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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 3rd, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, 2nd last line, “Equation 2 satisfies: 1 mm<TTL/ImgH<5 mm” should be “Equation 2 satisfies: 1 <TTL/ImgH<5”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (US 2004/0141242).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses an optical system (Figs. 1-2, tables 1-3) comprising:
an image sensor (S); and
first to fourth lenses (elements 2-5) sequentially aligned along an optical axis toward the image sensor from an object,
wherein a power of the first lens (2) is positive ([0009], “first lens with a positive refractive power”),
wherein a power of the second lens (3) is negative ([0009], “second lens with a negative refractive power”),
wherein a power of the third lens (4) is positive ([0009], “a third lens with a positive refractive power”),
wherein at least two of the first to fourth lenses are plastic lenses ([0026], “the third lens and the fourth lens are formed from a resin material”),
wherein the first lens is made of glass ([0055], “first lens 2 and the second lens 3 of the first lens group I are formed from a glass material”),
wherein the first lens has a convex meniscus shape toward the object (as shown in Fig. 1, lens 2 has a convex object side),
wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the first lens are spherical (Table 3, the first lens does not have an aspherical surface and is therefore spherical),
wherein a refractive index of the first lens is 1.7 or greater (Table 2, lens 2 has refractive index of 1.80610), and
wherein an object-side surface (S8) and a sensor-side surface of the fourth lens (S9) closest to the image sensor (S) among the first to fourth lenses include a critical point between the optical axis and an edge (as shown in Fig. 1, lens 5 has a critical point on both the object and image surfaces).
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 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (US 2022/0244495) in view of Chen (US 2020/0257078).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh discloses an optical system (Figs. 3-4, Table 3) comprising:
lenses of a first material (210 and 220, Table 3, Lenses 1 and 2 are made of glass) arranged sequentially along an optical axis (Fig. 3, 210 and 220 are sequentially arranged); and
lenses of a second material (230 and 240, Table 3, Lenses 3 and 4 are made of plastic) arranged sequentially along the optical axis on a sensor side of the lenses of the first material (Fig. 3, 230 and 240 are sequentially arranged on the image side of 220),
wherein the lenses of the first material include lenses having an aspherical surface (Table 3, Lens 1 is aspheric),
wherein the lenses of the second material include lenses having an aspherical surface (Table 3, lenses 3 and 4 are aspheric),
wherein the first material is different from the second material (first material is glass and second material is plastic in Table 3), and
wherein an average of a center thicknesses of the lenses of the first material (Table 3, average value = 1.685) is larger than an average of a center thicknesses of the lenses of the second material (Table 3, average value = 1.0835, the first material average is greater).
Yeh does not specifically disclose lenses of a first material include lenses having a spherical surface.
However Chen, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches lenses of a first material (Table 1, lenses L1-L2, [0069], “first lens L1 is a glass aspherical lens … second lens L2 is a glass spherical lens”) include lenses having a spherical surface (Table 1, L2 has spherical surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Yeh with the lenses of a first material include lenses having a spherical surface as taught by Chen, for the purpose of improving the resolution of the system ([0066]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yeh teaches as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above and Yeh further discloses wherein the first material is a glass material (Table 3, Lenses 1 and 2 are made of glass), and
wherein the second material is a plastic material (Table 3, lenses 3 and 4 are made of plastic).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yeh teaches as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above and Yeh further discloses wherein an average of refractive indices of the lenses of the first material (Table 3, average = 1.691) is greater than an average of a refractive indices of the lenses of the second material (Table 3, average = 1.669, the first material average is greater), and
wherein an average effective diameter of the lenses of the first material is larger than an average effective diameter of the lenses of the second material (as shown in Fig. 3, the first material lenses have a greater average effective diameter).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yeh teaches as is set forth in claim 10 rejection above but does not specifically disclose comprising a cemented lens in which at least two of the lenses of the first material are bonded to each other, wherein the cemented lens includes a lens having a positive refractive power and a lens having a negative refractive power.
However Chen, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches comprising a cemented lens (Fig. 1, L4 and L5 are cemented) in which at least two of the lenses of the first material are bonded to each other ([0071], “fourth lens L4 and the fifth lens L5 are cemented as a cemented body”), wherein the cemented lens includes a lens having a positive refractive power and a lens having a negative refractive power (L4 is positive and L5 is negative, [0071], “fourth lens L4 has a positive refractive power … The fifth lens L5 has a negative refractive power”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Yeh in view of Chen with the comprising a cemented lens in which at least two of the lenses of the first material are bonded to each other, wherein the cemented lens includes a lens having a positive refractive power and a lens having a negative refractive power as taught by Chen, for the purpose of improving the resolution of the system ([0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2013/0044378) in view of Abe (US 2004/0141242), further in view of Tang (US 2011/0075271).
Regarding claim 15, Yin discloses a camera module (Fig. 1 and Table 1) comprising:
an image sensor ([0018], “An image sensor, such as charge coupled device (CCD) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor transistor (CMOS), can be positioned on the image plane 70”);
first to fourth lenses (10, 30, 40, and 50) sequentially aligned along an optical axis from an object toward an image sensor (as shown in Fig. 1, the lenses are sequentially arranged); and
an optical filter (60) between the image sensor and the fourth lens (as shown in Fig. 1, 60 is between the fourth lens 50 and the sensor 70),
wherein a center thickness of the third lens is greater than a sum of center thicknesses of each of the first and second lenses (the third lens having a thickness of 0.942 in Table 1 is greater than a sum of thicknesses of lenses 1 and 2 = 0.766),
wherein each of effective diameters of the first to third lenses is smaller than a diagonal length of the image sensor (as shown in Fig. 1, the diameters of lenses 10, 30, and 40 are smaller than the image sensor 70),
wherein at least another one of the first to fourth lenses is an aspherical lens (Table 1, second to fourth lenses are aspherical),
wherein the first lens is made of glass ([0017], “The first lens 10 is made of glass by mould pressing technique”),
wherein the first lens has a convex meniscus shape toward the object (as shown in Fig. 1, 10 has a convex object side surface),
wherein a distance from a center of the object-side surface of the first lens to a surface of the image sensor is TTL (Table 1, the lens system has a total length value of 4.84),
wherein a total effective focal length is F ([0037], F = 4.125 mm), and
wherein the following Equation 1 satisfies: 1 mm≤F≤10 mm ([0037], F = 4.125 mm), and
wherein the following Equation 3 satisfies: TTL≤10 mm, (Table 1, value = 4.84 mm).
Yin does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the first to fourth lenses is a spherical lens, wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the first lens are spherical.
However Abe, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches wherein at least one of the first to fourth lenses is a spherical lens (Table 3, the first lens does not have an aspherical surface and is therefore spherical), wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the first lens are spherical (Table 3, the first lens does not have an aspherical surface and is therefore spherical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Yin with the wherein at least one of the first to fourth lenses is a spherical lens, wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the first lens are spherical as taught by Abe, for the purpose of reducing production costs and improving weight ([0027]).
Modified Yin does not specifically disclose half of a diagonal length of the image sensor is ImgH, wherein the following Equation 2 satisfies: 1 mm<TTL/ImgH<5 mm.
However Tang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches half of a diagonal length of the image sensor is ImgH ([0040], “half of the diagonal length of the effective pixel area of the electronic sensor is ImgH”), wherein the following Equation 2 satisfies: 1 mm<TTL/ImgH<5 mm (Table 7, TTL/ImgH = 2.07 and 1.96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Yin in view of Abe with the half of a diagonal length of the image sensor is ImgH, wherein the following Equation 2 satisfies: 1 mm<TTL/ImgH<5 mm as taught by Tang, for the purpose of reducing size and sensitivity of the imaging assembly ([0009]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2004/0141242) in view of Yeh (US 2022/0244495).
Regarding claim 16, Abe discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein an average effective diameter of the object-side surface and the sensor-side surface of the first lens is larger than an average effective diameter of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the second lens.
However Yeh, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches wherein an average effective diameter of the object-side surface and the sensor-side surface of the first lens (Fig. 1, an effective diameter of lens 110 is shown) is larger than an average effective diameter of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the second lens (Fig. 1, an effective diameter of lens 120 is shown, the effective diameter of 110 is greater than 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Abe with the wherein an average effective diameter of the object-side surface and the sensor-side surface of the first lens is larger than an average effective diameter of an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the second lens as taught by Yeh, for the purpose of reducing track length and correcting aberrations ([0042-0043]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 2004/0141242) in view of Yin (US 2013/0044378).
Regarding claim 17, Abe discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a center thickness of the third lens is a largest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses.
However Yin, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an optical system, teaches wherein a center thickness of the third lens (Table 1, S5 thickness) is a largest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses (as disclosed in Table 1, lens 3 which corresponds to S5 is the thickest lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the optical system of Abe with the wherein a center thickness of the third lens is a largest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses as taught by Yin, for the purpose of reducing chromatic aberration ([0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Abe teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above and Abe further discloses wherein the second lens is made of glass ([0055], “first lens 2 and the second lens 3 of the first lens group I are formed from a glass material”), and
wherein the center thickness of the second lens is a thinnest among the center thicknesses of the first to fourth lenses (as disclosed in Table 2, the second lens corresponding to S4, has a thickness of 0.77 which is smaller than the other lenses).
Regarding claim 19, modified Abe teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above and Abe further discloses wherein the third lens has a convex meniscus shape toward the image sensor on the optical axis (as shown in Fig. 1, lens 4, corresponding to the third lens, has a convex image side surface).
Regarding claim 20, modified Abe teaches as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above and Abe further discloses wherein the second lens is made of glass ([0055], “first lens 2 and the second lens 3 of the first lens group I are formed from a glass material”), and
wherein the third lens and the fourth lens are made of plastic ([0026], “the third lens and the fourth lens are formed from a resin material”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 2, Abe (US 2004/0141242) discloses an optical system (Figs. 1-2, tables 1-3) comprising:
at least two plastic lenses ([0026], “the third lens and the fourth lens are formed from a resin material”) and at least two glass lenses ([0055], “first lens 2 and the second lens 3 of the first lens group I are formed from a glass material”),
wherein the glass lenses (lenses 2-3) and the plastic lenses (lenses 4-5) are sequentially aligned along an optical axis from an object side toward an image sensor (as shown in Fig. 1, lenses 2-5 are sequentially arranged),
wherein a power of a first lens closest to the object side is positive ([0009], “first lens with a positive refractive power”),
wherein the first lens is made of glass ([0055], “first lens 2 and the second lens 3 of the first lens group I are formed from a glass material”),
wherein the first lens has a convex meniscus shape toward the object side (as shown in Fig. 1, lens 2 has a convex object side),
wherein an object-side surface and a sensor-side surface of the first lens are spherical (Table 3, the first lens does not have an aspherical surface and is therefore spherical),
wherein a lens having a thinnest thickness in the optical axis among the lenses is one of the glass lenses (Lens 3, corresponding to S4 in Table 2, has a thickness of 0.77, which is the smallest of the lenses).
Yin (US 2013/0044378) further teaches wherein a lens having a thickest thickness in the optical axis among the lenses is one of the plastic lenses (as disclosed in table 1, lens 3, corresponding to S5, has a thickness of 0.942 which is the greatest among the lenses, [0042], “third lens and the fourth lens are made of plastic”).
However, the prior art of Abe and Yin taken either singularly or in combination with any other prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the following:
“wherein a composite power of the remaining lenses excluding the first lens closest to the object side is positive”.
Claims 3-9 are allowed due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein a number of lenses of the first material is greater than that of the lenses of the second material, and wherein a difference between the number of lenses of the first material and the number of lenses of the second material is less than the number of lenses of the second material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Hua (US 2022/0174193), Son (US 2016/0154207), Hsu (US 2012/0281299), Shih (US 2011/0205640) teach an optical system comprising: an image sensor; and first to fourth lenses sequentially aligned along an optical axis toward the image sensor from an object, wherein a power of the first lens is positive, wherein a power of the second lens is negative, wherein a power of the third lens is positive, wherein at least two of the first to fourth lenses are plastic lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6 October 2026
Prosecution Insights