≤2.60 is satisfied, where Fno is an f value of the optical imaging system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2.00<Fno≤2.60, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the fourth lens has negative refractive power and a convex object-side surface (see at least paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the fifth lens has positive refractive power, and wherein the sixth lens has negative refractive power (see at least paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein conditional expression 0.30≤v5/v6<1.20 is satisfied, where v5 is an Abbe number of the fifth lens, and v6 is an Abbe number of the sixth lens. Kim et al. discloses v5/v6 = 37.4/23.5 = 1.59 (table 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.30≤v5/v6<1.20, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wwherein conditional expression 0.35<EPD/TTL ≤0.40 is satisfied, where EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging system, and TTL is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to the image plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.35<EPD/TTL ≤0.40, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses an optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens group including a plurality of lenses and disposed fixedly on an optical axis (410-430); and
a second lens group including a plurality of lenses and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction between the first lens group and an image plane (440-460; see at least paragraph 0066),
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group are disposed in order from an object side toward an image plane side.
Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein conditional expression 0.35<EPD/TTL ≤0.40 is satisfied, where EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging system, and TTL is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to the image plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.35<EPD/TTL ≤0.40, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens group has positive refractive power, and wherein the second lens group has negative refractive power (see at least paragraphs 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the first lens group includes a lens formed of a glass material (see at least paragraphs 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression 0.95≤TTL/f<1.10 is satisfied, where TTL is a distance on the optical axis from an object-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the object side to the image plane, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (0.8-1.2; see at least paragraph 0076).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression 0.30<BFL/f <0.50 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance on the optical axis from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the image side to the image plane, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (0.23-0.46; see at least paragraph 0078).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. discloses wherein the first lens group includes a first lens having positive refractive power, a second lens having negative refractive power, and a third lens having positive refractive power, and wherein the second lens group includes a fourth lens having negative refractive power, a fifth lens having positive refractive power, and a sixth lens having negative refractive power (see at least paragraphs 0070 and 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses an optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens group including a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens (410-430); and
a second lens group including a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction (440-460; see at least paragraph 0066),
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group are disposed in order from an object side toward an image plane side.
Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression 0.30<BFL/f <0.50 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance on the optical axis from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the image side to the image plane, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (0.23-0.46; see at least paragraph 0078).
Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein conditional expression 2.00<Fno≤2.60 is satisfied, where Fno is an f value of the optical imaging system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 2.00<Fno≤2.60, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein conditional expression −1.50<f2/fG1<−0.85 is satisfied, where f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group (f2/fG1 = -9.456/8.562 = -1.141; table 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lauren Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights