DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 12/02/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 states “wherein a spherical surface passing through both edge portions in an effective region of the object-side surface has a concave shape toward the object side in a cross-section including an optical axis.” The claim is not clear nor specific as to which lens it’s referring to. For examination purposes, “wherein a spherical surface passing through both edge portions in an effective region of the object-side surface has a concave shape toward the object side in a cross-section including an optical axis” will be taken as “wherein a spherical surface passing through both edge portions in an effective region of the object-side surface of the second lens has a concave shape toward the object side of the second lens in a cross-section including an optical axis”.
Claim 1 states “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 ≤ Rd ≤ 1.00, where Rd is a value of a ratio of a diameter of a portion that has positive power in an effective region of the image-side surface to a diameter of the effective region of the image-side surface in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis.” The claim is not clear nor specific as to which lens(es) it’s referring to. For examination purposes, “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 ≤ Rd ≤ 1.00, where Rd is a value of a ratio of a diameter of a portion that has positive power in an effective region of the image-side surface to a diameter of the effective region of the image-side surface in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis” will be taken as “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 ≤ Rd ≤ 1.00, where Rd is a value of a ratio of a diameter of a portion that has positive power in an effective region of the image-side surface of the third lens to a diameter of the effective region of the image-side surface in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis of the third lens.”
Claims 4-6 state “wherein a graph includes …a first extremum”, “wherein a graph includes a second extremum”, and “wherein a graph includes … third extremum”, respectively.
Examiner is unclear if “a graph” is part of the apparatus, method, or etc. For examination purposes, “a graph” will be taken as part of the calculations in the tables for the mathematical expressions.
Examiner is unclear of the limitation “a first extremum”. For examination purposes, “a first extremum” will be taken as “a first maximum”.
Examiner is unclear of the limitation “a second extremum”. The claim does not refer to a specific lens or set of lenses. For examination purposes, “a second extremum” will be taken as “a second maximum”.
Examiner is unclear of the limitation “a third extremum”. For examination purposes, “a third extremum” will be taken as “a third maximum”.
Claim 5 states “the following inequality is satisfied: 0.60 ≤ E2 ≤ 0.98, where E2 is a normalized distance from the optical axis to a position corresponding to the second extremum”. The variable E2 has no unit of measurement (mm, mm, inches, etc.). For examination purposes, “E2” will be measured in mm.
Claims not individually addressed inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 1, Shim discloses an optical system (Figure 1) comprising, in order from an object side (side closest to 101, Figure 1) to an image side (side closest to 107, Figure 1): a front group (101-104, Figure 1) with positive refractive power; an aperture stop (aperture (stop) may be disposed around the periphery of the object side third surface (S3) of the second lens 102, Figure 1; see also ¶[0151]); and a rear group (105 and 106, Figure 1) with positive refractive power, wherein the front group (101-104, Figure 1) includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first lens (101, Figure 1) with negative refractive power (¶0144), a second lens (102, Figure 1) with negative refractive power (¶0149), a third lens (103, Figure 1), and a fourth lens (104, Figure 1) with positive refractive power (third lens can be found in ¶0152] and fourth lens can be found in ¶[0155]), wherein the rear group (105 and 106, Figure 1) includes a cemented lens (105, Figure 1) and a meniscus lens (106, Figure 1) disposed closest to an image plane, wherein at least one of an object-side surface (S11, Figure 1; see also ¶0167) and an image-side surface (S12, Figure 1; see also ¶0167) of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1) is an aspherical surface (¶0167), wherein a spherical surface (S3, Figure 1) passing through both edge portions in an effective region (effective region of each lens is defined in ¶[0107]) of the object-side surface (S4, Figure 1) of the second lens (102, Figure 1) has a concave shape (S3, Figure 1) toward the object side in a cross-section including an optical axis (OA, Figure 1), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 ≤ Rd ≤ 1.00 (Rd = 10/11 = 0.90; see ¶[0127]), where Rd is a value of a ratio of a diameter (see ¶[0127]) of a portion that has positive power in an effective region of the image-side surface of the third lens (103, Figure 1) to a diameter (see ¶[0127]) of the effective region of the image-side surface in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) (see ¶[0127]).
With respect to Claim 2, Shim further discloses wherein the object-side surface (S11, Figure 1) of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1) is an aspherical surface (S11, Figure 1; see also ¶[0127]).
With respect to Claim 3, Shim further discloses wherein an object-side surface (S3, Figure 1; see ¶[0127]) of the second lens (102, Figure 1) is an aspherical surface (see ¶[0150]) including an inflection point (see ¶[0150]) in the cross-section including the optical axis (OA, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 4, Shim further discloses wherein a graph representing a curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens (102, Figure 1) with respect to a radial position in the cross-section including the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) includes a first extremum (see ¶[0366]), and the following inequality is satisfied: 0.05 ≤ E1 ≤ 0.50 (CT1/CT2<2; Examiner is taking E1 to be 0.05 ≤ E1 ≤ 0.50; see ¶[0366]), where E1 is a normalized distance from the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) to a position corresponding to the first extremum (see ¶[0366]).
With respect to Claim 5, Shim further discloses wherein the graph includes a second extremum (see ¶[0366]), and the following inequality is satisfied: 0.60 ≤ E2 ≤ 0.98 (CT1/CT2<2; Examiner is taking E2 to be 0.60 ≤ E2 ≤ 0.98; see ¶[0366]), where E2 is a normalized distance from the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) to a position corresponding to the second extremum (see ¶[0366]).
With respect to Claim 6, Shim further discloses wherein a graph representing a curvature of the image-side surface of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1) with respect to a radial position in the cross-section including the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) includes a third extremum (see ¶[0366]), and the following inequality is satisfied: 0.05 ≤ E3 ≤ 0.50 (CT1/CT2<2; Examiner is taking E2 to be 0.05 ≤ E3 ≤ 0.50; see ¶[0366]), where E3 is a normalized distance from the optical axis (OA, Figure 1) to a position corresponding to the third extremum (see ¶[0366]).
With respect to Claim 8, Shim further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.4 ≤ fG1/fG2 ≤ 3.5 (0.4 ≤ FLG1/FLG2 ≤ 3.5; see ¶[0125]), where fG1 is a focal length of the front group (FLG1 is for 101-104, Figure 1), and fG2 is a focal length of the rear group (FLG2 is for 105 and 106, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Shim further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -1.50 ≤ (R2 + R1)/(R2 - R1) ≤ -4.00, where R1 is a radius of curvature of the spherical surface passing through the both edge portions in the effective region of the object-side surface of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1), and R2 is a radius of curvature of a spherical surface passing through both edge portions in the effective region of the image-side surface of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 10, Shim further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1.0 ≤ fLC/f ≤ 6.0 (1.0 ≤ 15/10 ≤ 6.0, ¶[108] and [0207]), where fLC is a focal length (¶[0207]) of the cemented lens (105, Figure 1), and f is a focal length of the optical system (¶[108]).
With respect to Claim 12, Shim further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 2.0 ≤ fLL/f ≤ 22.0 (2.0 ≤ 50/10≤ 22.0, see ¶[0108] and [0208]), where fLL is a focal length (see ¶[0208]) of the meniscus lens (106, Figure 1), and f is a focal length of the optical system (see ¶[0108]).
With respect to Claim 17, Shim further discloses an apparatus (1000, Figure 1; see also ¶[0053]) comprising the optical system according to claim 1 and a sensor (300, Figure 1) configured to capture an image of an object (300 is an image sensor, Figure 1; see also ¶[0095]) through the optical system (Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 18, Shim further discloses a display system (camera module, ¶[0053]) comprising the apparatus (1000, Figure 1; see also ¶[0053]) according to claim 17 and a display apparatus (system that displays the photograph, ¶[0004]) configured to display an image (photograph, ¶[0004]) obtained based on an output from the apparatus (1000, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 19, Shim further discloses wherein the display apparatus (system that displays the photograph, ¶[0004]) includes a first display unit configured to display a first region of the image corresponding to a first angle of view and a second display unit configured to display a second region of the image corresponding to a second angle of view including the first angle of view.
With respect to Claim 20, Shim further discloses a movable apparatus (vehicle, ¶[0004]) comprising the apparatus (1000, Figure 1; see also ¶[0053]) according to claim 17 and configured to move while holding the apparatus (1000, Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 7, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 3.5 ≤ fa1/f ≤ 10.0, where fa1 is a focal length of an air lens between the first lens and the second lens, and f is a focal length of the optical system.”
With respect to Claim 11, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -2.20 ≤ Ds/rLC ≤ -0.60, where rLC is a radius of curvature of a bonding surface of the cemented lens, and Ds is a distance from the aperture stop to the bonding surface.”
With respect to Claim 13, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein on the optical axis, the first lens and the second lens each have a convex meniscus shape toward the object side, the third lens has a concave shape toward the object side, and the fourth lens has a biconvex shape.”
With respect to Claim 14, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein the cemented lens includes a positive lens and a negative lens in order from the object side to the image side, and on the optical axis, the positive lens has a biconvex shape, and the negative lens has a convex meniscus shape toward the image side.”
With respect to Claim 15, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1.0 < f × sin(θmax)/y(θmax) ≤ 1.9, where y(θ) is a projection characteristic of the optical system that represents a relationship between a half angle of view θ and an image height y, θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, and f is a focal length of the optical system.”
With respect to Claim 16, though Shim (US 2025/0355230 A1) discloses “the optical system according to claim 1,” Shim fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned combination further comprising “wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.65 < y(θmax/2)/y(θmax) < 0.85, where y(θ) is a projection characteristic of the optical system that represents a relationship between a half angle of view θ and an image height y, and θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights