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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 35-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that applicant asserts that Group I and II have a same or corresponding technical feature. This is not found persuasive because Group I is drawn to an optical system comprising first to eighth lenses whiles Group II includes two groups on an object side and sensor side of the system and are not deemed to share the same or corresponding technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities. In lines 1-2 of claim 34, “the following equation satisfies” should be replaced with the “the following equation is satisfied:” or something similar in order to correct a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 32 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 32, the limitation, “wherein the fourth lens has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side on the optical axis” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, paragraph [0092] of the originally filed specification identifies the fourth lens have an object side surface s7 with a concave shape and a sensor side surface s8 with a convex shape. Thus, the fourth lens would have a meniscus shape that is convex toward the sensor side or concave toward the object side. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the fourth lens has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the sensor side or concave toward the object side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2021/0157103 A1).
In regard to claim 25, Son et al. discloses an optical system 100 (denoted “imaging lens system”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 7) comprising (see e.g. Figure 7):
first to eighth lenses 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0056]) disposed along an optical axis in a direction from an object side to a sensor side (i.e. from left to right in Figure 1),
wherein the first to eighth lenses 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 comprise a first lens group 410, 420, 430 including the first to third lenses 410, 420, 430 and a second lens group 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 including the fourth to eighth lenses 440, 450, 460, 470, 480, the first lens group 410, 420, 430 having a positive refractive power (where the focal length of the first lens group ~ 5.66, as calculated based on values in Table 7) and the second lens group 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 having a negative refractive power (where the focal length of the second group ~ 42.69, as calculated based on values in Table 7),
wherein the first lens 410 has a positive (+) refractive power on the optical axis and has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0057]), wherein the eighth lens 480 has negative (-) refractive power on the optical axis and has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0057]),
wherein an object-side surface of the seventh lens 470 has a critical point (see e.g. Figure 7 for inflection/critical point),
wherein a sensor-side surface of the eighth lens 480 has a critical point (see e.g. Figure 7 for inflection/critical point),
wherein an effective diameter of a sensor-side surface of the third lens 430 is CA_L3S2 (see e.g. Table 7 for an effective diameter of 2*1.4),
wherein an effective diameter of an object-side surface of the fourth lens 440 is CA_L4S1 (see e.g. Table 7 for an effective diameter of 2*1.440),
wherein a maximum thickness among center thicknesses of the first to eighth lenses 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 is CTMax (see e.g. Table 7 for a maximum thickness of 0.615),
wherein a maximum distance among distances between the first to eighth lenses 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480 is CGMax (see e.g. Table 7 for a maximum distance of 0.611),
wherein the following Equations satisfy:
Equation: 0.5< CA_L3S2/ CA_L4S1 < 1.5 (see e.g. Table 7 and note that CA_L3S2/ CA_L4S1 ~0.97, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
Son et al. fails to explicitly disclose
Equation: 0 < CTMax / CGMax < 1, and
wherein a sum ΣCT of center thicknesses of the lenses of the first and second lens groups and sum ΣCG of distances between two adjacent lenses are satisfy the following equation: 0 < ΣCT/ ΣCG < 1.
However, Son et al. does disclose CTMax / CGMax ~ 1.01 (based on values set forth in Table 7), which is close to applicant’s claimed range, and ΣCT/ ΣCG ~1.7, which is close to applicant’s claimed range. 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Son et al. with Equation: 0 < CTMax / CGMax < 1, and wherein a sum ΣCT of center thicknesses of the lenses of the first and second lens groups and sum ΣCG of distances between two adjacent lenses are satisfy the following equation: 0 < ΣCT/ ΣCG < 1.
Selecting the spacing and thicknesses of the lenses within the device to minimize the size would have predictable results based on the materials and shape of the lenses.
In regard to claim 26, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, and
wherein each of a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens 470 (see e.g. Figure 7 for inflection/critical point) and an object-side surface of the eighth lens 480 has a critical point (see e.g. Figure 7 for inflection/critical point), and
wherein the critical point of the object-side surface of the eighth lens 480 is located closer to the optical axis than the critical points of the sensor-side surface and the object-side surface of the seventh lens 470 (see e.g. Figure 7 for inflection/critical points and note at least one of the inflection points of the object side of the eighth lens is closer to the optical axis than those of those of the seventh lens).
In regard to claim 27, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, and
wherein an optical axis distance from a center of an object-side surface of the first lens to a surface of an image sensor is TTL (see e.g. Table 11, for a TTL in the fourth example of 6.9), wherein 1/2 of a maximum diagonal length of the image sensor is Imgh (see e.g. Table 11 for Imght=Imgh = 4.850 in the fourth example), wherein a field of view of the optical system is FOV (see e.g. Table 11 for a FOV of 80.291 in the fourth example), and wherein the following Equations satisfy:
Equation: 5 < (TTL / Imgh) * n < 15 (see e.g. Table 11 for values, noting n=8, ((TTL / Imgh) * n) ~ 11.38 which falls within applicant’s claimed range),
Equation: (TTL * n) < FOV (see e.g. Table 11 for values, noting n=8, thus TTL*n ~ 55.2, which is less than FOV = 90.291, which falls within applicant’s claimed range) , where n may be a total number of lenses.
In regard to claim 28, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25, but fails to disclose
wherein when an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system is EPD and a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis is L and wherein the following Equation satisfies: 1 < EPD / L1R1<2.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein when an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system is EPD and a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis is L and wherein the following Equation satisfies: 1 < EPD / L1R1<2, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Son et al. with wherein when an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system is EPD and a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis is L and wherein the following Equation satisfies: 1 < EPD / L1R1<2.
Selecting the ratio of the entrance pupil based on the curvature of the first lens, would allow a maximum amount of light to be input to the system and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 29, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, and
wherein the following equations satisfy:
Equation: Imgh < TTL (see e.g. Table 11, for Imgh = 4.850 and TTL = 6.9)
an optical axis distance from a center of an object-side surface of the first lens to a surface of an image sensor is TTL, and 1/2 of a maximum diagonal length of the image sensor is Imgh.
Son et al. fails to disclose
Equation: 50 < TTL*Imgh < 90 .
However, Son et al. does disclose TTL*Imgh ~33 (see e.g. Table 11 for values of TTL and Imgh), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Son et al. with Equation: 50 < TTL*Imgh < 90 .
Selecting the image height and total track length to be optimized allows the magnification to be increased without significantly increasing the track length of the system and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 30, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25, but fails to disclose
wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum first angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein the first angle satisfies in a range of 20 degrees to 40 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on an object-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum second angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the second angle is less than 10 degrees.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum first angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein the first angle satisfies in a range of 20 degrees to 40 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on an object-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum second angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the second angle is less than 10 degrees, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Son et al. with wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the sensor-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum first angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein the first angle satisfies in a range of 20 degrees to 40 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on an object-side surface of the eighth lens has a maximum second angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the second angle is less than 10 degrees.
Selecting an optimized shape of the lens allows for a desired magnification of the system and would have a predictable result.
In regard to claim 31, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 30 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum third angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein a difference between the first angle and the third angle is less than 10 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the object-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum fourth angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the fourth angle is 10 degrees or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum third angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein a difference between the first angle and the third angle is less than 10 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the object-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum fourth angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the fourth angle is 10 degrees or less, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Son et al. with wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on a sensor-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum third angle with respect to the optical axis, wherein a difference between the first angle and the third angle is less than 10 degrees, wherein a normal line perpendicular to a tangent line passing through an arbitrary point on the object-side surface of the seventh lens has a maximum fourth angle with respect to the optical axis, and wherein a difference between the first angle and the fourth angle is 10 degrees or less.
Selecting an optimized shape of the lens allows for a desired magnification of the system and would have a predictable result.
In regard to claim 32, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, and
wherein the second, third, and seventh lenses 420, 430, 470 may have a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side on the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 7 for convex shape), and
wherein the fourth lens 440 has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side on the optical axis (see e.g. Figure 7 and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above for claim interpretation).
In regard to claim 33, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25 above, and
wherein a maximum of effective diameters of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of each of the first to eighth lenses is CA Max, wherein 1/2 of a maximum diagonal length of an image sensor is Imgh, wherein the following Equation satisfies: 0.1 < CAMax / (2*Imgh) < 1 (see e.g. Table 7 and 11 for CAMax = 2*4.026 and 2*Imgh =9.7, giving (CAMax / (2*Imgh)) ~0.83, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 34, Son et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 25, and
wherein the following Equation satisfies: (v3*n3) < (vl*nl) (see e.g. Table 7 and note v3*n3 ~ 19.236*1.678 ~ 32.38 and vl*nl ~ 56.093*1.546 ~80.54, which satisfies applicant’s claimed inequality)
vl is an Abbe number of the first lens, v3 is an Abbe number of the third lens, nl is a refractive index of the first lens, and n3 is a refractive index of the third lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights