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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/06/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the independent claim recites “the third lens is a positive or negative lens having an inflection point on at least one surface with a low thickness deviation ratio”. It is unclear to the Examiner what qualifies as a low value for the thickness deviation ratio. For examination purposes, any lens with a uniform thickness, or a thickness as nearly uniform as can be depicted in schematics, will be interpreted as satisfying this limitation. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukaya et al. US PGPub 2018/0059377 A1 (hereinafter, “Fukaya”) in view of Zhang et al. US PGPub 2021/0208371 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 11/06/2024, hereinafter, “Zhang”), Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007) (hereinafter, “Gross”) and Yu et al. US PGPub 2022/0019058 A1 (hereinafter, “Yu”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fukaya discloses an imaging lens (title, abstract, and see at least Fig. 9 depicting example 5, par. [0068]), comprising a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 9 and Table 5 both show example 5 has lenses 1 through 6 disposed from an object side), wherein
the first lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing the object side (Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 1 has focal length of 3.700, therefore has positive refractive power, and surface 2 is the object-side surface of lens 1 with a positive radius of curvature, indicating a convex surface),
the second lens is a lens having a concave surface facing an image plane side (Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 2 has image-side surface 5 with a positive radius of curvature, indicating a concave surface),
the third lens is a positive or negative lens having an inflection point on at least one surface with a low thickness deviation ratio (Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 3 has focal length of 21.504, therefore has positive refractive power, and an examination of the shape of lens 3 shows an inflection point, i.e., a point on an aspheric lens where the local curvature changes sign, such as from convex to concave or vice versa, on the image-side surface, and lens L3 in Fig. 9 appears to have a uniform thickness from central axis to a periphery, thus possessing a low thickness deviation ratio, as best understood by the Examiner),
the fourth lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing an image plane side and an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on a surface on the object side (Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 4 has focal length of 2.878, therefore has positive refractive power, and surface 9 is the image-side surface of lens 4 with a negative radius of curvature, indicating a convex surface, and an examination of the shape of lens 4 shows an inflection point, while an inspection of the aspheric surface data in Table 5 suggests an inflection point in the surface of lens L4),
the fifth lens is a negative lens having a concave surface on an image plane side and an inflection point on a peripheral portion (Fukaya Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 5 has focal length of -18.930, therefore has negative refractive power, and surface 11 is the image-side surface of lens 5 with a positive radius of curvature, indicating a concave surface, and an examination of the shape of lens 5 shows an inflection point at a peripheral portion, while an inspection of the aspheric surface data in Table 5 suggests an inflection point in the surface of lens L5), and Condition (1) is satisfied,
0.50 < |f/f12| < 0.65 ··· (1) and
when a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens is denoted by f12, and a focal length of an entire optical system is denoted by f (Fukaya Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 has a composite focal length for lens 1 and lens 2 of f12 = 6.610, and the effective focal length of example 5 is f = 4.27, thus f/f12 is 0.646, within the claimed range).
Fukaya does not disclose the first lens and the second lens are bonded to each other (as shown in Fig. 9, and Table 5, the first and second lenses L1 and L2 have an air gap between them) nor does Fukaya disclose Condition (2) is satisfied 0.30 < |f5/f12| < 0.50 ··· (2), where a focal length of the fifth lens is denoted by f5 (Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 5 has focal length f5 = -18.930, and the composite focal length f12 = 6.610, so |f5/f12| = 2.86, outside the claimed range).
In the same field of invention, Zhang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see title, abstract, and at least Fig. 1 thereof) comprising a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens disposed in order from an object side (Zhang Fig. 1, Example 1 is an optical imaging lens assembly with a first lens E1, a second lens E2, a third lens E3, a fourth lens E4, and a fifth lens E5, par. [0066]), wherein
the first lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing the object side (Zhang Fig. 1, Example 1 has first lens E1 that has positive refractive power with an object-side surface S1 that is convex, par. [0067], refer also to Table 1 where surface S1 has a positive radius of curvature, indicating a convex surface),
the second lens is a lens having a concave surface facing an image plane side (Zhang Fig. 1, Example 1 has second lens E2 with an image-side surface S3 that is concave, par. [0067], and Table 1, surface S3 is the image-side surface of the second lens E2 with a positive radius of curvature, indicating a concave surface), and the first lens and the second lens are bonded to each other (Zhang Fig. 1, Example 1, the first lens E1 and the second lens E2 are combined into a cemented lens, par. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zhang to the disclosure of Fukaya and cemented the first and second lenses because Zhang teaches that combining the first and second lenses as a cemented lens provides thinness, high image quality, and ease of processing (Zhang, par. [0017]).
Additionally, in the general field of optical system design, Gross teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup. Gross also teaches that cementing two lenses a very small distance apart and with nearly equal radii can be cemented without changing refractive power (page 379 of section 33.1.4, operation 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Gross to the disclosure of Fukaya and bent the object-side surface of second lens L2 to match the image-side radius of curvature of first lens L1, or, alternatively, to have bent the image-side surface of first lens L1 to match the object-side radius of curvature of second lens L2, because, as shown in Table 5, these surfaces have nearly equal radii and are a very small distance apart. Consequently, Fukaya example 5 will have a first lens and second lens that are bonded to each other, because Gross teaches such a modification is among the procedures a person of ordinary skill would employ to find a design with better performance (Gross, page 378 section 33.1.4) satisfying the limitation.
The prior art combination of Fukaya in view of Zhang and Gross does not disclose Condition (2) is satisfied 0.30 < |f5/f12| < 0.50 ··· (2), where a focal length of the fifth lens is denoted by f5 (Fukaya Fig. 9, Table 5, example 5 lens 5 has focal length f5 = -18.930, and the composite focal length f12 = 6.610, so |f5/f12| = 2.86, beyond the upper limit of the claimed range, and Zhang Table 1 lists focal length of fifth lens E5 as f5 = 18.27 and f12 is 3.75 as determined from values provided in Tables 1 and 17, and par. [0069], thus Zhang teaches a value |f5/f12| = 4.87, outside the claimed range).
In the same field of invention, Yu discloses an imaging lens (title, abstract, and see at least Fig. 1), comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 is camera optical lens 10 where a left side is an object side, and Embodiment 1 has first lens L1, second lens L2, third lens L3, fourth lens L4, and fifth lens L5, pars. [0040-41]), wherein
the first lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing the object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1, first lens L1 is positive, par. [0041], and Table 1 shows the object-side surface R1 is a positive curvature, indicating a convex surface, par. [0075]),
the second lens is a lens having a concave surface facing an image plane side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 second lens L2 has a concave image-side surface as shown, and Table 1 has the second lens with an image-side surface R4 with a positive curvature, indicating a concave surface, par. [0075]),
the third lens is a positive or negative lens having an inflection point on at least one surface with a low thickness deviation ratio (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 third lens L3 has negative refractive power, par. [0041], and from Table 3, third lens L3 has inflection points P3R1 and P3R2, par. [0123], and an inspection of third lens L3 as depicted in Fig. 1 demonstrates a uniform thickness of the third lens from the optical axis to the periphery, thus possessing a low thickness deviation ratio, as best understood by the Examiner),
the fourth lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing an image plane side and an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on a surface on the object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 fourth lens L4 has positive refractive power, par. [0041], and Table 1 has the fourth lens with an image-side surface R8 with a negative curvature, indicating a convex surface, par. [0075], Table 2 lists the aspherical surface data for the lenses of Embodiment 1, par. [0118], where surfaces R7 and R8 are the surfaces that define lens L4, and from Table 3, fourth lens L4 has an inflection point on the object side, P4R1, par. [0123], therefore Yu discloses the fourth lens has an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on the object side surface),
the fifth lens is a negative lens having a concave surface on an image plane side and an inflection point on a peripheral portion (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 fifth lens L5 has negative refractive power, par. [0041], and Table 1 has the fifth lens with an image-side surface R10 with a positive curvature, indicating a concave surface, par. [0075], Table 2 lists the aspherical surface data for the lenses of Embodiment 1, par. [0118], where surfaces R9 and R10 are the surfaces that define lens L5, and from Table 3, fifth lens L5 has inflection points P5R1 and P5R2, par. [0123], therefore Yu discloses the fifth lens has an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion), and Condition (2) is satisfied,
0.30 < |f5/f12| < 0.50 ··· (2),
when a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens is denoted by f12, and a focal length of the fifth lens is denoted by f5 (Fig. 1, Table 21 lists Embodiment 1 with combined focal length of L1 and L2 as f12 = 4.451, and the focal length of fifth lens L5 is f5 = -2.131, thus |-2.131/4.451| = 0.479, within the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Yu to the disclosure of Fukaya and modified the fifth lens according to the parameters taught by Yu in Embodiment 1, because Yu teaches a system with such a fifth lens improves the development of ultra-thinness and wide angle and is beneficial to correct off-axis aberration (Yu, par. [0047]). As a result, the prior art combination of Fukaya in view of Yu teaches a value for Condition 2 of 0.32, within the claimed range.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Fukaya in view of Zhang, Gross, and Yu (hereinafter, “modified Fukaya”) discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Fukaya further discloses wherein
Condition (3) is satisfied,
N1 < N5 ··· (3),
when a refractive index of a material of the first lens with respect to a d-line is denoted by N1 and a refractive index of a material of the fifth lens with respect to the d-line is denoted by N5 (Fukaya Example 5 Table 5 lists lens 1 with a d-line index of refraction of 1.548 and lens 5 has a d-line index of refraction nd of 1.614, satisfying the condition).
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Fukaya further discloses wherein Condition (4) is satisfied,
1.49 < N1 < 1.55 ··· (4),
when a refractive index of a material of the first lens with respect to a d-line is denoted by N1 (Fukaya, Table 5, first lens has an index of refraction nd of 1.5444, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein Condition (5) is satisfied,
1.63 < N5 < 1.67 ··· (5),
when a refractive index of a material of the fifth lens with respect to a d-line is denoted by N5 (Fukaya, Table 5 Example 5 lens 5 has index of refraction nd given as 1.614, outside the lower limit of the claimed range by approximately 1%).
However, Fukaya teaches an index of refraction of 1.635 for the second lens of example 5, refer to Table 5, a value that is within the claimed range. In this case, Fukaya discloses a lens material with an index of refraction within the claimed range but not for the fifth lens of the system, and Fukaya also discloses a fifth lens with an index of refraction that is within 1% of the claimed lower limit of not less than 1.63.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the material of the second lens for the material of the fifth lens, because Fukaya teaches these materials are suitable for lenses of the disclosed imaging system, thereby satisfying the limitation.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Fukaya to select a different lens material for the fifth lens of the disclosed lens system, because it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). Refer to MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Fukaya further discloses wherein Condition (7) is satisfied,
2.1 < OAL/EfD1 < 3.3 ··· (7),
when an optical overall length is denoted by OAL and an optical effective diameter of a lens on the foremost object side is denoted by EfD1 (from an inspection of Fukaya Fig. 9 depicting example 5, the disclosed embodiment has a value for the ratio OAL/EfD1 of 2.69, within the claimed range, where Examiner assumes the schematic is to scale and is proportionate in the dimensions depicted).
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Fukaya discloses wherein
Condition (9) is satisfied,
< |f12/f3| < 0.30 ··· (9),
when the combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens is denoted by f12, and a focal length of the third lens is denoted by f3 (Fukaya Table 5 Example 5 has f12 = 6.610 and f3 is 21.504, thus Fukaya teaches |f12/f3| = 0.307, outside upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 2%).
The Examiner contends that the prior art value of 0.307 for |f12/f3| is sufficiently close to the claimed range of no less than 0.01 and no greater than 0.30 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (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, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 0.307 and the endpoint of no greater than 0.30 is insubstantial, representing only a 2% difference, while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated |f12/f3| value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.30.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 0.307 for |f12/f3|, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of no less than 0.01 and no greater than 0.30 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.307 and the endpoint of 0.30 is insubstantial, a value of 0.307 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for |f12/f3|, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Fukaya discloses an imaging device, comprising: the imaging lens according to claim 1; and Fukaya further discloses a solid-state imaging element configured to receive an image formed by the imaging lens and generate an imaging signal (Fukaya teaches that when the imaging device is mounted in a compact and low-profile smartphone or a mobile phone, a game console, an information terminal such as a PC and a robot, and a home appliance or a car with a camera function, it is possible to contribute to a low profile and wide field of view, as well as high performance of the camera, par. [0122], thereby teaching the limitation of receiving an image formed by the disclosed lens system to generate an imaging signal).
In addition, Yu teaches the camera optical lens provided has good optical performance while satisfying design requirements of a large angle, a wide-angle and ultra-thinness, and is especially suitable for the mobile phone camera lens assembly and a camera lens composed of imaging elements such as CCD and CMOS for high pixels (par. [0017]), where CCD and CMOS are solid-state imaging elements commonly used to receive images formed by lens systems to generate an imaging signal.
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Fukaya discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
the imaging device according to claim 11 (refer to rejections of claims 1 and 11 above); and
a display unit configured to display an image corresponding to the imaging signal generated by the imaging device (Fukaya teaches that when the imaging device is mounted in a compact and low-profile smartphone or a mobile phone, a game console, an information terminal such as a PC and a robot, and a home appliance or a car with a camera function, it is possible to contribute to a low profile and wide field of view, as well as high performance of the camera, par. [0122], and Yu discloses camera optical lens 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50, that are suitable for use in smart phones, digital cameras, and computer monitors, par. [0001], therefore Examiner understands the lens systems disclosed are suitable for cameras that would include a display unit, or the equivalent, to function as intended, while Zhang teaches imaging module integrated in a mobile electronic device such as a mobile phone, par. [0123], thus the prior art teaches the inclusion of a display for the disclosed lens system or systems installed in an imaging unit, such as a camera, to display the image generated by the imaging device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein Condition (6) is satisfied,
0.60 < f/OAL < 0.70 ··· (6),
when the focal length of the entire optical system is denoted by f and a total length of an optical system is denoted by OAL (Fukaya Table 5 Example 5 has f = 4.27 and total track length TTL = 5.23, where TTL is equivalent to OAL, so Fukaya teaches a value for f/OAL of 0.8 for example 5, which is outside the upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 14%, but Fukaya at least teaches the condition 0.60 < f/OAL, and Yu Table 21, Embodiment 1 has a TTL = 4.370 and f is 3.266, therefore Yu teaches a value for f/OAL of 0.75, outside the upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 7%).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein Condition (8) is satisfied,
- 0.98 < EXP/IH < - 0.70 ··· (8),
when a position of an exit pupil is denoted by EXP and an image height is denoted by IH (Fukaya teaches an image height of 3.43, and Fukaya discloses the inclusion of an aperture stop ST, par. [0074], refer also to Fig. 9 showing stop ST on the object side of first lens L1, therefore system disclosed by Fukaya must have an exit pupil, but Examiner does not have time to calculate the position of the exit pupil for the optical systems disclosed, but the exit pupil for example 5 is likely in a position with a negative value, so unless the exit pupil position EXP is outside the range of -3.36 to -2.40, the prior art may disclose a value in range, but such a value cannot be determined for purposes of comparison).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein Condition (10) is satisfied,
0.30 < f4/f12 < 0.40 ··· (10),
when the combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens is denoted by f12 and a focal length of the fourth lens is denoted by f4 (Fukaya Table 5 Example 5 has fourth lens focal length f4 = 2.878 and composite focal length f12 = 6.610, thus Fukaya teaches f4/f12 is 0.435, outside the upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 8.8%, but Fukaya at least teaches the condition 0.30 < f4/f12, and Yu Table 21 lists Embodiment 1 fourth lens focal length f4 as 2.165, and composite focal length f12 as 4.451, so Yu teaches f4/f12 is 2.165/4.451 or 0.49, outside the upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 23%).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Fukaya discloses the imaging lens according to claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein Condition (11) is satisfied,
0.75 < |f4/f5| < 0.95 ··· (11),
when a focal length of the fourth lens is denoted by f4 and the focal length of the fifth lens is denoted by f5 (Fukaya Table 5 Example 5 fourth lens focal length f4 is 2.878 and fifth lens focal length f5 is -18.930 so Fukaya teaches a value for |f4/f5| of |2.878/-18.930| = 0.15 outside the claimed range, but at least teaches the condition |f4/f5| < 0.95, and Yu Table 21, Embodiment 1 fourth lens f4 is 2.165, fifth lens f5 is -2.131, so |f4/f5| is |2.165/-2.131| or 1.02, outside the upper limit of the claimed range by approximately 7%).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koreeda US PGPub 2016/0161718 A1 discloses an imaging lens (title, abstract, and see at least Fig. 1), comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 is arranged from a left side that is an object side, and Embodiment 1 has first lens L1P, second lens L2N, third lens L3P, fourth lens L4P, and fifth lens L5N, pars. [0081-82]), wherein the first lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing the object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1, first lens L1P is positive with a convex object-side surface, par. [0082], and Table 1 shows the object-side surface 1 is a positive curvature radius, indicating a convex surface), the second lens is a lens having a concave surface facing an image plane side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 second lens L2N has a concave image-side surface, par. [0082], and Table 1 has the second lens with an image-side surface 4 with a positive curvature, indicating a concave surface), the third lens is a positive or negative lens with a low thickness deviation ratio (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 third lens L3P has positive refractive power, par. [0082], and an inspection of third lens L3P as depicted in Fig. 1 demonstrates a uniform thickness of the third lens from the optical axis to the periphery, thus possessing a low thickness deviation ratio, as best understood by the Examiner), the fourth lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing an image plane side and an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on a surface on the object side (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 fourth lens L4P has positive refractive power, par. [0082], and Table 1 has the fourth lens with an image-side surface 8 with a negative curvature, indicating a convex surface, Table 2 lists the aspherical surface data for the lenses of Embodiment 1, par. [0081], where surfaces 7 and 8 are the surfaces that define lens L4P, and from Table 3, fourth lens L4P has an inflection point on the object side, therefore Koreeda discloses the fourth lens has an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on the object side surface), the fifth lens is a negative lens having a concave surface on an image plane side and an inflection point on a peripheral portion (Fig. 1, Embodiment 1 fifth lens L5N has negative refractive power, par. [0082], and Table 1 has the fifth lens with an image-side surface 10 with a positive curvature, indicating a concave surface, Table 3 lists the aspherical surface data for the lenses of Embodiment 1, par. [0081], where surfaces 9 and 10 are the surfaces that define lens L5N, and from Table 3, fifth lens L5N has inflection, therefore Koreeda discloses the fifth lens has an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights