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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1-27-25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nakano (US20160306147).
Re claim 1, Nakano teaches for example in fig. 1-19, an optical projection system, by comprising, a first lens group (G1) and a second lens group (G2) sequentially arranged along an optical axis from a zoom-in side to a zoom-out side (abstract; fig. 1), wherein the first lens group has a negative focal power (abstract; para. 0101; fig. 1), and the second lens group (G2) has a positive focal power (abstract; para. 0101; fig. 1): wherein the first lens group comprises a negative lens group (L11, L12, L13) and a positive lens group (L14), the positive lens group is located closer to the zoom-out side than the negative lens group (abstract; para. 0101; fig. 1), the negative lens group comprises at least one lens with a negative focal power (L22, L24, L25), and the positive lens group comprises at least one lens with a positive focal power (L21, L23, L25); and the negative lens group and the positive lens group are provided with a first air gap greater than 9.5 mm therebetween (para. 0101).
Re claim 2, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, the first lens group and the second lens group are provided with a stop therebetween (stop) ; the first lens group and the stop are provided with a second air gap therebetween, and the second air gap is greater than 8 mm and less than 11 mm; and/or the second lens group and the stop are provided with a third air gap therebetween, and the third air gap is 1.5% to 4.5% of a total optical length of the optical projection system (para. 0101).
Re claim 4, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, from the zoom-in side to the zoom-out side, the negative lens group comprises a first lens (L11), a second lens (L12), and a third lens (L13), each having a negative focal power (para. 0101).
Re claim 5, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, from the zoom-in side to the zoom-out side, the positive lens group comprises a fourth lens with a positive focal power (para. 0101); or, the positive lens group comprises a fourth lens and a fifth lens, each having a positive focal power.
Re claim 7, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, from the zoom-in side to the zoom-out side, clear apertures of the lenses in the optical projection system gradually decreases (para. 0074, 0076).
Re claim 14, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, an electronic device, comprising an optical projection system (fig. 19).
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 of this title, 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 3, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US20160306147).
Re claim 3, supra claim 1.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying in the negative lens group, the lens with a negative focal power has a concave surface closer to the zoom-out side, and an edge tangent of the concave surface forms an angle ranging from 30° to 50° with the optical axis
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary an edge tangent to a lens aurface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Nakano (para. 0007).
Re claim 6, supra claim 4.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying a sum of the focal power of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens ranges from −0.16 to −0.14.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the sum of focal powers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Nakano (para. 0007).
Re claim 8, supra claim 1. Furthermore, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, the zoom-in side to the zoom-out side, the negative lens group comprises a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens (para. 0101).
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying the negative lens group comprises a first lens, a second lens, and a third lens, the first lens has a greater thickness than the second lens, and the second lens has a greater thickness than the third lens.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the thickness of each lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Nakano (para. 0007).
Re claim 9, supra claim 4. Furthermore, Nakano further teaches for example in fig. 1-19, each of the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens has a first surface and a second surface, the second surface is closer to the zoom-out side, and the second surfaces of the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are all concave surfaces (para. 0101).
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying an edge tangent of the second surface of the first lens forms an angle of 30° to 40° with the optical axis; an edge tangent of the second surface of the second lens forms an angle of 30° to 40° with the optical axis; and an edge tangent of the second surface of the third lens forms an angle of 40° to 50° with the optical axis.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary an edge tangent to a lens surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Nakano (para. 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in dependent claims 10 and 11.
Specifically regarding claim 10, Nakano teaches the state of the art of an optical projection system.
But, Nakano fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the first lens comprises an aspherical lens, and the first lens and the second lens are provided with a fourth air gap greater than 10 mm therebetween, as claimed.
Specifically regarding claim 11, Nakano teaches the state of the art of an optical projection system.
But, Nakano fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including the second lens group comprises a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, and a ninth lens, focal powers of the second lens group being in an order of positive, negative, positive, and positive, as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamioka (US20150346467).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6-3-26
Prosecution Insights