DETAILED ACT
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 29 states ΣCT is a sum of optical axis distances between the first to ninth lenses. Claim 20 does not state what ΣCG is defined as. The specification states ΣCT is a sum of a center thicknesses of the first to ninth lenses, ΣCG is a sum of optical axis distances between the first to ninth lenses. The claims and specification have different definitions for ΣCT.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 24, 26, 28 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (US 2022/0082796).
In regard to claim 20, Fan teaches an optical system comprising: first to ninth lenses disposed along the optical axis in a direction from an object side to a sensor side (fig. 1 and paragraph 16, Fan teaches using the lenses in a camera of a mobile phone), wherein the first lens and the third lens have different refractive powers on the optical axis (table 1, nd1-3 are all different), wherein the first lens to the third lens have a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side on the optical axis (paragraphs 38, 41 and 45), wherein an object-side surface of each of the eighth lens and the ninth lens has a convex shape on the optical axis (paragraphs 65 and 69), wherein refractive index n6 of the sixth lenses at a d-line satisfy: 1.6 < n6 (table 1, nd6 is 1.661), and wherein the following Equations satisfies: 0.5<ΣCT/ΣCG<3, 0<CTMax /CGMax <2(ΣCT is a sum of optical axis distances between the first to ninth lenses, CTMax is a maximum of center thicknesses of each lens, and CGMax is a maximum of the optical axis distances) (Fan teaches in table 1 the thicknesses of the lenses and optical axis distance between lenses. ΣCT is the sum of the center thicknesses of the lenses. Fan describes these as d1, d3, d5, d7, d9, d11, d13, 15 and d17. The summation of these is 5.134. The optical axis distance between lenses is d2. d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d14 and d16. This summation is 2.684. 5.134/2.684=1.912 which is between 0 and 3. CT max is d15 which is .814. CGMax is d16 which is 1.177. .814/1.177 is .69 which is between 0 and 2).
In regard to claim 21, Fan teaches wherein the object-side surface of the eighth lens has a first critical point, wherein a sensor-side surface of the ninth lens has a second critical point, and wherein the second critical point is disposed further outside the optical axis than the first critical point with respect to the optical axis (see inflection point 2. Fan shows the first critical point (inflection point) being 3.005 and the second inflection point being 3.385).
In regard to claim 24, Fan teaches wherein each of the eighth lens and the ninth lens has a meniscus shape that is convex toward the object side on the optical axis (paragraphs 65 and 69).
In regard to claim 26, Fan teaches wherein a curvature radius L8R2 of a sensor-side surface of the eighth lens (R16 in table 1 is 4.764) and a curvature radius L9R1 of the object-side surface of the ninth lens (R17 in table 1 is 46.031) satisfy the following Equation: 0 < L8R2 / L9R1 < 5 (4.764/46.031=.103).
In regard to claim 28, Fan teaches wherein the focal lengths F3, F6, F7, and F9 of the third, sixth, seventh, and ninth lenses respectively satisfy: F3 < 0, F6 < 0, F7 < 0, and F9 < 0 (paragraph 32 and table 1. Using the lensmaker’s equation 1/f = (n - 1) (1/R₁ - 1/R₂) F3 is -40, F6 is -9.16, F7 is -51.47 and F9 is -06.29), wherein a composite focal length F13 of the first to third lenses satisfies: F13 > 0, and wherein a composite focal length F49 of the fourth lens and the ninth lens satisfies: F49 <0 (using the equation 1/Ftotal=1/F1+1/F2+1/F3, the first through third lenses have a total focal length of 12.3 and the 4-9 lenses have a total focal length of -23).
In regard to claim 38, Fan teaches a camera module comprising: an image sensor (paragraph 16 CCD); and a filter disposed between the image sensor and a last lens of an optical system (paragraph 31 optical filter GF), wherein the optical system includes an optical system according to wherein the optical system includes an optical system according to wherein the following Equations satisfy: 1<F/EPD<5 (paragraph 79) FOV < 120 degrees (paragraph 156) (F is a total focal length of the optical system, EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical system, and FOV is a field of view.).
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.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan.
In regard to claim 29, Fan teaches the third lens with a refractive index greater than 1.6 (Table 1 nd3 is 1.67) but does not teach nd5 being less than 1.6 (Fan teaches nd5 being 1.5438).
Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Fan with the fifth lens having a refractive index greater than 1.6. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Fan with the fifth lens having a refractive index greater than 1.6 because Fan shows the fifth lens with a refractive index close to being greater than 1.6. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, through routine experimentation and optimization, providing a marginally different refractive index for the fifth lens would provide predictable results. The slightly greater refractive index of 1.6 would work in a similar manner as does the lens of Fan and could be chosen based on factors such as cost, availability, size, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, 25 and 27 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.
Claims 30-37 and 39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 22, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the positions of the critical points in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claim 23, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the tangent angles in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claim 25, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the minimum distance between the eighth and ninth lenses in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claims 27, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the center and edge distances in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claims 30-37 and 39, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the relationship between the object-side surface, image side surface, surfaces and distances of the image sensor in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (US 10509200) teaches a lens system where the sum of the axial distances between lenses to the sum of the central thicknesses of the lenses is between 0 and 3.5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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 R HALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights