Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-7,15-16 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20190033557).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches (Fig. 5, Table 9, [225-]) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens having negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a second lens having positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a third lens having positive refractive power;
a fourth lens having negative refractive power;
a fifth lens having refractive power;
a sixth lens having refractive power and a concave image-side surface;
a seventh lens having refractive power; and
an eighth lens having refractive power,
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed on an optical axis from an object side toward an image side,
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and
wherein FOV>70° (90), where FOV is a field of view of the optical imaging system.
Regarding claim 3, Chang further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the optical imaging system has an F-number less than 1.9 (1.2).
Regarding claim 4, Chang further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fifth lens has positive refractive power (f5=20).
Regarding claim 5, Chang further teaches (Table 9) The optical imaging system of claim 4, wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Chang further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens has positive refractive power (f6=169).
Regarding claim 7, Chang further teaches (Table 9) The optical imaging system of claim 6, wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Chang further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first to eighth lenses has negative refractive power with a refractive index of 1.65 or greater (4th lens: 1.661).
Regarding claim 16, Chang further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or more (1.661).
Claim(s) 1-2,8-10,14 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20180348486, of record).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches (Fig. 11, Table 11) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens having negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a second lens having positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a third lens having positive refractive power;
a fourth lens having negative refractive power;
a fifth lens having refractive power;
a sixth lens having refractive power and a concave image-side surface;
a seventh lens having refractive power; and
an eighth lens having refractive power,
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed on an optical axis from an object side toward an image side,
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and
wherein FOV>70° (86), where FOV is a field of view of the optical imaging system.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein TTL/(2*IMG HT)<0.9 (1.57/2), where TTL is a distance on the optical axis from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image capturing surface, and IMG HT is half of a diagonal length of the image capturing surface.
Regarding claim 8, Chen further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the seventh lens has positive refractive power (f7=2.82).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further teaches (Table 11) The optical imaging system of claim 8, wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Chen further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power (f8=-2.57).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein, among the first to eighth lenses, an absolute value of a focal length of the eighth lens is the smallest (f8=-2.57).
Claim(s) 1,13,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUBOTA (JP 2012128045, as evidenced by the translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
276
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, KUBOTA teaches (Example 5, Fig. 9, Table 9) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens having negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a second lens having positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a third lens having positive refractive power;
a fourth lens having negative refractive power;
a fifth lens having refractive power;
a sixth lens having refractive power and a concave image-side surface;
a seventh lens having refractive power; and
an eighth lens having refractive power,
wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed on an optical axis from an object side toward an image side,
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and
wherein FOV>70° (76), where FOV is a field of view of the optical imaging system.
Regarding claim 13, KUBOTA further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of at least one of the first to eighth lenses is 1.67 or greater (e.g., 2nd lens: 2).
Regarding claim 17, KUBOTA further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein a refractive index of at least one of lenses having positive refractive power is 1.67 or more (e.g., 2nd lens: 2).
Regarding claim 18, KUBOTA further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the fifth lens has positive refractive power and a refractive index of 1.67 or more (1.88, bi-convex lens).
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 of this title, 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens is less than a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object-side surface of the sixth lens.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens is less than a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object-side surface of the sixth lens would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving production by allowing some manufacturing errors.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Chen by having a distance from an image-side surface of the third lens to an object-side surface of the fourth lens is less than a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to an object-side surface of the sixth lens for the purposes of improving production.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11 is/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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11 including “the eighth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof”, along with the other claimed limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (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 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights