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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/951,540 filed on November 18, 2024, is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 1-41 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on November 28, 2023 (Japan 2023-200988).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 11/18/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/18/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 34 and 36 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 34, the limitation “wherein the lens that is the second from the image side in the rear group has, on a lens surface on the image side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes” (emphasis added) contradicts the recitation of claim 1 “has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes.” The inflection point claimed in claim 1, that is on the image side surface of the lens, cannot also be located on the image side surface of the second aspherical lens (see claims 33 and 34 “a lens that is a second from the image side in the rear group is the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group” and “the lens that is the second from the image side in the rear group”). The examiner recommends amending claim 34 to claim “a second inflection point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “the lens closest to the image side in the rear group… has, on a lens surface on the object side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes” (emphasis added) contradicts the recitation of claim 1 “has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes.” The inflection point claimed in claim 1, that is on the image side surface of the lens, cannot also be located on the object side surface of that same lens (see claims 35 and 36 “a lens closest to the image side in the rear group is the first aspherical lens” and “the lens closest to the image side in the rear group”). The examiner recommends amending claim 36 to claim “a second inflection point” or “a third inflection point”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 8-14, 25-27, 29, 35-37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi).
Regarding claim 1, Chae teaches (first example, Fig. 1, Tables 1-2 and 17) “An imaging lens (the lenses and stop of the imaging lens system 100) consisting of (although 100 further includes a filter, cover glass and image sensor, these are not considered to be precluded by the claim, because they are not part of the “lens”, just part of the imaging system. Alternatively, these elements may be considered to be part of the claimed rear group.), in order from an object side to an image side (from left to right in Fig. 1 and from surface S1 to S24 in Table 1), a front group including one or more lenses (the first lens 110, second lens 120 and third lens 130 are a front group in that they are on the object-side of the stop ST at surface 7), a stop (stop ST at surface 7), and a rear group including a plurality of lenses (the fourth lens 140, fifth lens 150, sixth lens 160, seventh lens 170, eighth lens 180 and ninth lens 190, with or without the filter, cover glass and image sensor),
wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (one or both of 180 and 190 which are both aspherical, see coefficients of surfaces S16, S17, S18 and S19 in Table 2) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (paragraph [0096]: “The eighth lens 180 may have… a concave image-side surface. The ninth lens 190 may have… a concave image-side surface.”) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (see the examiner’s markup of Fig. 1 below, where it is readily apparent that 180 and 190 are convex away from the paraxial region, and thus have an inflection point where the concave shape changes to a convex shape. This can be verified from the coefficients in Table 2.), and
in a case where a back focus of the imaging lens as an air conversion distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Bf (paragraph [0087]: “back focal length (BFL)” Table 17 first example BFL=5.4510. Absent a disclosure of short or close distance, an ordinary skilled artisan would take all of the values to be at “infinite” distance in that manner in which that is understood in the art.),
a focal length of the imaging lens in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by f (paragraph [0086]: “a focal length f of the imaging lens system.” Absent a disclosure of short or close distance, an ordinary skilled artisan would take all of the values to be at “infinite” distance in that manner in which that is understood in the art.), and
a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by ωm (Chae does not explicitly state the half angle of view. However, its value can be calculated using the well-known approximation
A
F
O
V
°
=
2
t
a
n
-
1
h
2
f
, where h is the full horizontal dimension, such that IMG HT=h/2, see Teledyne pages 5-6. From Table 17, f=14.0800 and IMG HT=10.75, thus ωm=tan-1(10.75/14.080)=tan-1(0.763)=37.35°. Further note that the expression fxtan(ωm)=IMG HT as can easily be derived from the formula above.)
Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.3 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.5 (1) (given the values above Bf/(f × tan ωm)=5.451/10.75=0.507 which is well within the claimed range), and
in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index (paragraph [0087]: “refractive index temperature coefficient”) with respect to a d line (the d line is the wavelength at which the refractive index is canonically measured, and thus which an ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably deduce, absent any disclosure to the contrary) at 25°C (25°C is a standard room temperatures at which properties would normally be measured) for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6 (Table 1 DTn 10−6/° C.), and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1 (Table 1 DTn 10−6/° C.),
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (Table 1 the first lens has DTn=1.60 and the fourth lens has DTn=4.40. See also paragraph [0087]: “At least one of the first to ninth lenses may have a positive refractive index temperature coefficient. In addition, one of the first to ninth lenses may have a positive refractive index and an absolute value of a refractive index temperature coefficient of 10 (10−6/° C.) or less. The corresponding lens may serve as a temperature compensation lens in the imaging lens system.”).”
PNG
media_image1.png
488
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative that Chae fails to teach “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index with respect to a d line for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6”. This would also have been obvious over Chae in view of Nagatoshi as follows.
Nagatoshi teaches an imaging lens (Fig. 2 Table 3) having a front group (lenses with surfaces 1-6 in Table 3), a stop (Table 3 STOP surface 7) and a rear group (lenses with surfaces 8-14 in Table 3). Like Chae and the instant application, Nagatoshi is concerned with the optical performance under a change in temperature (see e.g. paragraph [0006].
Nagatoshi teaches “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index (paragraph [0007]: “a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the negative lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnN/dt,”, see also paragraph [0011]) with respect to a d line at 25°C (paragraph [0007]: “a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the negative lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnN/dt,”, see also paragraph [0011]) for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6 (paragraph [0064]: “in Table 1 “x10−6/° C” is omitted with respect to the values of dn/dt.”), and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1 (paragraph [0064]: “in Table 1 “x10−6/° C” is omitted with respect to the values of dn/dt.”),
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (see Table 3, all lenses have 0<|dn/dt|≤10.2).”
Nagatoshi further teaches (paragraphs [0042]-[0042]: “[0042] According to the present embodiment, there is provided an imaging lens in which a plurality of lenses are combined with each other, including at least one negative lens that satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (1) to (3)…
dnN/dt<0×10−6/° C. (3)…
Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) are conditions for satisfactorily correcting defocusing with a change in temperature even in a case where a material having large abnormal dispersibility is used in a positive lens. The negative lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) refers to a negative lens in which dispersion is relatively low and refractive index is high while having a negative rate of change of the refractive index, and can correct a direction in which a focus position during a rise in temperature is shortened. Since a lot of optical materials have a positive rate of change of the refractive index, the negative lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) and a lens formed of other general optical materials are combined with each other, and thus it is possible to satisfactorily correct chromatic aberration and defocusing due to a change in temperature.”
Nagatoshi further teaches (paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) “In addition, it is preferable to include at least one positive lens that satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (7) to (9) in a case where a refractive index at the d line of a positive lens included in the imaging lens is set to nP2, an Abbe number at the d line of the positive lens is set to νP2, and a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the positive lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnP2/dt…
6×10−6/° C.<dnP2/dt (9)
Conditional Expressions (7) to (9) are conditions for enabling a lens system to suppress chromatic aberration and spherical aberration while correcting a change in focus with respect to a change in temperature. It is possible to correct a direction in which a focus position during a rise in temperature is shortened by disposing the positive lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (7) to (9), that is, a lens formed of a material having a large value with a positive change in refractive index with respect to a change in temperature.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the materials of the lenses in Chae that have an absolute value of a refractive index temperature coefficient of 10 (10−6/° C.) or less (Chae paragraph [0087]), materials for which this refractive index temperature coefficient is of the refractive index at the d-line measured at 25°C as taught by Nagatoshi, because Nagatoshi teaches that evaluating dN/dT at the d-line at 25°C is appropriate for obtaining desirable optical performance stability with changing temperature (Nagatoshi, e.g. paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (Table 17 TL=TTL=39.5000),
Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.1 < TL/f < 3.5 (3) (given the values above TL/f=39.5000/14.0800=2.81 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 3, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 2,” and Chae further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 3 (3-1) (given the values above TL/f=39.5000/14.0800=2.81 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 4, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 (1-1) (given the values above Bf/(f x tan ωm) = 5.4510/10.7500=0.507 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 8, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (From Table 1 dSt so defined is the sum of the distances of surfaces S7 to S24, dSt=26.523), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (Table 17, TL=TTL=39.5),
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above, dSt/TL=26.523/39.5=0.671 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 9, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the object side, of a lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1f (Table 1 the radius of curvature of surface S1 RL1f=26.144), and
a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1r (Table 1 the radius of curvature of surface S2 RL1r=9.096),
Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by
-3 < (RL1r - RL1f)/(RL1r + RL1f) < 0 (8) (given the values above (RL1r - RL1f)/(RL1r + RL1f)=(9.096-26.144)/(9.096+26.144) = (-17.048)/(35.24) = -0.484 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 10, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA1 (Amongst the first aspherical lenses is lens 190, which is closest to the image-side, and thus dA1=Bf, which in Table 17 is 5.451. For the first aspherical lens 180, dA1 is equal to the sum of Bf and the distances of surfaces S17 and S18 in Table 1, thus dA1=8.154), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (Table 17, TL=TTL=39.5),
Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.02 < dA1/TL < 0.6 (9) (given the values above, dA1/TL=5.451/39.5=0.138 or 8.154/39.5=0.206 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 11, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 10,” and Chae further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (9-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35. (9-1) (see calculations for claim 10 above, dA1/TL equals 0.138 or 0.206 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 12, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) (see Table 1, DTn of the first lens is 1.60, thus 0 < |dN/dT| < 15).”
Regarding claim 13, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 12,” and Chae further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (2) (see Table 1, DTn of the first lens is 1.60, thus 0 < |dN/dT| < 15).”
Regarding claim 14, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 13,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the rear group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) (see Table 1, DTn of the fourth lens is 4.40, thus 0 < |dN/dT| < 15).”
Regarding claim 25, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for a lens included in the imaging lens are denoted by Nd and νd (Table 1 e.g. the first lens N=1.5168 and v=64.17), respectively,
the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (11), which is represented by
1.6 < Nd + 0.01 × νd < 2.6 (11) (given the values above expression 11 is 2.1585 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 26, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 25,” and Chae further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (11) (Table 1 e.g. the first lens N=1.5168 and v=64.17 and thus expression 11 is 2.1585 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 27, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a focal length of a lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by fL1 (Table 17, first example, fL1 = f1 = -27.8256), Conditional Expression (12) is satisfied, which is represented by
-1.5 < f/fL1 < 0 (12) (given the values above f/fL1 = 14.08/(-27.8256) = -0.506 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 29, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group are denoted by NdA1 and νdA1 (Table 1 for the ninth lens which is the first aspherical lens closest to the image side, N=1.5365 and v=55.91), respectively,
Conditional Expression (14) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 × νdA1 < 2.14 (14) (given the values above expression 14 is equal to 2.0956 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 35, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the image side in the rear group is the first aspherical lens (see claim 1 above, lens 190, which is closest to the image side in the rear group, is a first aspherical lens).”
Regarding claim 36, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 35,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the lens closest to the image side in the rear group has a convex surface facing the object side in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0096]: “The ninth lens 190… may have a convex object-side surface”) and has, on a lens surface on the object side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes (see the examiner’s markup of a portion of Fig. 1 below, the object side surface of 190 has at least two inflection points, most easily seen due to the concave and convex regions relative to the overlaid straight line in regions outside the paraxial region).
PNG
media_image2.png
452
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the rear group includes two first aspherical lenses (see claim 1 above, both 180 and 190 are first aspherical lenses).”
Regarding claim 41, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “the imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “An imaging apparatus (imaging lens system 100, which is an imaging apparatus in that it includes an image sensor IP, see also paragraph [0003] “camera”) comprising:
the imaging lens according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).”
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 1-21, 25-27, 29, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 2012/0069456 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches (example 1, Fig. 2, Tables 1 and 11 or example 5, Fig. 6, Tables 9 and 11) “An imaging lens (the small-size wide angle lens in Examples 1 or 5) consisting of (Note that the presence of PP and Sim are not considered to be precluded by the claim, because they can either be considered to be part of the rear group, or the “imaging lens” portion of example 1 can reasonably be construed as just being the lenses thereof.), in order from an object side to an image side, a front group (first lens group G1) including one or more lenses (L1 and L2), a stop (aperture stop St), and a rear group (the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 are a rear lens group, with or without parallel-flat=plate shaped optical member PP. Note that the rear group can have more than one lens group therein, consistent with examples 7 to 12 of the instant application) including a plurality of lenses (lenses L3 to L8),
wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (lens L6 with aspherical surfaces 10 and 11, see Tables 1 and 10 and paragraph [0092]: “lens L6 is an aspheric lens”) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (see Figs. 1 and 6 and Tables 1 and 9, Ri of surface 11 is positive, indicating a concave image-side surface) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (see the examiner’s markup of a portion of Figs. 1 and 5 below, L6 has a convex region off-axis, and thus an inflection point where the shape changes from concave in a paraxial region to convex.), and
PNG
media_image3.png
570
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in a case where a back focus of the imaging lens as an air conversion distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Bf (Table 11, example 1, BF=5.53, and example 5 BF=5.04 where an ordinary skilled artisan knows that it is the infinite distance values that are disclosed unless stated explicitly otherwise),
a focal length of the imaging lens in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by f (Table 11 example 1 f=23.72 and example 5 f=23.45 where an ordinary skilled artisan knows that it is the infinite distance values that are disclosed unless stated explicitly otherwise), and
a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by ωm (Table 11, example 1, 2ω=62.0 thus ωm=31.0, example 5, 2ω=62.6 thus ωm=31.3),
Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.3 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.5 (1) (given the values above for example 1 Bf/(f × tan ωm) = 5.53/(23.72 x tan(31.0)) = 0.388, and for example 5 Bf/(f × tan ωm) = 5.04/(23.45 x tan(31.3)) = 0.353, both of which are in the claimed range).”
However, Suzuki fails to teach “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index with respect to a d line at 25°C for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6, and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1,
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2).
Nagatoshi teaches an imaging lens (Fig. 2 Table 3) having a front group (lenses with surfaces 1-6 in Table 3), a stop (Table 3 STOP surface 7) and a rear group (lenses with surfaces 8-14 in Table 3). Like Chae and the instant application, Nagatoshi is concerned with the optical performance under a change in temperature (see e.g. paragraph [0006].
Nagatoshi further teaches “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index (paragraph [0007]: “a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the negative lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnN/dt,”, see also paragraph [0011]) with respect to a d line at 25°C (paragraph [0007]: “a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the negative lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnN/dt,”, see also paragraph [0011]) for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6 (paragraph [0064]: “in Table 1 “x10−6/° C” is omitted with respect to the values of dn/dt.”), and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1 (paragraph [0064]: “in Table 1 “x10−6/° C” is omitted with respect to the values of dn/dt.”),
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (see Table 3, all lenses have 0<|dn/dt|≤10.2).”
Nagatoshi further teaches (paragraphs [0006]-[0007]): “The present invention has been contrived in view of such circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide an imaging lens in which various aberrations such as chromatic aberration and field curvature are satisfactorily corrected while satisfactorily correcting defocusing due to a change in temperature, and an optical apparatus including this imaging lens. According to the present invention, there is provided an imaging lens in which a plurality of lenses are combined with each other, comprising at least one negative lens that satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (1) to (3)… and… wherein a positive lens having a largest Abbe number at the d line among positive lenses included in the imaging lens satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (4) and (5).”
Nagatoshi further teaches (paragraphs [0042]-[0042]: “[0042] According to the present embodiment, there is provided an imaging lens in which a plurality of lenses are combined with each other, including at least one negative lens that satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (1) to (3)…
dnN/dt<0×10−6/° C. (3)…
Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) are conditions for satisfactorily correcting defocusing with a change in temperature even in a case where a material having large abnormal dispersibility is used in a positive lens. The negative lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) refers to a negative lens in which dispersion is relatively low and refractive index is high while having a negative rate of change of the refractive index, and can correct a direction in which a focus position during a rise in temperature is shortened. Since a lot of optical materials have a positive rate of change of the refractive index, the negative lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (1) to (3) and a lens formed of other general optical materials are combined with each other, and thus it is possible to satisfactorily correct chromatic aberration and defocusing due to a change in temperature.”
Nagatoshi further teaches (paragraphs [0051]-[0052]) “In addition, it is preferable to include at least one positive lens that satisfies the following Conditional Expressions (7) to (9) in a case where a refractive index at the d line of a positive lens included in the imaging lens is set to nP2, an Abbe number at the d line of the positive lens is set to νP2, and a rate of change of the refractive index at the d line of the positive lens with respect to a change in temperature at 25° C. is set to dnP2/dt…
6×10−6/° C.<dnP2/dt (9)
Conditional Expressions (7) to (9) are conditions for enabling a lens system to suppress chromatic aberration and spherical aberration while correcting a change in focus with respect to a change in temperature. It is possible to correct a direction in which a focus position during a rise in temperature is shortened by disposing the positive lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions (7) to (9), that is, a lens formed of a material having a large value with a positive change in refractive index with respect to a change in temperature.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the materials of the lenses Suzuki, materials for which this refractive index temperature coefficient at the d-line measured at 25°C, dN/dT is such that 0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (see Table 3 of Nagatoshi, all lenses have 0<|dn/dt|≤10.2) because Nagatoshi teaches that choosing materials with both positive and negative dn/dt for the appropriate lenses, within a system where all of the lenses have 0 < |dN/dT| < 15, is desirable for obtaining optical performance stability with changing temperature (Nagatoshi, e.g. paragraphs [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 are 32.37+5.53 = 37.9, and example 5 26.30+5.04=31.34),
Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.1 < TL/f < 3.5 (3) (given the values above for example 1 TL/f=37.9/23.72=1.598 and example 5 TL/f=31.34/23.45=1.34 which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 3, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 2,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 3 (3-1) (given the values above TL/f=1.598 for example 1 and TL/f=1.34 for example 5 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 4, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 (1-1) (see claim 1 above, expression (1) equals = 0.388 for example 1 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 5, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where an open F-number in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Fno (Table 11, example 1, Fno=2.06, example 5 Fno=2.05),
Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.6 < Fno/tan ωm < 5 (4) (given the values above for example 1 Fno/ tan ωm = 2.06/tan(31.0)=3.428 and for example 5 Fno/ tan ωm = 2.05/tan(31.3)=3.37 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 6, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 5,” however, Suzuki fails to teach “wherein Conditional Expression (4-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 (4-1).” instead teaching a value of 3.37 for example 5 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Suzuki also teaches an example, example 4 with ωm=63.4/2 and Fno=2.05 for which the value of Fno/tan ωm = 3.32, which is even closer to the claimed range.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Suzuki, value of 3.37 or 3.32 for Fno/tan ωm is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 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 3.37 or 3.32 and the endpoint of 3.2 is insubstantial, representing only a 5.3% or 3.8% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Fno/tan ωm value from the prior art is similarly close to Applicant’s claimed range as 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 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 .
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 3.37 or 3.32 for Fno/tan ωm , calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 to render it obvious because the difference between 3.37 or 3.32 and the endpoint of 3.2 is insubstantial, a value of 3.37 or 3.32 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for Fno/tan ωm , 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 claim 7, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a minimum value of a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the image side to the stop is denoted by dFSt (Table 1 dFSt is the Di value of surface 3, dFSt=0.90, Table 9 dFSt is the Di value of surface 3, dFSt=1.25),
a sign of dFSt is positive in a case where the stop is closer to the image side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side, and is negative in a case where the stop is closer to the object side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side (the stop is closer to the image side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side, thus dFSt is positive),
a minimum value of a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is denoted by dStR (Table 1 dStR is the Di value of surface 4, dStR=5.01, Table 9 dStR is the Di value of surface 4, dStR=1.25),
a sign of dStR is positive in a case where the lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the image side than the stop, and is negative in a case where the lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the object side than the stop (the lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the image side than the stop thus dStR is positive), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 are 32.37+5.53 = 37.9, and example 5 26.30+5.04=31.34),
Conditional Expressions (5) and (6) are satisfied, which are represented by
0 < dFSt/TL < 0.8 (5) (given the values above for example 1 dFSt/TL=0.90/37.9=0.024 and example 5 =1.3/31.34=0.041 both of which are in the claimed range)
0 < dStR/TL < 0.8 (6) (given the values above for example 1 dStR/TL=5.01/37.9=0.132 and example 5 = 1.25/31.4=0.04 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 8, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (paragraph [0021]: “SS is a distance on an optical axis from the stop to a most-image-side surface” Table 11 example 1 SS=27.49 and example 5 SS=21.33), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 are 32.37+5.53 = 37.9, and example 5 26.30+5.04=31.34),
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above, for example 1 dSt/TL=27.49/37.9=0.725 and for example 5 = 21.33/31.34= 0.68 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 9, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the object side, of a lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1f (Table 1 Ri of surface number 1, RL1f=29.787, Table 9 1 Ri of surface number 1, RL1f=11.42), and
a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1r (Table 1 Ri of surface number 2, RL1r=10.216, Table 9 Ri of surface number 2, RL1r=7.329),
Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by
-3 < (RL1r - RL1f)/(RL1r + RL1f) < 0 (8) (given the values above expression (8) for example 1 equals (10.216-29.787)/(10.216+29.787)=-0.488 and for example 5 equals (7.329-11.42)/(7.329+11.42)= -0.218 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 10, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA1 (for example 1 in Table 11 BF=5.53 which should be added to the Di values of surfaces 11-14 to find dA1=15.04, for example 5 in Table 11 BF=5.04 which should be added to the Di values of surfaces 11-14 to find dA1=13.23), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 are 32.37+5.53 = 37.9, and example 5 26.30+5.04=31.34),
Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.02 < dA1/TL < 0.6 (9) (given the values above for example 1 dA1/TL=15.03/37.9=0.397 and for example 5 dA1/TL=13.23/31.34=0.422 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 11, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 10,” however, Suzuki fails to teach “wherein Conditional Expression (9-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35. (9-1).” instead teaching a value of 0.397 which is close to the claimed range.
Suzuki example 3 teaches a similar system where dA1 is the sum of BF=8.38 and the sum of the Di values of surfaces 11-14 to find dA1=16.16, whereas TL is the sum of DD and BF, thus TL=44.18. Thus dA1/TL=0.366 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Suzuki value of 0.366 for dA1/TL is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35 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 0.366 and the endpoint of 0.35 is insubstantial, representing only a 4.6% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated dA1/TL value from the prior art is 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 0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35.
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 0.366 for dA1/TL, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.366 and the endpoint of 0.35 is insubstantial, a value of 0.366 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for dA1/TL, 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 claims 12, 13 and 14, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” however, Suzuki fails to teach (claim 12) “wherein the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2).”; (claim 13) “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (2).” and (claim 14) “wherein the rear group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2).”
Nagatoshi, Table 3, teaches an imaging lens having a front group, a stop and a rear group where all of the lenses have 0<|dn/dt|≤10.2, and thus that all lenses meet conditional expression (2) 0 < |dN/dT| < 15.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the materials of the lenses Suzuki, materials for which this refractive index temperature coefficient at the d-line measured at 25°C, dN/dT is such that 0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (see Table 3 of Nagatoshi, all lenses have 0<|dn/dt|≤10.2) because Nagatoshi teaches that choosing materials with both positive and negative dn/dt for the appropriate lenses, within a system where all of the lenses have 0 < |dN/dT| < 15, is desirable for obtaining optical performance stability with changing temperature (Nagatoshi, e.g. paragraphs [0006]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 15, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 are 32.37+5.53 = 37.9, and example 5 26.30+5.04=31.34),
Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 3 (10) (given the values above for example 1 TL/(f x tan ωm)= 37.9/(23.72 x tan(31.0)) = 2.66 and example 5 TL/(f x tan ωm)= 31.34/(23.45 x tan(31.3)) = 2.198 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 16, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 15,” and Suzuki, example 5, further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (10-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.7 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5 (10-1) (as calculated above expression (10-1) for example 5 is equal to 2.198 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 17, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 16,” and Suzuki, example 5, further teaches
wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 3 (3-1) (given the values above TL/f=1.34 for example 5 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 18, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 17,” and Suzuki example 5 further teaches “wherein, in a case where an open F-number in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Fno (Table 11, example 5 Fno=2.05),
However, Suzuki fails to teach “Conditional Expression (4-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 (4-1)” instead teaching a value of Fno/tan ωm = 2.05/(tan(31.3))=3.37 for example 5 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Suzuki also teaches an example, example 4 with ωm=63.4/2 and Fno=2.05 for which the value of Fno/tan ωm = 3.32, which is even closer to the claimed range.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Suzuki, value of 3.37 or 3.32 for Fno/tan ωm is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 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 3.37 or 3.32 and the endpoint of 3.2 is insubstantial, representing only a 5.3% or 3.8% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Fno/tan ωm value from the prior art is similarly close to Applicant’s claimed range as 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 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 .
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 3.37 or 3.32 for Fno/tan ωm , calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 to render it obvious because the difference between 3.37 or 3.32 and the endpoint of 3.2 is insubstantial, a value of 3.37 or 3.32 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for Fno/tan ωm , 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 claim 19, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 18,” However, Suzuki example 5 fails to teach “wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 (1-1).” instead teaching a value of 0.353, see claim 1 above, which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Suzuki example 1 teaches Bf/(f × tan ωm) = 5.53/(23.72 x tan(31.0)) = 0.388.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Suzuki, example 5 value of 0.353 for Bf/(f × tan ωm) is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 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 0.353 and the endpoint of 0.36 is insubstantial, representing only a 2.0% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Bf/(f × tan ωm) 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 0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2.
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 0.353 for Bf/(f × tan ωm) , calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.353 and the endpoint of 0.36 is insubstantial, a value of 0.353 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for Bf/(f × tan ωm) , 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 claim 20, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 19,” and Suzuki example 5 further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the object side, of a lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1f (Table 9 1 Ri of surface number 1, RL1f=11.42), and
a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by RL1r (Table 9 Ri of surface number 2, RL1r=7.329),
Conditional Expression (8-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
-1 < (RL1r - RL1f)/(RL1r + RL1f) < -0.07 (8-1) (given the values above expression (8-1) for example 5 equals (7.329-11.42)/(7.329+11.42)= -0.218 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 21, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 18,” and Suzuki example 5 further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (paragraph [0021]: “SS is a distance on an optical axis from the stop to a most-image-side surface” Table 11 example 5 SS=21.33),
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above, for example 5 = 21.33/31.34= 0.68 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 25, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for a lens included in the imaging lens are denoted by Nd and νd, respectively (Table 1 surface 1 Nd=1.74077 and vd=27.8, Table 9, surface 1 Nd=1.85666, vd=23.8),
the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (11), which is represented by
1.6 < Nd + 0.01 × νd < 2.6 (11) (given the values above, for example 1, (11) is equal to 2.01877, for example 5 (11) is equal to 2.08366, both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 26, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 25,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (11) (in both instances above (11) was calculated for the lens closest to the object side in the front group).”
Regarding claim 27, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a focal length of a lens closest to the object side in the front group is denoted by fL1 (the focal length of the first lens can be calculated from the data of surfaces 1-2 using a matrix calculator to be about -21.41 for example 1 Table 1, and about -26.91 for example 5, Table 9), Conditional Expression (12) is satisfied, which is represented by
-1.5 < f/fL1 < 0 (12) (given the values above for example 1 f/fL1=23.72/(-21.41)=-1.1 and for example 5 f/fL1 = 23.45/(-26.91) = -0.87 both of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 29, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group are denoted by NdA1 and νdA1 (Table 1 Nd and Vd of surface 10 are 1.56865 and 58.6 respectively), respectively,
Conditional Expression (14) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 × νdA1 (given the values above, NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1=2.15465).”
However, Suzuki fails to teach “1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 × νdA1 < 2.14 (14)” instead teaching a value of 2.15465 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Suzuki example 1 value of 2.15465 for NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1 is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1 < 2.14 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 2.15465 and the endpoint of 2.14 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.7% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1 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 1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1 < 2.14.
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 2.15465 for NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1 < 2.14 to render it obvious because the difference between 2.15465 and the endpoint of 2.14 is insubstantial, a value of 2.15465 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for NdA1 + 0.01 x vdA1, 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 claim 39, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein the imaging lens includes at least one cemented lens (paragraph [0087] “lens L1 and the lens L2 are cemented together” and paragraph [0092]: “a cemented lens composed of lenses L4 and L5” see Tables 1 and 9).”
Regarding claim 41, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “An imaging apparatus (paragraph [0002]: “a digital camera and a camera including the small-size wide angle lens”) comprising:
the imaging lens according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).”
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-19, 21-26, 29, 35 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US 2013/0279020 A1 (hereafter Noda) in view of Lai et al. US 2018/0307000 A1 (hereafter Lai).
Regarding claim 1, Noda teaches (embodiment 8, Figs. 15-16, Tables 8 and 10) “An imaging lens (the image pickup lens according to Embodiment 8) consisting of (note that the IR cut filter and solid imaging element are not precluded, because, either they can be considered to be part of the rear group, or the lens can be construed as just the lens portion of the overall system), in order from an object side to an image side (from left to right in Fig. 15 and from the object surface to the image plane in Table 8), a front group (the first lens L1) including one or more lenses (the first lens L1), a stop (surface 2, stop), and a rear group (lenses L2 to L5 with or without the IR cut filter and the imaging element) including a plurality of lenses (lenses L2 to L5),
wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (L5, see aspheric data of surfaces 9 and 10 in Table 8) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (paragraph [0068]: “fifth lens L5 is a biconcave lens”) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (paragraph [0068]: “the aspherical surface of the image-side surface r10 has a pole-change point that is positioned other than on the optical axis X.” where paragraph [0022] teaches “the term pole-change point refers to a point on the aspherical surface where a tangential plane crosses the optical axis perpendicularly.” The existence of such a pole-change requires that the concave shape on-axis must transition to a convex shape via an inflection point, where the apex of the convex region will have such a tangential plane.), and
in a case where a back focus of the imaging lens as an air conversion distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Bf (Table 8, Bf is the sum of the d values of surfaces 10, 11 and 12 Bf=1.275),
a focal length of the imaging lens in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by f (Table 8, f=3.973), and
a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by ωm (Table 8, ω=35.36),
Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.3 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.5 (1) (given the values above expression (1)=1.275/(3.973 x tan(35.36))=0.452 which is in the claimed range).”
However, Noda fails to explicitly teach “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index with respect to a d line at 25°C for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6, and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1,
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2).”
Note, however, that Noda teaches with respect to embodiment 8, (paragraph [0115]): “the first lens L1 adopts a glass material”.
Lai teaches an imaging lens (first embodiment Table 1) having a front group (the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lenses), a stop (aperture plate), and a rear group (the 4th, 5th and 6th lenses).
Lai further teaches “in a case where a temperature coefficient of a refractive index with respect to a d line at 25°C for a lens included in the imaging lens is denoted by (dN/dT) × 10-6 (Table 1 dn/dt (10-6/°C)), and
dN/dT is in units of °C-1 (Table 1 dn/dt (10-6/°C)),
the imaging lens includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by
0 < |dN/dT| < 15 (2) (Table 1 the absolute value of dn/dt in the 20°C to 40°C temperature range of all of the lenses are less than 10.2.).”
Lai further teaches (paragraph [0105]): “In the optical image capturing system, the lenses could be made of plastic or glass. The plastic lenses may reduce the weight and lower the cost of the system, and the glass lenses may control the thermal effect and enlarge the space for arrangement of the refractive power of the system.” And (paragraphs [0113], [0118], [0121], [0124] and [0129]) lenses 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 are all made of glass.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the glass material of the first lens of Noda, a glass with 0 < |dN/dT| <10.2 as taught by Lai, because Lai teaches that glass lenses with the disclosed dn/dt values control the thermal effect and enlarge the space for arrangement of the refractive power of the system (see Lai paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114]: TTL=4.788 mm),
Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.1 < TL/f < 3.5 (3) (given the values above TL/f=4.788/3.973=1.205 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 3, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 2,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 3 (3-1) (given the values above TL/f=4.788/3.973=1.205 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 4, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 (1-1) (given the values above expression (1)=1.275/(3.973 x tan(35.36))=0.452 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 5, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where an open F-number in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Fno (Table 8 Fno=2.25),
Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.6 < Fno/tan ωm < 5 (4) (given the values above Fno/tan ωm=2.25/tan(35.36)=3.17 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 6, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 5,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (4-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 (4-1) (given the values above Fno/tan ωm=2.25/tan(35.36)=3.17 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 8, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (Table 8 dSt equals the sum of the d values of surfaces 2-12, or TTL minus the d value of surface 1, dSt=4.13), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114]: TTL=4.788 mm),
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above dSt/TL=4.13/4.788=0.863 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 10, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA1 (dA1 in table 8 is the sum of the d values of surfaces 10-12, dA1=1.275), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114]: TTL=4.788 mm),
Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.02 < dA1/TL < 0.6 (9) (given the values above dA1/TL=1.275/4.788=0.266 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 11, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 10,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (9-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35. (9-1) (given the values above dA1/TL=1.275/4.788=0.266 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 12, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) (the modification introduced for claim 1 above served to choose as the glass of the first lens of Noda a glass meeting conditional expression (2), thus claim 12 is also rendered obvious by the same combination introduced for claim 1.).”
Regarding claim 13, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 12, wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (2) (the modification introduced for claim 1 above served to choose as the glass of the first lens of Noda a glass meeting conditional expression (2), thus claim 13 is also rendered obvious by the same combination introduced for claim 1.).”
Regarding claim 14, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 13,” however, Noda fails to teach “wherein the rear group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2).”
Lai teaches (paragraph [0012]): “At least one lens of the optical image capturing system may be made of material of which thermal refractive index coefficient is negative at the first working temperature WT1, which is higher than the standard temperature ST (25° C.); that is, the material of the lens has a characteristic of negative dn/dt at the temperature higher than the standard temperature ST, and the characteristic is denoted by a first thermal refractive index coefficient DNT1. Furthermore, at least one lens of the optical image capturing system may be made of material of which thermal refractive index coefficient is negative at the second working temperature WT2, which is higher than the standard temperature ST (25° C.) but lower than the first working temperature WT1, that is, the material of the lens has a negative thermal refractive index coefficient which is denoted by DNT2.”
As shown in Table 1, there are two negative dn/dt lenses, the positive fourth lens and the positive sixth lens, both in the rear group.
Lai further teaches (paragraphs [0005]-[0006]): “It is an important issue to inhibit the deviation of effect focal length in response to temperature fluctuation… use specific material, which has a temperature refractive index coefficient (dn/dt) relative to air being lower than or equal to zero in a temperature range of −50° C. to 100° C., to produce the optical lens, and use material having suitable thermal expansion coefficient to produce positioning elements for optical lenses (such as a holder and a base), so as to be applied to electronic products with high weatherability.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the material of one of the positive lenses, L3 or L4, in the rear group of Noda to meet conditional expression (2) with a negative value of dN/dT as taught by Lai, because Lai teaches that such a material choice inhibits the deviation of effect focal length in response to temperature fluctuation, suitable for electronic products with high weatherability (Lai paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 15, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114]: TTL=4.788 mm),
Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 3 (10) (given the values above TL/(f x tan ωm)=4.788/(3.973 x tan(35.36)=1.698 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 16, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 15,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (10-1) is satisfied, which is represented by … TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5 (10-1) (given the values above TL/(f x tan ωm)=4.788/(3.973 x tan(35.36)=1.698 which is in the claimed range).”
However, Noda fails to teach “1.7 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5 (10-1).” Instead teaching a value of 1.698 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Noda, value of 1.698 for TL/(f × tan ωm) is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.7 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5 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 1.698 and the endpoint of 1.7 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.1% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated TL/(f × tan ωm) 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 1.7 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5.
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 1.698 for TL/(f × tan ωm), calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 1.7 < TL/(f × tan ωm) < 2.5 to render it obvious because the difference between 1.698 and the endpoint of 1.7 is insubstantial, a value of 1.698 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for TL/(f × tan ωm), 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 claim 17, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 16,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (3-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 3 (3-1) (given the values above TL/f=4.788/3.973=1.205 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 18, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 17,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where an open F-number in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Fno (Table 8 Fno=2.25),
Conditional Expression (4-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
2 < Fno/tan ωm < 3.2 (4-1) (given the values above Fno/tan ωm=2.25/tan(35.36)=3.17 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 19, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 18,” and Noda further teaches “wherein Conditional Expression (1-1) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.36 < Bf/(f × tan ωm) < 1.2 (1-1) (given the values above expression (1)=1.275/(3.973 x tan(35.36))=0.452 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 21, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 18,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (Table 8 dSt equals the sum of the d values of surfaces 2-12, or TTL minus the d value of surface 1, dSt=4.13),
Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above dSt/TL=4.13/4.788=0.863 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 22, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 21,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA1 (dA1 in table 8 is the sum of the d values of surfaces 10-12, dA1=1.275),
Conditional Expression (9-1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35 (9-1) (given the values above dA1/TL=1.275/4.788=0.266 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 23, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 22, wherein the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (2) (the modification introduced for claim 1 above served to choose as the glass of the first lens of Noda a glass meeting conditional expression (2), thus claim 23 is also rendered obvious by the same combination introduced for claim 1.).”
Regarding claim 24, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 23, wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (2) (the modification introduced for claim 1 above served to choose as the glass of the first lens of Noda a glass meeting conditional expression (2), thus claim 24 is also rendered obvious by the same combination introduced for claim 1.).”
Regarding claim 25, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for a lens included in the imaging lens are denoted by Nd and νd, respectively (Table 8, e.g. surface 1 Nd=1.4970, vd=81.61; surface 3 Nd=1.5837, vd=30.13; or surface 9 Nd=1.5094, vd=55.87),
the front group includes at least one lens satisfying Conditional Expression (11), which is represented by
1.6 < Nd + 0.01 × νd < 2.6 (11) (given the values above, expression (11) for the first lens is 2.3131; for the second lens is 1.885 and for the fifth lens is 2.0681 each of which are in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 26, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 25,” and Noda further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (11) (given the values above, expression (11) for the first lens is 2.3131).”
Regarding claim 29, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a refractive index with respect to a d line and an Abbe number based on the d line for the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group are denoted by NdA1 and νdA1, respectively (Table 8, surface 9 Nd=1.5094, vd=55.87),
Conditional Expression (14) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.8 < NdA1 + 0.01 × νdA1 < 2.14 (14) (given the values above, expression (14) for the fifth lens is 2.0681 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 35, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the image side in the rear group is the first aspherical lens (Fig. 15, Table 8, lens L5 is the first aspherical lens).”
Regarding claim 40, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein a lens closest to the object side in the front group satisfies Conditional Expression (2) (the modification introduced for claim 1 above served to choose as the glass of the first lens of Noda a glass meeting conditional expression (2), and
in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114] TTL=4.788 mm),
an open F-number in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by Fno (Table 8 Fno=2.25),
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dSt (Table 8 dSt equals the sum of the d values of surfaces 2-12, or TTL minus the d value of surface 1, dSt=4.13), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA1 (dA1 in table 8 is the sum of the d values of surfaces 10-12, dA1=1.275),
Conditional Expressions (3-2), (4-2), (7), and (9-1) are satisfied, which are represented by
1.2 < TL/f < 1.6 (3-2) (given the values above TL/f=4.788/3.973=1.205 which is in the claimed range)
2.5 < Fno/tan ωm < 4 (4-2) (given the values above Fno/tan ωm=2.25/tan(35.36)=3.17 which is in the claimed range)
0.67 < dSt/TL < 0.93 (7) (given the values above dSt/TL=4.13/4.788=0.863 which is in the claimed range)
0.08 < dA1/TL < 0.35 (9-1) (given the values above dA1/TL=1.275/4.788=0.266 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 41, the Noda – Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “An imaging apparatus (paragraph [0003]: “an image pickup lens composed of five lenses, which is built into an imaging device mounted on portable terminals such as cellular phones and smartphones, PDAs (Personal Digital Assistances), and game machines or information terminals such as personal computers and the like”) comprising:
the imaging lens according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).”
Claims 7 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" (hereafter Gross).
Regarding claim 7, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a minimum value of a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the image side to the stop is denoted by dFSt (Table 1 dFSt is the thickness/distance of surface S6, dFSt=1.852),
a sign of dFSt is positive in a case where the stop is closer to the image side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side, and is negative in a case where the stop is closer to the object side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side (The stop is closer to the image side than the lens surface of the front group closest to the image side, thus dFSt is positive.),
a minimum value of a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is denoted by dStR (Table 1 dStR is the thickness/distance of surface S7, thus dStR = -0.056),
a sign of dStR is positive in a case where the lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the image side than the stop, and is negative in a case where the lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the object side than the stop (The lens surface of the rear group closest to the object side is closer to the object side than the stop, thus dStR is negative), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (Table 17, TL=TTL=39.5),
Conditional Expressions (5) and (6) are satisfied, which are represented by
0 < dFSt/TL < 0.8 (5) (given the values above dFSt/TL=1.852/39.5=0.0469).”
However, the first example of Chae fails to teach “0 < dStR/TL < 0.8 (6).”
The fifth example of Chae, Fig. 9, Table 9 teaches a very similar lens system to the first example, except that the stop between the third and fourth lenses has been moved to be closer to the third lens, rather than closer to the fourth lens. Since the image side of the third lens in both examples is concave, dFSt and dStR are both positive.
Gross teaches (pages 377-378) that moving a stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (page 378 suggestion 12, and page 378 section 33.1.4 operation 8). Moving the stop position changes the path of the chief ray and influences the oblique field aberrations (page 378 suggestion 12) while leaving the focal power of the system unchanged (section 33.1.4 “zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that moving the stop position can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the stop to being closer to the third lens, rather than the fourth lens as suggested by the fifth example of Chae in the lens system of the first example of Chae, because Gross teaches that moving the stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that moving the stop position does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
With the above modification, the maximum possible value of either dFSt and dStR is the total distance between the third and fourth lenses, 1.852-0.056=1.796. Thus an upper limit on both dFSt/TL and dStR/TL is 1.796/39.5=0.045 which is within the claimed ranges of 0 < dFSt/TL < 0.8 (5) and 0 < dStR/TL < 0.8 (6). That dStR>0 is inherent to the above modification which moved the stop closer to the third lens. That dFSt>0 naturally follows from the teachings of the fifth example, where although the stop is closer to the third lens, it is on the image side of the surface of the third lens at its maximum effective diameter. Thus Chae in view of Gross meets both of the conditional expressions (5) and (6).
Regarding claim 39, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” however, Chae fails to teach “wherein the imaging lens includes at least one cemented lens.”
Note however, that in all embodiments, the fifth and sixth lenses are very close together and similar in shape, see for example, Table 9 where the paraxial curvature radii of surfaces S11 and S12 are -16.991 and -22.311 respectively with a distance of only 0.138 mm.
Gross teaches (page 378-379 section 33.1.4) that cementing two lenses which are very close together and with nearly equal radii is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Cementing two lenses can be performed while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that cementing a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fifth and sixth lenses of the imaging lens of Chae as a cemented pair, because Gross teaches that cementing two lenses that are a small distance apart is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that cementing two lenses does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada et al. US 2019/0121095 A1 (hereafter Tada).
Regarding claim 28, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (Table 1 the radius of curvature of surface S19 which is the image side of first aspherical lens 190, RA1c=11.11), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (the curvature radius of the image side of 190 at the position of the maximum effective diameter).”
However, Chae fails to explicitly teach “Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13).”
Although Chae provided the aspherical coefficients from which RA1y could be calculated, Chae does not disclose the maximum effective diameter, which would be needed to determine the maximum height at which RA1y should be evaluated.
Note however, that Chae does teach that the image side surface of 190 has an inflection point and appears to still be convex at the maximum effective diameter, and thus would reasonably suggest that RA1y/RA1c < 0, because RA1y and RA1c would be of opposite signs.
Tada teaches (seventh numerical embodiment, Figs. 14-14D, Tables 31-36) an imaging lens (seventh embodiment) consisting of a front group (11”) , a stop, S, and a rear group (21”, 22”, 23”, 24”, 25” and 26” with or without the cover glass and imaging surface). Tada further teaches (claim 1) “wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (26”) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”).”
(claim 28) “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 0.0 mm from the optical axis RA1c=13.861), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 5.820 mm from the optical axis RA1y=-6.768, where 5.820 is the effective aperture of surface 14 in Table 31),
Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) (given the values above RA1y/RA1c=-0.488).”
See also embodiment 4 (RA1y/RA1c = -6.949/13.045 = -0.533), embodiment 5 (RA1y/RA1c = -2.847/18.915 = -0.151), and embodiment 6 (RA1y/RA1c = -3.314/26.164 = -0.127).
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0012]-[0016]):
[0012] It is desirable for the following conditions (3), (4) and (5) to be satisfied:
[0013] 0.5<Apv*Ha<1.5 . . . (3),
[0014] 0.45<Bpv*Hb<1.90 . . . (4), and
[0015] 0.45<Apv/Bpv<1.25 . . . (5), wherein Apv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; Bpv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group; Ha designates the effective radius of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; and Hb designates the effective radius of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group.
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]): “By satisfying condition (4), a wide angle-of-view can be achieved and deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration occurring can be suppressed.
[0066] If the upper limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in the profile of the optical surface of the last lens element becomes too great so that deterioration in optical quality due to decentration occurring increases.
[0067] If the lower limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in curvature of the last lens element becomes too small, so that that the widened angle-of-view is insufficient.”
Thus, Chae teaches claim 28, except for specifically disclosing that -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13). Tada teaches a value of RA1y/RA1c between -1 and 0, for the image-side surface of a lens closest to the image side which is concave in a paraxial region, and convex outside of the paraxial region, is appropriate to meet condition (4) of Tada and thereby achieve a wide angle-of-view and suppress deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration (Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt as the curvature radius at the maximum effective diameter of the image side surface of the lens closest to the image side in Chae, a radius such that conditional expression -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) is met, as taught by Tada, for the benefits of achieving a wide angle-of-view and suppressing deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration as taught by Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 2012/0069456 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada et al. US 2019/0121095 A1 (hereafter Tada).
Regarding claim 28, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (radius of curvature of surface 11, in Table 1 RA1c=89.234 and in Table 9 RA1c=24.990), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (the curvature radius of the image side of the sixth lens at the position of the maximum effective diameter).”
However, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach “Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13).”
Although Suzuki provides the aspherical coefficients from which RA1y could be calculated, Suzuki does not disclose the maximum effective diameter, which would be needed to determine the maximum height at which RA1y should be evaluated.
Note however, that Suzuki does teach that the image side surface of the sixth lens has an inflection point and appears to still be convex at the maximum effective diameter, and thus would reasonably suggest that RA1y/RA1c < 0, because RA1y and RA1c would be of opposite signs.
Tada teaches (seventh numerical embodiment, Figs. 14-14D, Tables 31-36) an imaging lens (seventh embodiment) consisting of a front group (11”) , a stop, S, and a rear group (21”, 22”, 23”, 24”, 25” and 26” with or without the cover glass and imaging surface). Tada further teaches (claim 1) “wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (26”) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”).”
(claim 28) “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 0.0 mm from the optical axis RA1c=13.861), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 5.820 mm from the optical axis RA1y=-6.768, where 5.820 is the effective aperture of surface 14 in Table 31),
Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) (given the values above RA1y/RA1c=-0.488).”
See also embodiment 4 (RA1y/RA1c = -6.949/13.045 = -0.533), embodiment 5 (RA1y/RA1c = -2.847/18.915 = -0.151), and embodiment 6 (RA1y/RA1c = -3.314/26.164 = -0.127).
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0012]-[0016]):
[0012] It is desirable for the following conditions (3), (4) and (5) to be satisfied:
[0013] 0.5<Apv*Ha<1.5 . . . (3),
[0014] 0.45<Bpv*Hb<1.90 . . . (4), and
[0015] 0.45<Apv/Bpv<1.25 . . . (5), wherein Apv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; Bpv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group; Ha designates the effective radius of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; and Hb designates the effective radius of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group.
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]): “By satisfying condition (4), a wide angle-of-view can be achieved and deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration occurring can be suppressed.
[0066] If the upper limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in the profile of the optical surface of the last lens element becomes too great so that deterioration in optical quality due to decentration occurring increases.
[0067] If the lower limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in curvature of the last lens element becomes too small, so that that the widened angle-of-view is insufficient.”
Thus, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches claim 28, except for specifically disclosing that -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13). Tada teaches a value of RA1y/RA1c between -1 and 0, for the image-side surface of a lens closest to the image side which is concave in a paraxial region, and convex outside of the paraxial region, is appropriate to meet condition (4) of Tada and thereby achieve a wide angle-of-view and suppress deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration (Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt as the curvature radius at the maximum effective diameter of the image side surface of the aspherical sixth lens in Suzuki, a radius such that conditional expression -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) is met, as taught by Tada, for the benefits of achieving a wide angle-of-view and suppressing deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration as taught by Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US 2013/0279020 A1 (hereafter Noda) in view of Lai et al. US 2018/0307000 A1 (hereafter Lai) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tada et al. US 2019/0121095 A1 (hereafter Tada).
Regarding claim 28, the Noda - Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (radius of curvature of surface 10, in Table 8 RA1c=1.399), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (the curvature radius of the image side of the fifth lens at the position of the maximum effective diameter).”
However, Noda fails to explicitly teach “Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13).”
Although Noda provides the aspherical coefficients from which RA1y could be calculated, Noda does not disclose the maximum effective diameter, which would be needed to determine the maximum height at which RA1y should be evaluated.
Note however, that Noda does teach that the image side surface of the fifth lens has an inflection point and appears to still be convex at the maximum effective diameter, and thus would reasonably suggest that RA1y/RA1c < 0, because RA1y and RA1c would be of opposite signs.
Tada teaches (seventh numerical embodiment, Figs. 14-14D, Tables 31-36) an imaging lens (seventh embodiment) consisting of a front group (11”) , a stop, S, and a rear group (21”, 22”, 23”, 24”, 25” and 26” with or without the cover glass and imaging surface). Tada further teaches (claim 1) “wherein the rear group includes at least one first aspherical lens (26”) that has a concave surface facing the image side in a paraxial region (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”) and that has, on a lens surface on the image side, an inflection point at which a convex or concave shape changes (paragraph [0101]: “The image side of the positive lens element 26″ includes a paraxial concave surface concaving toward the image side (the paraxial curvature has a positive value), and includes a peripheral surface having an inflection point that changes from a positive value of the paraxial curvature to a negative value.”).”
(claim 28) “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1c (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 0.0 mm from the optical axis RA1c=13.861), and
a curvature radius, at a position of a maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the first aspherical lens closest to the image side among the first aspherical lenses included in the rear group is denoted by RA1y (Table 35, “Image-side Surface of Positive Lens Element 26” at height of 5.820 mm from the optical axis RA1y=-6.768, where 5.820 is the effective aperture of surface 14 in Table 31),
Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) (given the values above RA1y/RA1c=-0.488).”
See also embodiment 4 (RA1y/RA1c = -6.949/13.045 = -0.533), embodiment 5 (RA1y/RA1c = -2.847/18.915 = -0.151), and embodiment 6 (RA1y/RA1c = -3.314/26.164 = -0.127).
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0012]-[0016]):
[0012] It is desirable for the following conditions (3), (4) and (5) to be satisfied:
[0013] 0.5<Apv*Ha<1.5 . . . (3),
[0014] 0.45<Bpv*Hb<1.90 . . . (4), and
[0015] 0.45<Apv/Bpv<1.25 . . . (5), wherein Apv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; Bpv designates an amount of curvature change in the meridional plane within the effective aperture of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group; Ha designates the effective radius of the surface on the object side of the negative lens element that is provided closest to the object side within the first lens group; and Hb designates the effective radius of the surface on the image side of the lens element that is provided closest to the image side within the second lens group.
Tada further teaches (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]): “By satisfying condition (4), a wide angle-of-view can be achieved and deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration occurring can be suppressed.
[0066] If the upper limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in the profile of the optical surface of the last lens element becomes too great so that deterioration in optical quality due to decentration occurring increases.
[0067] If the lower limit of condition (4) is exceeded, the change in curvature of the last lens element becomes too small, so that that the widened angle-of-view is insufficient.”
Thus, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches claim 28, except for specifically disclosing that -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13). Tada teaches a value of RA1y/RA1c between -1 and 0, for the image-side surface of a lens closest to the image side which is concave in a paraxial region, and convex outside of the paraxial region, is appropriate to meet condition (4) of Tada and thereby achieve a wide angle-of-view and suppress deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration (Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt as the curvature radius at the maximum effective diameter of the image side surface of the aspherical fifth lens closest to the image side in Noda, a radius such that conditional expression -100 < RA1y/RA1c < 0 (13) is met, as taught by Tada, for the benefits of achieving a wide angle-of-view and suppressing deterioration in optical quality that may occur due to decentration as taught by Tada paragraphs [0012]-[0016] and [0065]-[0067].
Claims 30-32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chae et al. US 2022/0066170 A1 (hereafter Chae) as evidenced by Teledyne Princeton Instruments “Field of View and Angular Field of View” (hereafter Teledyne retrieved electronically from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200926085916/https://www.princetoninstruments.com/learn/camera-fundamentals/field-of-view-and-angular-field-of-view) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asami et al. US 2014/0204479 A1 (hereafter Asami).
Regarding claim 30, Chae or the Chae – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (lenses 140, 150 and 170 are aspherical see aspheric coefficients of surfaces S8, S9; S10, S12; and S14, S15 in Table 2) that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region (paragraph [0096]: “The fourth lens 140 may have… a convex image-side surface. The fifth lens 150 may have… a convex image-side surface... The seventh lens 170 may have… a convex image-side surface.”).”
However, Chae fails to explicitly state “and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region.”
Note that although the aspheric coefficients thereof are listed in Table 2, Chae does not state the effective diameters which would determine the height at which the curves should be evaluated in order to determine if the above condition is met.
Asami (example 1 Fig. 3) teaches an imaging lens (example 1 Fig. 3) consisting of a front group (lenses L1, L2 and L3), a stop (St) and a rear group (lenses L4, L5 and L6).
Asami further teaches (claim 30) “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (L4 and L6, which are aspherical see e.g. paragraph [0239] and [0256]) that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center” and paragraph [0255]: “L6 is a biconvex lens”) and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center” and paragraph [0266]: “the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center”).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Chae teaches claim 30, except for explicitly disclosing whether the positive refractive power of the image side surfaces of lenses 140, 150 or 170 are weaker, stronger or equal at the maximum effective diameter relative to the paraxial region. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt aspherical image-side surfaces of any or all of lenses 140, 150 or 170 of Chae to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami, with the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]).
Regarding claim 31, Chae – Asami or the Chae – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (Table 1 the paraxial radius of curvature of the image-side surfaces of the fourth, fifth and seventh lenses are -18.334, -27.131 and -17.089 respectively), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (the curvature radii, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the fourth, fifth and seventh lenses),
However, Chae fails to explicitly teach “all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15).”
Asami, as introduced for claim 30 above, teaches two second aspherical lenses in the rear group, L4 and L6. Asami further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the paraxial curvature radius of the image side of L4 and L6, see also e.g. paragraph [0241] “the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9” and paragraph [0267]: “he absolute value of a curvature radius at point Q13 is |R13|”), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the point Xi is at the effective diameter of the surface, and the curvature radius at point Xi is RXi, thus RA2y of lenses L4 and L6 are RX9 and RX13 respectively),
all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15) (See paragraph [0241]: “the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.” and paragraph [0268]: “the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.” In each case |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13| thus the ratios of |R9/RX9| and |R13/RX13| are less than 1, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0241]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center" of the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q9 is convex, and in which point P9 is located on the object side of point Q9 when point X9 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.”
(paragraph [0268]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center" of the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q13 is convex, and in which point P13 is located on the object side of point Q13 when point X13 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.”
(paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Chae teaches claim 31, except for explicitly disclosing the ratio between the paraxial curvature and the curvature at the effective diameter of the lens for the image-side surfaces of the second aspherical lenses. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13|, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt aspherical image-side surfaces of any or all of lenses 140, 150 or 170 of Chae to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami which corresponds to meeting conditional expression (15) as taught by paragraphs [0241] and [0268]. Such a modification is motivated by the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]).
Regarding claim 32, Chae – Asami or the Chae – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Chae further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA2 (With the seventh lens 170 being the second aspherical lens closest to the image side in view of Asami as introduced for claim 30 above dA2 is the sum of the thickness/distances of surfaces S15 to S24 in Table 1, thus dA2 = 11.902), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (Table 17 TL=TTL=39.5),
Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.2 < dA2/TL < 0.6 (16) (given the values above dA2/TL=11.902/39.5=0.301 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 38, Chae – Asami or the Chae – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Chae further teaches “wherein the rear group includes two second aspherical lenses (the fourth, fifth and seventh lenses 140, 150 and 170 were second aspherical lenses modified in view of Asami to meet the limitations not explicitly taught in Chae).”
Claims 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki US 2012/0069456 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Nagatoshi et al. US 2019/0094533 A1 (hereafter Nagatoshi) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asami et al. US 2014/0204479 A1 (hereafter Asami).
Regarding claim 30, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (paragraph [0072]: “at least one of the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 includes an aspheric surface.” The phrase “at least one of” includes that both G2 and G3 includes an aspheric surface. Since L6 is part of G2 in Fig. 2, then for example 1, either L7 or L8 could have an aspheric surface.).”
However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region.”
Note however, that L7 in example 1 of Suzuki has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region.
Asami (example 1 Fig. 3) teaches an imaging lens (example 1 Fig. 3) consisting of a front group (lenses L1, L2 and L3), a stop (St) and a rear group (lenses L4, L5 and L6).
Asami further teaches (claim 30) “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (L4 and L6, which are aspherical see e.g. paragraph [0239] and [0256]) that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center” and paragraph [0255]: “L6 is a biconvex lens”) and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center” and paragraph [0266]: “the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center”).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Suzuki teaches claim 30 except for specifying the surface that should be made aspheric and whether the power of such a surface at the maximum effective diameter should be smaller, larger or equal to the power in the paraxial region. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt an aspherical image-side surface of the seventh lens of Suzuki to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami, with the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]). One would have been further motivated to make such a modification because Suzuki teaches having an additional aspheric surface, but fails to provide the details thereof, thus one would look to references such as Asami for examples of advantageous surface shapes.
Regarding claim 31, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (Table 1 the paraxial radius of curvature of the image-side surfaces of the seventh lens is -45.060), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (the curvature radii, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the seventh lens),
However, Suzuki fails to explicitly teach “all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15).”
Asami, as introduced for claim 30 above, teaches two second aspherical lenses in the rear group, L4 and L6. Asami further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the paraxial curvature radius of the image side of L4 and L6, see also e.g. paragraph [0241] “the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9” and paragraph [0267]: “the absolute value of a curvature radius at point Q13 is |R13|”), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the point Xi is at the effective diameter of the surface, and the curvature radius at point Xi is RXi, thus RA2y of lenses L4 and L6 are RX9 and RX13 respectively),
all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15) (See paragraph [0241]: “the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.” and paragraph [0268]: “the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.” In each case |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13| thus the ratios of |R9/RX9| and |R13/RX13| are less than 1, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0241]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center" of the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q9 is convex, and in which point P9 is located on the object side of point Q9 when point X9 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.”
(paragraph [0268]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center" of the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q13 is convex, and in which point P13 is located on the object side of point Q13 when point X13 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.”
(paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Suzuki teaches claim 31, except for explicitly disclosing the ratio between the paraxial curvature and the curvature at the effective diameter of the lens for the image-side surfaces of the second aspherical lenses. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13|, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt aspherical image-side surfaces of the seventh lens of Suzuki, example 1, to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami which corresponds to meeting conditional expression (15) as taught by paragraphs [0241] and [0268]. Such a modification is motivated by the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]). One would have been further motivated to make such a modification because Suzuki teaches having an additional aspheric surface, but fails to provide the details thereof, thus one would look to references such as Asami for examples of advantageous surface shapes.
Regarding claim 32, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA2 (The modification of Suzuki in view of Asami introduced for claim 30 above, modified the image-side surface of the seventh lens to be a second aspherical lens. In example 1, for the seventh lens, dA2 is the sum of BF=5.53 and the Di values of surfaces 13 and 14, thus dA2=8.81.), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (from paragraphs [0022]-[0023] BF is the back focus in air and DD is distance on the optical axis from a most-object-side to the most-image-side surface. Thus TL=BF+DD, which in Table 11 example 1 is 32.37+5.53 = 37.9),
Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.2 < dA2/TL < 0.6 (16) (given the values above dA2/TL=0.232 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 33, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 32,” and Suzuki further teaches “wherein a lens that is a second from the image side in the rear group is the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group (the modification of Suzuki in view of Asami introduced for claim 30 above, modified the image-side surface of the seventh lens to be a second aspherical lens. The seventh lens is the second from the image side in the rear group in Suzuki example 1).”
Regarding claim 34, the Suzuki – Nagatoshi – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 33,” however, Suzuki fails to teach “wherein the lens that is the second from the image side in the rear group has, on a lens surface on the image side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes.”
Asami teaches “a lens surface on the image side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes ([0266] It is desirable that the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 is aspherical. It is desirable that the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has … a shape having positive refractive power at the center and negative refractive power at the effective diameter edge.”).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0266]): “It is desirable that the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 is aspherical. It is desirable that the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center, or a shape having positive refractive power at the center and negative refractive power at the effective diameter edge. When the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has such a shape, it is possible to excellently correct a spherical aberration and curvature of field.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the aspherical shape of the seventh lens of Suzuki, one in which there is an inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes as taught by Asami, for the purpose of excellently correcting a spherical aberration and curvature of field (Asami paragraph [0266]).
Note that such a shape meets claim 30 that the positive power is shifted in a negative direction at the maximum effective diameter, because negative refractive power at the effective diameter is more negative than the positive power in the paraxial region. However, such a shape does not inherently meet claim 31 that -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (conditional expression 15).
However, one can express conditional expression 15 as |RA2c/RA2y| <1. In which case, it is apparent that there are only two possibilities, |RA2c/RA2y| <1 or |RA2c/RA2y| ≥ 1, i.e. that the absolute value of the negative power at the maximum effective diameter is less than the absolute value of the positive power in the paraxial region, or not.
It has been held that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E).
In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to correct spherical aberration and field curvature as taught by Asami paragraph [0266] (2) there are only two possibilities |RA2c/RA2y| <1 or |RA2c/RA2y| ≥ 1 (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose |RA2c/RA2y| <1 because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
The examiner notes that although there are an infinite number of possible pairs of curvature radii, the choice of whether the negative power at the maximum effective diameter is smaller or greater than the positive power on-axis, is still just two options for the general conditions of the lens surface.
Claims 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda US 2013/0279020 A1 (hereafter Noda) in view of Lai et al. US 2018/0307000 A1 (hereafter Lai) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asami et al. US 2014/0204479 A1 (hereafter Asami).
Regarding claim 30, the Noda - Lai combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 1,” and Noda further teaches “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (paragraph [0021]: “the fourth lens should preferably have a meniscus shape near the optical axis, and an image side surface formed of an aspherical surface having a positive refractive power that weakens toward the circumference.” see also paragraph [0068]) that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region (paragraph [0068]: “fourth lens L4 is a meniscus lens with… an image side surface r8 of a convex surface”) and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power [towards] a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region (paragraph [0021]: “the fourth lens should preferably have a meniscus shape near the optical axis, and an image side surface formed of an aspherical surface having a positive refractive power that weakens toward the circumference.” see also paragraph [0068]).”
However, Noda does not explicitly recite that “a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region” because Noda does not explicitly state what occurs at the position of the maximum effective diameter, just that the positive refractive power weakens towards the circumference.
Asami (example 1 Fig. 3) teaches an imaging lens (example 1 Fig. 3) consisting of a front group (lenses L1, L2 and L3), a stop (St) and a rear group (lenses L4, L5 and L6).
Asami further teaches (claim 30) “wherein the rear group includes at least one second aspherical lens (L4 and L6, which are aspherical see e.g. paragraph [0239] and [0256]) that has a convex surface facing the image side in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center” and paragraph [0255]: “L6 is a biconvex lens”) and that has, on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region (e.g. paragraph [0239]: “the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center” and paragraph [0266]: “the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center”).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Noda teaches claim 30 except for specifying the surface that should be made aspheric and whether the power of such a surface at the position of the maximum effective diameter is smaller than the power in the paraxial region, only that it is decreasing towards it. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, a lens surface in which a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt an aspherical image-side surface of the fourth lens of Noda to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami, with the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Noda already teaches an image-side surface of the fourth lens with weakening positive refractive power, just not specifically that there is no change back to the original positive refractive power at the maximum effective diameter.
Regarding claim 31, the Noda – Lai – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (Table 8 the paraxial radius of curvature of the image-side surfaces of the fourth lens is -0.988), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (the curvature radii, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the fourth lens),
However, Noda fails to explicitly teach “all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15).”
Asami, as introduced for claim 30 above, teaches two second aspherical lenses in the rear group, L4 and L6. Asami further teaches “wherein, in a case where a paraxial curvature radius of a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2c (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the paraxial curvature radius of the image side of L4 and L6, see also e.g. paragraph [0241] “the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9” and paragraph [0267]: “the absolute value of a curvature radius at point Q13 is |R13|”), and
a curvature radius, at the position of the maximum effective diameter, of the surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens is denoted by RA2y (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0212]-[0213] the point Xi is at the effective diameter of the surface, and the curvature radius at point Xi is RXi, thus RA2y of lenses L4 and L6 are RX9 and RX13 respectively),
all second aspherical lenses included in the rear group satisfy Conditional Expression (15) represented by
-1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1 (15) (See paragraph [0241]: “the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.” and paragraph [0268]: “the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.” In each case |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13| thus the ratios of |R9/RX9| and |R13/RX13| are less than 1, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1).”
Asami further teaches (paragraph [0241]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker than the positive refractive power at the center" of the image-side surface of fourth lens L4 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q9 is convex, and in which point P9 is located on the object side of point Q9 when point X9 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX9| of a curvature radius at point X9 is greater than the absolute value |R9| of a curvature radius at point Q9.”
(paragraph [0268]): “The expression "a shape having positive refractive power both at the center and at the effective diameter edge, and the positive refractive power at the effective diameter edge being weaker, compared with the center" of the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 means a shape in which a paraxial region including point Q13 is convex, and in which point P13 is located on the object side of point Q13 when point X13 is located at the effective diameter edge, and in which the absolute value |RX13| of a curvature radius at point X13 is greater than the absolute value |R13| of a curvature radius at point Q13.”
(paragraph [0270]): “When each surface of the object-side surface of second lens L2 through the image-side surface of sixth lens L6 has an aspherical shape as described above, it is possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration.”
Noda teaches claim 31, except for explicitly disclosing the ratio between the paraxial curvature and the curvature at the effective diameter of the lens for the image-side surfaces of the second aspherical lenses. Asami teaches second aspherical lenses where on the image side, |R9| < |RX9| and |R13|<|RX13|, thus -1 < RA2c/RA2y < 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt aspherical image-side surfaces of the fourth lens of Noda, embodiment 8, to have a refractive power at a position of a maximum effective diameter is shifted in a negative direction compared to a refractive power in the paraxial region as taught by Asami which corresponds to meeting conditional expression (15) as taught by paragraphs [0241] and [0268]. Such a modification is motivated by the benefit that such aspherical shapes make it possible to excellently correct distortion in addition to a spherical aberration, curvature of field and a coma aberration as taught by Asami (paragraph [0270]). One would have been further motivated to make such a modification because Noda teaches having an aspheric surface with weakening positive refractive power, but fails to explicitly teach the curvature radius at the maximum effective diameter thereof, thus one would look to references such as Asami for examples of advantageous surface shapes.
Regarding claim 32, the Noda – Lai – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 30,” and Noda further teaches “wherein, in a case where a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a surface, on the image side, of the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group to a lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by dA2 (dA2 of the fourth lens is the sum of the d values of surfaces 8 to 12, thus dA2=2.092), and
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the front group closest to the object side to the lens surface of the rear group closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is in focus is denoted by TL (paragraph [0114] TTL=4.788),
Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.2 < dA2/TL < 0.6 (16) (given the values above, dA2/TL=2.092/4.788=0.44 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 33, the Noda – Lai – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 32,” and Noda further teaches “wherein a lens that is a second from the image side in the rear group is the second aspherical lens closest to the image side among the second aspherical lenses included in the rear group (the fourth lens in embodiment 8 of Noda is the second from the image side in the rear group).”
Regarding claim 34, the Noda – Lai – Asami combination teaches “The imaging lens according to claim 33,” and Noda further teaches “wherein the lens that is the second from the image side in the rear group has, on a lens surface on the image side, the inflection point at which the convex or concave shape changes (see the examiner’s markup of a portion of Fig. 15 below, there is a concave portion of the image-side surface of the fourth lens outside of the paraxial region, thus there is an inflection point between the convex paraxial region and a concave off-axis region).”
PNG
media_image4.png
334
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hsu US 2013/0050847 A1 “Image Lens Assembly”, for example table 1, pertinent to at least claims 1-8 and 10-19.
Emi US 2016/0252707 A1 “SINGLE FOCAL LENGTH LENS SYSTEM, CAMERA, AND AUTOMOBILE” specifically utilizes some of the same glass materials as the instant application.
Nagano US 2018/0056869 A1 “IMAGING LENS, CAMERA, VEHICLE-MOUNTED CAMERA, SENSING DEVICE, AND VEHICLE-MOUNTED SENSING DEVICE” pertinent to the state of the art with respect to thermal stability of glass lenses.
Zhang et al. US 2019/0064481 OPTICAL IMAGING LENS, all embodiments, pertinent to at least claims 1-3, 8-11, 27, 35 and 36.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights