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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11-14-26, 3-3-26, and 8-19-26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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, 3-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Sun et al. (US20150168693).
Re claim 1, Sun et al. teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, an image capturing lens system comprising: a first lens (L1) having negative refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); a second lens (L2) having refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); a third lens (L3) having negative refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); a fourth lens (L4) having positive refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); a fifth lens (L5) having positive refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); a sixth lens (L6) having a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039); a seventh lens (L7) having refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0037); and an eighth lens (L8) having a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039), wherein the first lens to the eighth lens are disposed in order from an object side (Fig. 1 and Table 1), and F No.<1.7 is satisfied (Table 1).
Re claim 3, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the second lens has negative refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1), and the third lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039).
Re claim 4, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039).
Re claim 5, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, a stop (St) is disposed between the fourth lens and the fifth lens (Fig. 1 and Table 1).
Re claim 6, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the sixth lens has negative refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1), and the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039).
Re claim 7, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the seventh lens has positive refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1), and the seventh lens has a concave image-side surface (Fig. 1 and Table 1; para. 0039).
Re claim 8, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, the eighth lens has positive refractive power (Fig. 1 and Table 1).
Re claim 9, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, D45/D23 (Table 1) is satisfied, where D23 is a distance from an image-side surface of the second lens to an object-side surface of the third lens, and D45 is a distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to an object-side surface of the fifth lens.
Re claim 10, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, 1.7<(Nd1+Nd4)/2 (Table 1), where Nd1 is a refractive index of the first lens and Nd4 is a refractive index of the fourth lens.
Re claim 12, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, V3<30 (Table 1), where V3 is an Abbe number of the third lens.
Re claim 13, Sun et al. further teaches for example in Fig. 1 and Table 1, V2-V1<10 (Table 1), where V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and V2 is an Abbe number of the second lens.
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 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 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.
Claims 2, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US20150168693).
Re claim 2, supra claim 1.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the second lens has positive refractive power.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the power of the lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Sun et al. (para. 0001-0003).
Re claim 11, supra claim 1.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying all of the claimed numerical expressions.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the Abbe numbers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Sun et al. (para. 0001-0003).
Re claim 14, supra claim 1.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying all of the claimed numerical expressions.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the Abbe numbers, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Sun et al. (para. 0001-0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kawakami (US20070188885).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9-29-26
Prosecution Insights