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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano (US 7535659 B2).
Re Claim 1, Sano discloses, on Fig. 10 and Table 9, An imaging lens, comprising: a first lens (L1), a second lens (L2), a third lens (L#), and a fourth lens (L4) disposed in order from an object side; and an aperture stop (aperture S) disposed on a foremost object side, wherein the first lens is a positive lens (Table 9: L1 is positive) having a convex surface facing the object side (Table 9: surface 1 is convex), the second lens is a negative lens (Table 9: L2 is negative) having an inflection point on at least one surface with a low thickness deviation ratio (Fig. 10: object side of L2, surface 3, has a minor inflection point), the third lens is a positive lens (Table 9: L3 is positive) having a convex surface facing an image plane side (Table 9: surface 6 is convex) and an inflection point on a lens peripheral portion on a surface on the object side (Fig. 10: object side of L3 has a peripheral inflection point), the fourth lens is a negative lens (L4 is negative) having a concave surface on an image plane side (image side of L4 is concave) and an inflection point on a peripheral portion (Fig. 10: object and image side of L4 have peripheral inflection points), and Conditions (1) and (2) are satisfied,
0.5<|f/f1|<1.4 (Table 12 Example 5: f1/f= 1, thus f/f1=1)
0.4<|f4/f1|<2.0 (Table 9: f1=4.6 and f4=-2.1, |f4/f1|=0.46)
when a focal length of the first lens is denoted by f1, a focal length of the fourth lens is denoted by f4, and a focal length of an entire optical system is denoted by f.
Re claim 3, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 10 and Table 9, wherein Condition (3) is satisfied,
3
N
1
<
N
4
(See Table 9: where 1.49 <1.53)
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 fourth lens with respect to the d-line is denoted by N4.
Re claim 6, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Sano further discloses on Table 9, wherein Condition (6) is satisfied:
(6) 0.6<f/OAL<0.9 (Table 9: Where OAL is the sum of the surface thicknesses, f/OAL= 4.68/5.38=0.87)
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.
Re Claim 10, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Sano further discloses, wherein Condition (10) is satisfied;
(10) 0.3<f3/f1<2.8 (Using Calculations made from Table 9: f/3/f1=2.19/4.65=0.47)
when the focal length of the first lens is denoted by f1 and a focal length of the third lens is denoted by f3.
Re claim 11, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Sano further discloses, wherein Condition (11) is satisfied,
0.5<|f3/f4|<2.0 (Using Table 9: |f3/f4|= 0.96)
when a focal length of the third lens is denoted by f3 and the focal length of the fourth lens is denoted by f4.
Re Claim 12, Sano discloses, a recognition device, comprising: the imaging lens according to claim 1; and Sano further discloses, a solid-state imaging element configured to receive an image formed by the imaging lens and generate an imaging signal (“a photo-electric converter of a solid image pickup element “) [Col 2, Lines 20-40].
Re Claim 13, Sano discloses, an information processing apparatus, comprising: the recognition device according to claim 12; and Sano further discloses on Fig. 15, a display unit configured to display an image corresponding to the imaging signal generated by the recognition device (“…display screens D1 and D2 which display prescribed data and images picked up”) [Col 10, Lines 10-25].
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano.
Re Claim 4, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 10 and Table 9, wherein
N
1
=
1.49
.
But Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein
Condition (4) is satisfied,
4
1.49
<
N
1
<
1.55
when a refractive index of a material of the first lens with respect to a d-line is denoted by N1.
However, Sano identifies
N
1
, as a result effective variable, and teaches controlling said variable for the purpose of, controlling image point fluctuation [Col 7, Lines 25-40]. Further, 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. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Sano such that,
4
1.49
<
N
1
<
1.55
, in order to control image point fluctuation [Col 7, Lines 25-40].
Re Claim 5, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 10 and Table 9, wherein
N
4
=
1.53
.
But Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein
Condition (5) is satisfied,
5
1.63
<
N
4
<
1.67
when a refractive index of a material of the fourth lens with respect to a d-line is denoted by
N
4
.
However, Sano identifies
N
4
, as a result effective variable, and teaches controlling said variable for the purpose of, controlling image point fluctuation [Col 7, Lines 25-40]. Further, 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. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Sano such that,
5
1.63
<
N
4
<
1.67
, in order to control image point fluctuation [Col 7, Lines 25-40].
Re Claim 7, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and Sano further discloses on Table 9 [Col 5, Lines 50-55, wherein EfD1=1.42 mm (EfD1=f/Fno=f/F), and OAL/EfD1= 3.79.
But Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein Condition (7) is satisfied,
(7) 2.2<OAL/EfD1< 3.2
Optimizing OAL/EfD1 is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sano teaches OAL and EfD1 as variables which achieve a recognized result: OAL effects overall size of the system [Col 8, Lines 35-45] and EfD1 affects the diameter prescribed by the image lens [Col 9, Lines 30-55].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting OAL and EfD1 and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Sano such that, 2.2<OAL/EfD1< 3.2, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 9, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1, and further discloses on Table 9, wherein |f1/f2|=|4.7/-6.01|=0.77.
But Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein condition (9),
0.4<|f1/f2|<0.71
when the focal length of the first lens is denoted by f1 and a focal length of the second lens is denoted by f2.
Optimizing f1 and f2 is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sano teaches focal length as a variable which achieves a recognized result [Col 4, Lines 40-65].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting f1 and f2 and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Sano such that, 0.4<|f1/f2|<0.71 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Wang (CN-113467052-A, See Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 2, Sano discloses, the imaging lens according to claim 1.
But Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the first lens to the fourth lens has a near-infrared region compatible coating corresponding to near-infrared rays applied onto a lens surface on at least one surface or more, and the near-infrared region compatible coating transmits light in a band of 450 to 940 nm and has reflectivity of 2% or less in a band of at least a near-infrared region of 850 nm to 940 nm.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches, that it is desirable in four lens optical systems to include, a near-infrared region compatible coating (high transmittance or visible light cut off film) [Par 21-24], corresponding to near-infrared rays applied onto a lens surface on at least one surface or more, and the near-infrared region compatible coating transmits light in a band of 450 to 940 nm (transmits light from 380 nm to 1100 nm) and has reflectivity of 2% or less in a band of at least a near-infrared region of 850 nm to 940 nm (98 % transmittance for 740- 1100 nm band) [Par 24].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply applying said film to all four lenses (Wang also teaches four lenses), such that each of the first lens to the fourth lens has a near-infrared region compatible coating corresponding to near-infrared rays applied onto a lens surface on at least one surface or more, and the near-infrared region compatible coating transmits light in a band of 450 to 940 nm and has reflectivity of 2% or less in a band of at least a near-infrared region of 850 nm to 940 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sano with Wang, in order to meet the shooting requirements in dim environments, as taught by Wang [Par 6].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Sano neither teaches nor obviates; wherein Condition (8) is satisfied, - 1.3 < EXP/IH < - 0.90 ··· (8), when a position of an exit pupil is denoted by EXP and an image height is denoted by IH.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang (US 20220163710 A1) also teaches an imaging lens with an infrared filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights