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.
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 3-4, 9 and 11 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.
Regarding Claim 3. Claim 3 recites “y(θmax…, y(θ) is a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between the half angle of view θ and an image height y, and θ max is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system,” this term is not properly defined in the specification, and there is no definite way to define y(θ). For examination purposes y(θ) = f × tan (θ), which is the image height of a lens system.
Claim 4 is rejected for similar language
Regarding Claim 4. Claim 4 recites “: 0.65<y(θmax/2)/y(θmax)<0.85 ,” this term is not properly defined in the specification, and there is no definite way to define y(θ). For examination purposes y(θ) = f × sin (θ) or y(θ) = f × tan (θ), which is the image height of a lens system.
Regarding Claim 9. Claim 9 recites “has no extreme value,” this term is not properly defined in the specification, and is not considered a term of art. In general mathematics, an extreme value refers to either the maximum or minimum value of a data set. The claim is directed to a surface of a lens, which is finite and would have at least one maximum and at least one minimum. For examination purposes any surface will meet this limitation.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected for similar language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190219798 A1 Shih
Regarding Claim 1. Shih discloses an optical system comprising, in order from an object side to an image side: a front group (See at least Fig. 1 lens L11 and lens L12); and a rear group (See at least Fig. 1 lens L13 thru lens L16), wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first lens having negative refractive power (See Fig. 1 lens L11, para 38 and Table 1) and a second lens having an aspheric surface (See Fig. 1 lens L12, para 39 and Table 1), wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a third lens having positive refractive power (See Fig. 1 lens L13, para 40 and Table 1), a fourth lens having positive refractive power (See Fig. 1 lens L14, para 41 and Table 1), a fifth lens having negative refractive power (See Fig. 1 lens L15, para 42 and Table 1), and a sixth lens having an aspheric surface (See Fig. 1 lens L16, para 44 and Table 1), and wherein on an optical axis, an object-side surface of the first lens is convex (See Fig. 1 and Table 1), an object-side surface of the second lens is convex (See Fig. 1 and Table 1), and an object-side surface of the sixth lens is concave (See Fig. 1 and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 2. Shih further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.00<f3/f<1.8 where f is a focal length of the optical system, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens. (as shown in table 1).
Regarding Claim 3. Shih further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.<f×sin(θmax)/y(θmax)≤1.9 where θ [deg.] is a half angle of view of the optical system, y(θ) is a projection characteristic expressing a relationship between the half angle of view θ and an image height y, and θ max is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system (See Table 1).
Regarding Claim 7. Shih further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.2<f3/f4<1.7 where f4 a focal length of the fourth lens (See Table 1).
Regarding Claim 8. Shih further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 30<ν3<100 where ν3 is an Abbe number based on d-line of the third lens (See Table 1).
Regarding Claim 9. Shih further discloses the object-side surface of the sixth lens is aspheric and has no extreme value in a radial direction in a section having the optical axis (See Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10. Shih further discloses a tilt of the object-side surface of the sixth lens relative to a plane perpendicular to the optical axis increases monotonically in a radial direction in a section having the optical axis (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11. Shih further discloses an image-side surface of the sixth lens is aspheric and has no extreme value in a radial direction in a section having the optical axis (See Fig. 1 and para 44).
Regarding Claim 12. Shih further discloses a tilt of an image-side surface of the sixth lens relative to a plane perpendicular to the optical axis increases monotonically in a radial direction in a section having the optical axis (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15. Shih further discloses the rear group includes an aperture stop (See Table 1 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16. Shih further discloses the front group has negative refractive power, and the rear group has positive refractive power (See Table 1).
Regarding Claim 17. Shih further discloses a fourth lens and a fifth lens are cemented together to form a cemented lens (See Fig. 1 para 43).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20190250382 A1 to Lee.
Regarding Claim 18. As stated above Shih discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Shih does not specifically disclose an image sensor configured to capture an object via the optical system.
However, Lee discloses an image sensor (Fig. 11 image sensor 110) configured to capture an object via the optical system (See para 158) for photographing at high performance implemented by applying a lens assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include an image sensor configured to capture an object via the optical system.
Regarding Claim 19. Lee further discloses a system comprises: the image pickup apparatus according to claim 18; and a display apparatus configured to display an image obtained based on an output of the image pickup apparatus (See Fig. 11 and Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 20. Lee further discloses a movable apparatus comprising: the image pickup apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the movable apparatus is configured to hold and move the image pickup apparatus (See Fig. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights