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 with traverse of species A (figure 1, claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the species are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because figures 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A are directed to multiple species, such as the different arrangements of the lenese. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2015/0054994).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, the six lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface and an image side surface of the first lens being convex near the optical axis (810; see at least paragraph 0156);
a second lens having refractive power, and an image side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis (820; see at least paragraph 0157);
a third lens having refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being concave near the optical axis (830; see at least paragraph 0158);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the fourth lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the fourth lens being convex near the optical axis (840; see at least paragraph 0159);
a fifth lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface of the fifth lens being convex near the optical lens (850; see at least paragraph 0160); and
a sixth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the sixth lens being concave near the optical axis (860; see at least paragraph 0161); wherein the optical system satisfies following relational expressions: 1.9<FNO<2.3 (2.2; see at least table 15); wherein, FNO is an aperture number of the optical system, and FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical system.
Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 85deg<FOV<100deg. Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses 85deg<FOV<100deg (72.4; see at least table 15) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 85deg<FOV<100deg, 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, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.5<R11/f<l.1, -1.1<R12/f<-0.5 ,5<|R21 /f (24.320/4.82 = 16.597; table 15) ,0.6<R22/f<l.3, 0.5<R3 1/f<1.2, 0.6<R32/f< 1.2, -1<R41/f<-0.3,-2.l<R42/f<-0.4, 0.2<R51/f<0.8, 2.5<PR52|/f, 0.2<R61/f<0.7, 0.1<R62/f<0.35,l<|R32/R41|<2, and 0.3<1(R61+R62)/f6|<0.8; wherein, R11 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R12 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R21 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R22 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R31 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R32 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R41 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, R42 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, R51 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fifth lens at the optical axis, R52 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the fifth lens at the optical axis, R61 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the sixth lens at the optical axis, R62 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the sixth lens at the optical axis, f is an effective focal length of the optical system, and f6 is an effective focal length of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.6<fl/f<0.9 (3/4.82 = 0.622; table 15), -1.6<f2/f<-1, 7<|f3|/f,-7<f4/f<-1, 0.5<f5/f<1 2, and -1.6<f6/f<-1; wherein, f1 is an effective focal length of the first lens, f2 is an effective focal length of the second lens, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f4 is an effective focal length of the fourth lens, f5 is an effective focal length of the fifth lens, f6 is an effective focal length of the sixth lens, and f is an effective focal length of the optical system.
Regarding claim 4, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system. Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system (2.2 * TAN(36.2) = 1.61; see at least table 15). 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<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4, 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 5, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 3.8<f/SD11<4.5, 1.1<CT1/SD11<1.4; wherein, f is an effective focal length of the optical system, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, and SD11 is a maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the first lens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 3.8<f/SD11<4.5, 1.1<CT1/SD11<1.4, 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 6, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.6<ETI/CTI<0.9, 1<CT5/ET5<1.8, 0.8<ET6/CT6<1.3, l<CT5/CT6<1.8 (1.307 / 0.946 = 1.382; table 15),3<TD/CT 1<4, 0.5<AT56/AT23<l.8, 1<AT34/AT23<1.6, and 4<T56max/T56min<ll; wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, CT5 is a thickness of the fifth lens at the optical axis, CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis, ET1 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where the image side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, ET5 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the fifth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where an image side surface of the fifth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, ET6 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where the image side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, TD is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to the image side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT56 is a distance from the image side surface of the fifth lens to the object side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT23 is a distance from the image side surface of the second lens to the object side surface of the third lens along the optical axis, AT34 is a distance from the image side surface of the third lens to the object side surface of the fourth lens along the optical axis, T56max is a maximum distance parallel to the optical axis between the fifth lens and the sixth lens, and T56min is a minimum distance parallel to the optical axis between the fifth lens and the sixth lens
Regarding claim 7, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 0.2<(SAG 11-SAG21)/TTL<0.3; wherein, TTL is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical system along the optical axis, SAG11 is a distance from an intersection point of the object side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to a position where the image side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, and SAG21 is a distance from an intersection point of an object side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to a position where the image side surface of the second lens has a maximum effective aperture the along the optical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.2<(SAG 11-SAG21)/TTL<0.3, 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 8, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 4<L42/(W4+V4)<5, 4<L62/(W6+V6)<6; wherein, L42 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the image side surface of the fourth lens, W4 is half of a maximum thickness of the fourth lens, V4 is half of a minimum thickness of the fourth lens, L62 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the image side surface of the sixth lens, W6 is half of a maximum thickness of the sixth lens, and V6 is half of a minimum thickness of the sixth lens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 4<L42/(W4+V4)<5, 4<L62/(W6+V6)<6, 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 9, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4; wherein, TTL is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical system along the optical axis, and ImgH is half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field of view of the optical 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 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4, 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 4, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system. Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system (2.2 * TAN(36.2) = 1.61; see at least table 15) 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<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4, 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, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses a camera module comprising the optical system of claim 1 and a photosensitive chip, the photosensitive chip being located on an image side of the optical system (see at least paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses an electronic device comprising a housing and a camera module of claim 10, the camera module being located in the housing (see at least paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 12, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, the six lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface and an image side surface of the first lens being convex near the optical axis (810; see at least paragraph 0156);
a second lens having refractive power, and an image side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis (820; see at least paragraph 0157);
a third lens having refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being concave near the optical axis (830; see at least paragraph 0158);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the fourth lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the fourth lens being convex near the optical axis (840; see at least paragraph 0159);
a fifth lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface of the fifth lens being convex near the optical lens (850; see at least paragraph 0160); and
a sixth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the sixth lens being concave near the optical axis (860; see at least paragraph 0161); wherein the optical system satisfies following relational expressions: 1.9<FNO<2.3 (2.2; see at least table 15); wherein, FNO is an aperture number of the optical system.
Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4, 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 13, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.5<R11/f<l.1, -1.1<R12/f<-0.5 ,5<|R21 /f (24.320/4.82 = 16.597; table 15) ,0.6<R22/f<l.3, 0.5<R3 1/f<1.2, 0.6<R32/f< 1.2, -1<R41/f<-0.3,-2.l<R42/f<-0.4, 0.2<R51/f<0.8, 2.5<PR52|/f, 0.2<R61/f<0.7, 0.1<R62/f<0.35,l<|R32/R41|<2, and 0.3<1(R61+R62)/f6|<0.8; wherein, R11 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R12 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R21 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R22 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R31 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R32 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R41 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, R42 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, R51 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fifth lens at the optical axis, R52 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the fifth lens at the optical axis, R61 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the sixth lens at the optical axis, R62 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the sixth lens at the optical axis, f is an effective focal length of the optical system, and f6 is an effective focal length of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 14, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.6<fl/f<0.9 (3/4.82 = 0.622; table 15), -1.6<f2/f<-1, 7<|f3|/f,-7<f4/f<-1, 0.5<f5/f<1 2, and -1.6<f6/f<-1; wherein, f1 is an effective focal length of the first lens, f2 is an effective focal length of the second lens, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f4 is an effective focal length of the fourth lens, f5 is an effective focal length of the fifth lens, f6 is an effective focal length of the sixth lens, and f is an effective focal length of the optical system.
Regarding claim 15, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system. Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses 2<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4; wherein, HFOV is half of the maximum field of view of the optical system (2.2 * TAN(36.2) = 1.61; see at least table 15). 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<FNO*tan(HFOV)<2.4, 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 16, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 3.8<f/SD11<4.5, 1.1<CT1/SD11<1.4; wherein, f is an effective focal length of the optical system, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, and SD11 is a maximum effective aperture of the object side surface of the first lens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 3.8<f/SD11<4.5, 1.1<CT1/SD11<1.4, 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 17, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses the optical system of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.6<ETI/CTI<0.9, 1<CT5/ET5<1.8, 0.8<ET6/CT6<1.3, l<CT5/CT6<1.8 (1.307 / 0.946 = 1.382; table 15),3<TD/CT 1<4, 0.5<AT56/AT23<l.8, 1<AT34/AT23<1.6, and 4<T56max/T56min<ll; wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, CT5 is a thickness of the fifth lens at the optical axis, CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis, ET1 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where the image side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, ET5 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the fifth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where an image side surface of the fifth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, ET6 is a distance from a position where the object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where the image side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, TD is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to the image side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT56 is a distance from the image side surface of the fifth lens to the object side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT23 is a distance from the image side surface of the second lens to the object side surface of the third lens along the optical axis, AT34 is a distance from the image side surface of the third lens to the object side surface of the fourth lens along the optical axis, T56max is a maximum distance parallel to the optical axis between the fifth lens and the sixth lens, and T56min is a minimum distance parallel to the optical axis between the fifth lens and the sixth lens
Regarding claim 18, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 0.2<(SAG 11-SAG21)/TTL<0.3; wherein, TTL is a distance from the object side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical system along the optical axis, SAG11 is a distance from an intersection point of the object side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to a position where the image side surface of the first lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, and SAG21 is a distance from an intersection point of an object side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to a position where the image side surface of the second lens has a maximum effective aperture the along the optical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.2<(SAG 11-SAG21)/TTL<0.3, 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 19, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 4<L42/(W4+V4)<5, 4<L62/(W6+V6)<6; wherein, L42 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the image side surface of the fourth lens, W4 is half of a maximum thickness of the fourth lens, V4 is half of a minimum thickness of the fourth lens, L62 is half of a maximum effective aperture of the image side surface of the sixth lens, W6 is half of a maximum thickness of the sixth lens, and V6 is half of a minimum thickness of the sixth lens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 4<L42/(W4+V4)<5, 4<L62/(W6+V6)<6, 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 20, Tsai et al. (figure 15) discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, the six lenses sequentially comprising:
a first lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface and an image side surface of the first lens being convex near the optical axis (810; see at least paragraph 0156);
a second lens having refractive power, and an image side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis (820; see at least paragraph 0157);
a third lens having refractive power, an object side surface of the third lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the third lens being concave near the optical axis (830; see at least paragraph 0158);
a fourth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the fourth lens being concave near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the fourth lens being convex near the optical axis (840; see at least paragraph 0159);
a fifth lens having positive refractive power, and an object side surface of the fifth lens being convex near the optical lens (850; see at least paragraph 0160); and
a sixth lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the sixth lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the sixth lens being concave near the optical axis (860; see at least paragraph 0161).
Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 85deg<FOV<100deg and 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 85deg<FOV<100deg and 1.1<TTL/ImgH<1.4, 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.
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