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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5,16-18 in the reply filed on 10/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,5,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20190086638, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (Fig. 1, [48-], Table 1) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens group (G11) having negative refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses;
a second lens group (G21) having positive refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses; and
a third lens group (G31) having negative refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses,
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of seven lenses,
wherein the first to third lens groups are arranged in order from an object side, and
wherein at least one of the second lens group and the third lens group is movable on an optical axis (as seen in Fig. 1),
wherein a length of one of two axes of a first lens, disposed closest to the object-side among the plurality of lenses of the first lens group, intersecting the optical axis and perpendicular to each other, is greater than a length of the other axis (3.93:3.23 in Table 1), and
wherein 0.5<L1S1el/IMG HT<1.0 (2.5/2.7) is satisfied, where L1S1el is a maximum effective radius of an object-side surface of the first lens, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging surface of an image sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches (Fig. 1) The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses of the first lens group comprises the first lens and a second lens,
the plurality of lenses of the second lens group comprises a third lens, a fourth lens and a fifth lens, and
the plurality of lenses of the third lens group comprises a sixth lens and a seventh lens.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further teaches (Fig. 1) The optical imaging system of claim 2, wherein the sixth lens has positive refractive power, and the seventh lens has negative refractive power.
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein 2.7≤Fno<7 (2.8 in Table 3) is satisfied, where Fno is the F-number of the optical imaging system.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein 10°<FOV<35° is satisfied, where FOV is an angle of view of the optical imaging system.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having 10°<FOV<35° would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having desired image size by selecting/cropping narrower image in the short side direction (so the FOV along short side smaller than the FOV shown in Fig. 16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lee by having 10°<FOV<35° for the purposes of having desired image size.
Claim(s) 1-4,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 20220155571, of record).
PNG
media_image2.png
343
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches (Abstract, Figs. 3-5) An optical imaging system, comprising:
a first lens group (122) having negative refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses;
a second lens group (142) having positive refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses; and
a third lens group (162) having negative refractive power and comprising a plurality of lenses,
wherein the optical imaging system has a total of seven lenses,
wherein the first to third lens groups are arranged in order from an object side, and
wherein at least one of the second lens group and the third lens group is movable on an optical axis (as seen in Figs. 5a-5b),
wherein a length of one of two axes of a first lens, disposed closest to the object-side among the plurality of lenses of the first lens group, intersecting the optical axis and perpendicular to each other, is greater than a length of the other axis (as seen in Figs. 3-4, lengths along x and y are different for 12).
Xu does not explicitly teach 0.5<L1S1el/IMG HT<1.0 is satisfied, where L1S1el is a maximum effective radius of an object-side surface of the first lens, and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of an imaging surface of an image sensor.
However L1S1el/IMG HT is “a result-effective variable” because it confers the image size, package size and Fno. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.5<L1S1el/IMG HT<1.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have 0.5<L1S1el/IMG HT<1.0 for the purposes of having desired image size (by selecting cropping an image on the detector 50, which influences only IMG HT), package size (the dimension along y in Fig. 3, Examiner notes the dimension ratio for the 1st lens along x and the sensor along z is about 0.9 in Fig. 3 according the drawing of Figs. 5) and/or adjustable Fno (by placing a adjustable aperture stop in front of the 1st lens, which influences L1S1el more).
Regarding claim 2, Xu further teaches (Fig. 5a) The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses of the first lens group comprises the first lens and a second lens,
the plurality of lenses of the second lens group comprises a third lens, a fourth lens and a fifth lens, and
the plurality of lenses of the third lens group comprises a sixth lens and a seventh lens.
Regarding claim 3, Xu further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first lens has negative refractive power (the top lens of 122).
Regarding claim 4, Xu further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 2, wherein the third lens has positive refractive power (the left lens in 142), and the fourth lens has negative refractive power (the middle lens of 142).
Regarding claim 16, Xu further teaches The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein 0.2<BFL/(2*IMG HT)<2.0 (about 0.5 to 1 as seen in Fig. 5a for the ratio of BFL and the sensor along z in Fig. 3, and it is more likely than not that this condition will be satisfied at least for some settings including focal length and those discussed in claim 1 rejection above) is satisfied, where BFL is a distance on the optical axis from an image-side surface of a lens disposed closest to the imaging surface to the imaging surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights