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 .
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1, a2) as being anticipated by Sudoh US 20140293457 A1.
Re claim 13, Sudoh teaches an optical system comprising:a first lens group having a plurality of lenses aligned along an optical axis on an object side (see L11 and L12); a second lens group having a plurality of lenses aligned along the optical axis on a sensor side of the first lens group (see L21, L22, L23, L24, and L25); and an aperture stop disposed around one lens of the first lens group (see alpha numeral S), wherein a number of lenses of the second lens group is more than twice a number of lenses of the first lens group (see above citation 5 versus 2),
wherein the lenses of the first lens group have a meniscus shape convex toward the object side on the optical axis (see L12), wherein a n-th lens closest to an image sensor in the second lens group and a n-1-th lens on the object side of the n-th lens have a meniscus shape convex toward the sensor side on the optical axis (see L21, L22, L23, L24, and L25), wherein a sensor-side surface of a lens closest to the second lens group among the lenses of the first lens group has a concave shape on the optical axis (see L12), wherein an object-side surface of a lens closest to the first lens group among the lenses of the second lens group has a concave shape on the optical axis (see L21), wherein effective diameters of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of first to third lenses gradually decrease from the object side toward the sensor side (see L11, L12, and L21), and wherein effective diameters of the lenses in the second lens group gradually increase from an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the lens closest to the first lens group to an effective diameter of a sensor-side surface of a last lens closest to the image sensor (see L21, L22, L23, L24, and L25).
Re claim 14, Sudoh teaches wherein effective diameters of the lenses of the first lens group gradually increase from an effective diameter of the sensor-side surface of the lens closest to the second lens group to an effective diameter of the object-side surface of the first lens (see L11, L12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claims 15-18 and 20-21 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 singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to independent claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical lens system with 11 lenses having the particular structural and numerical limitations claimed; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 15, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system including wherein a distance from the image sensor to a center of the sensor-side surface of the last lens is equal to a distance from a maximum Sag value of the sensor-side surface of the last lens to the image sensor.; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 16, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system meeting the explicitly claimed numerical limitation; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 17, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system meeting the explicitly claimed numerical limitation; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 18, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system meeting the explicitly claimed numerical limitations; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 20, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system meeting the explicitly claimed numerical limitation and lens number limitations; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
In regard to dependent claim 21, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical system meeting the explicitly claimed numerical limitations; recited together in combination with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 103917908 A WO 2015170745 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R GREECE whose telephone number is (571)272-3711. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights