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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2025 was filed 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 § 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.
Claims 6 and 16 are 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.
Specifically, applicant discloses the relational expression: 4<CT5/ΣCT<0.2<18, which is unclear in its conditions, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. For purpose of examination, said limitation was not considered on the merits.
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 (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 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) 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN 114815152 A - Translation).
In regard to claim 1, Liu et al discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, “L1-L6”), 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 of the first lens being convex near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S1=2.699mm” & “f1=3.747mm,” Figure 1a, “L1”); a second lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the second lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S3=331.741mm,” “S4=3.388mm,” & “f2= -5.137mm,” Figure 1a, “L2”); a third lens having positive 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 convex near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S5=495.757mm,” “S6= -6.096mm,” & “f3=9.737mm,” Figure 1a, “L3”); a fourth lens having negative refractive power, and an object side surface of the fourth lens being concave near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S7= -17.287mm,” & “f4= -7.839mm,” Figure 1a, “L4”); a fifth lens having positive refractive power (page 13, TABLE 1a, “f5=13.006mm,” Figure 1a, “L5”); and a sixth lens having refractive power (Figure 1a, “L6”); wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens constitute a fixed lens group (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, re: “L1-L3” is a fixed lens group “G1”), the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens constitute a movable lens group (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, re: “L4-L6” is a movable lens group “G2”), the fixed lens group is fixed relative to an imaging surface of the optical system, and the movable lens group is movable between the fixed lens group and the imaging surface along the optical axis (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples”); the optical system satisfies following relational expression: 1.8<FNO<2.2 → 1.9 (page 13, TABLE 1a), but does not specifically disclose wherein 1.05<TTL/fmax<1.2.
However, Liu et al teaches wherein → 8.59mm/8.48mm = 1.013, which is slightly outside the 1.05 limit of the relational expression. It has been held, however, that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical system of Liu et al to satisfy the claimed relational expression since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al discloses said optical system, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.4<f123/fmax<1 → 5.09/8.48 = 0.6 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); -3.5<f456/fmax<-0.4 → -6/8.48 = -0.71 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); and
-5<f456/f123<-1 → -6/5.09 = -1.18 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b), wherein, f123 is a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens, and f456 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al discloses said optical system, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.5<f1/fmax<1.5; -0.9<f2/fmax<-0.4 → -5.137/8.48 = -0.61 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.3<f3/fmax<0.9; -0.9<f4/fmax<-0.4; 0.4<f5/fmax → 13.006/8.48 = 1.53 (page 13, TABLE 1a); and |f6|/(|f1|+|f2|)<3 →
|-9.144|/(|3.747|+|-5.137|) = 1.03 (page 13, TABLE 1a), wherein, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, f3 is a focal length of the third lens, f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens, f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens, and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.4<R1/fmax<1.2; 0.4<R3/fmax<1.1; 0.15<R4/fmax<0.6 → 3.388/8.48 = 0.4 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.4<R5/fmax<1; -0.85<R6/fmax<-0.3 → -6.906/8.48 = -0.72 (page 13, TABLE 1a); -3<R7/fmax<-0.15 →
-17.287/8.48 = -2.04 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.05<SAG61/CT6<1.2; and 0.3<R7/R6<6 → -17.287/-6.096 = 2.84 (page 13, TABLE 1a), wherein, R1 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R5 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R6 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R7 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, SAG61 is a distance from an intersection of an object side surface of the sixth lens and the optical axis to a position where the object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, and CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis.
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 1mm<Δd<5 mm; 4<TTL/Δd<20; and 0.4<Δd/ImgH<1, wherein, Δd is a maximum travel of the movable lens group on the optical axis, and ImgH is half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view.
However, Liu et al teaches wherein 4<TTL/Δd<20 → 8.59/.42 = 20.45 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b), which is slightly outside the 20 limit of the relational expression. It has been held, however, that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical system of Liu et al to satisfy the claimed relational expression since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 1.5<(CT1+CT2+CT3)/(CT4+CT5+CT6)<3.5; 0.2<CT6/(CT4+CT5)<1.8 → 0.716/(0.321+0.945) = 0.57 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 1.3<TDmin/(CT1+CT2+CT3)<2.5 → 6.495/(1.958+0.332+0.533) = 2.3 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 3.7<TDmin/(CT4+CT5+CT6)<5.5; 4<(CT4+CT5+CT6)/AT56 → (0.321+0.945+0.716)/0.1 = 19.8 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 2<(CT1+CT2+CT3)/(CT4+CT5)<8 → (1.958+0.332+0.533)/(0.321+0.945) = 2.2 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.35<CT3/CT1<1.7; and 0.2<ET6/CT6<2, wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, CT2 is a thickness of the second lens at the optical axis, CT3 is a thickness of the third lens at the optical axis, CT4 is a thickness of the fourth 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, ΣCT is a sum of thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses at the optical axis, TDmin is a minimum distance from the object side surface of the first lens to an image side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT56 is an air distance between the fifth lens and the sixth lens on the optical axis, and ET6 is a distance from a position where an object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where an image side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.3<CT1/SD1<0.9 → 1.958/[f/2(FNo)] = 0.88 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); 0.9<SD1/ImgH<1.2; and 1.35<SD1/SD12<1.9, wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, SD1 is an effective aperture radius of the object side surface of the first lens, ImgH is half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view, and SD12 is an effective aperture radius of an image side surface of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al discloses a lens module comprising said optical system (Figure 1) and a photosensitive chip, the photosensitive chip being located on an image side of the optical system (page 11, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al discloses an electronic device comprising a housing and said lens module, the lens module being located in the housing (page 5, paragraph 5).
In regard to claim 11, Liu et al discloses an optical system consisting of six lenses having refractive power (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, “L1-L6”), 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 of the first lens being convex near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S1=2.699mm” & “f1=3.747mm,” Figure 1a, “L1”); a second lens having negative refractive power, an object side surface of the second lens being convex near the optical axis, and an image side surface of the second lens being concave near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S3=331.741mm,” “S4=3.388mm,” & “f2= -5.137mm,” Figure 1a, “L2”); a third lens having positive 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 convex near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S5=495.757mm,” “S6= -6.096mm,” & “f3=9.737mm,” Figure 1a, “L3”); a fourth lens having negative refractive power, and an object side surface of the fourth lens being concave near the optical axis (page 13, TABLE 1a, “S7= -17.287mm,” & “f4= -7.839mm,” Figure 1a, “L4”); a fifth lens having positive refractive power (page 13, TABLE 1a, “f5=13.006mm,” Figure 1a, “L5”); and a sixth lens having refractive power (Figure 1a, “L6”); wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens constitute a fixed lens group (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, re: “L1-L3” is a fixed lens group “G1”), the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens constitute a movable lens group (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples,” page 13, TABLE 1a, Figure 1a, re: “L4-L6” is a movable lens group “G2”), the fixed lens group is fixed relative to an imaging surface of the optical system, and the movable lens group is movable between the fixed lens group and the imaging surface along the optical axis (page 8, second paragraph under “Specific implementation examples”); the optical system satisfies following relational expression: 1.8<FNO<2.2 → 1.9 (page 13, TABLE 1a), but does not specifically disclose wherein 20º<FOV<30º.
However, Liu et al teaches wherein → FOV = 32.5º, which is slightly outside the 30º limit of the relational expression. It has been held, however, that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical system of Liu et al to satisfy the claimed relational expression since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al discloses said optical system, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.4<f123/fmax<1 → 5.09/8.48 = 0.6 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); -3.5<f456/fmax<-0.4 → -6/8.48 = -0.71 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); and
-5<f456/f123<-1 → -6/5.09 = -1.18 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b), wherein, f123 is a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens, and f456 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens, the fifth lens, and the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 13, Liu et al discloses said optical system, further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.5<f1/fmax<1.5; -0.9<f2/fmax<-0.4 → -5.137/8.48 = -0.61 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.3<f3/fmax<0.9; -0.9<f4/fmax<-0.4; 0.4<f5/fmax → 13.006/8.48 = 1.53 (page 13, TABLE 1a); and |f6|/(|f1|+|f2|)<3 →
|-9.144|/(|3.747|+|-5.137|) = 1.03 (page 13, TABLE 1a), wherein, f1 is a focal length of the first lens, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, f3 is a focal length of the third lens, f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens, f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens, and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.4<R1/fmax<1.2; 0.4<R3/fmax<1.1; 0.15<R4/fmax<0.6 → 3.388/8.48 = 0.4 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.4<R5/fmax<1; -0.85<R6/fmax<-0.3 → -6.906/8.48 = -0.72 (page 13, TABLE 1a); -3<R7/fmax<-0.15 →
-17.287/8.48 = -2.04 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.05<SAG61/CT6<1.2; and 0.3<R7/R6<6 → -17.287/-6.096 = 2.84 (page 13, TABLE 1a), wherein, R1 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens at the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the second lens at the optical axis, R5 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R6 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the third lens at the optical axis, R7 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the fourth lens at the optical axis, SAG61 is a distance from an intersection of an object side surface of the sixth lens and the optical axis to a position where the object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis, and CT6 is a thickness of the sixth lens at the optical axis.
Regarding claim 15, Liu et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 1mm<Δd<5 mm; 4<TTL/Δd<20; and 0.4<Δd/ImgH<1, wherein, Δd is a maximum travel of the movable lens group on the optical axis, and ImgH is half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view.
However, Liu et al teaches wherein 4<TTL/Δd<20 → 8.59/.42 = 20.45 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b), which is slightly outside the 20 limit of the relational expression. It has been held, however, that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the optical system of Liu et al to satisfy the claimed relational expression since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 16, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 1.5<(CT1+CT2+CT3)/(CT4+CT5+CT6)<3.5; 0.2<CT6/(CT4+CT5)<1.8 → 0.716/(0.321+0.945) = 0.57 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 1.3<TDmin/(CT1+CT2+CT3)<2.5 → 6.495/(1.958+0.332+0.533) = 2.3 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 3.7<TDmin/(CT4+CT5+CT6)<5.5; 4<(CT4+CT5+CT6)/AT56 → (0.321+0.945+0.716)/0.1 = 19.8 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 2<(CT1+CT2+CT3)/(CT4+CT5)<8 → (1.958+0.332+0.533)/(0.321+0.945) = 2.2 (page 13, TABLE 1a); 0.35<CT3/CT1<1.7; and 0.2<ET6/CT6<2, wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, CT2 is a thickness of the second lens at the optical axis, CT3 is a thickness of the third lens at the optical axis, CT4 is a thickness of the fourth 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, ΣCT is a sum of thicknesses of the first to sixth lenses at the optical axis, TDmin is a minimum distance from the object side surface of the first lens to an image side surface of the sixth lens along the optical axis, AT56 is an air distance between the fifth lens and the sixth lens on the optical axis, and ET6 is a distance from a position where an object side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture to a position where an image side surface of the sixth lens has a maximum effective aperture along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 17, Liu et al discloses said optical system further satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 0.3<CT1/SD1<0.9 → 1.958/[f/2(FNo)] = 0.88 (calculated from page 13, TABLE 1a & page 14, TABLE 1b); 0.9<SD1/ImgH<1.2; and 1.35<SD1/SD12<1.9, wherein, CT1 is a thickness of the first lens at the optical axis, SD1 is an effective aperture radius of the object side surface of the first lens, ImgH is half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view, and SD12 is an effective aperture radius of an image side surface of the sixth lens.
Regarding claim 19, Liu et al discloses a lens module comprising said optical system (Figure 1) and a photosensitive chip, the photosensitive chip being located on an image side of the optical system (page 11, last paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 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 fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 8: an optical system as claimed, specifically satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 4.5<TTL/ImgH<5; and 5.5°/mm<FOV/ImgH<8.5°/mm, wherein, ImgH half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view, and FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical system.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 18: an optical system as claimed, specifically satisfying at least one of following relational expressions: 4.5<TTL/ImgH<5; and 5.5°/mm<FOV/ImgH<8.5°/mm, wherein, ImgH half of an image height corresponding to the maximum field view, and FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights