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 .
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (CN 110361833 A, See Attached Espacent Machine Translation).
Re Claim 12, Cao discloses, on Fig. 1 and Table 1-1, an image capturing optical system comprising ten lens elements (lenses 1-10), the ten lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a first lens element (lens 1), a second lens element (lens 2), a third lens element (lens 3), a fourth lens element (lens 4), a fifth lens element (lens 5), a sixth lens element (lens 6), a seventh lens element (lens 7), an eighth lens element (lens 8), a ninth lens element (lens 9) and a tenth lens element (lens 10), and each of the ten lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and an image-side surface facing toward the image side; wherein the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (surface 11 is convex) [Table 1-1], the second lens element has positive refractive power (lens 2 is positive)[Table 1-1], the fourth lens element has positive refractive power (lens 4 is positive)[Table 1-1], the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (surface 51 is concave)[Table 1-1], the image-side surface of the seventh lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (surface 71 is concave)[Table 1-1], the tenth lens element has negative refractive power (lens 10 is negative) [Table 1-1], and at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of at least one lens element of the image capturing optical system has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof (Fig. 1 shows that lens 7 has two off axis critical points).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 110361833 A, See Attached Espacent Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Cao discloses, on Fig. 1 and Table 1-1, an image capturing optical system comprising ten lens elements, the ten lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a first lens element (lens 1), a second lens element (lens 2), a third lens element, (lens 3) a fourth lens element (lens 4), a fifth lens element (lens 5), a sixth lens element (lens 6), a seventh lens element (lens 7), an eighth lens element (lens 8), a ninth lens element (lens 9) and a tenth lens element (lens 10), and each of the ten lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and an image-side surface facing toward the image side (see Fig. 1); wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power ( lens 1 is positive) [Table 1-1], the object-side surface of the second lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (surface 21 is convex) [Table 1-1], the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (surface 81 is convex) [Table 1-1], and at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of at least one lens element of the image capturing optical system has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof (Fig. 1 shows that lens 7 has two off axis critical points); a focal length of the image capturing optical system is f, a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is R15, and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.1<f/R15<2.5 (f=75 mm and R15=110.141 mm, f/R15=0.68) [Table 1-1 and Par 116]
But Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and an image surface is TL, a maximum image height of the image capturing optical system is ImgH,
0.5<TL/Imgh<4.0
Optimizing track length and image height is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Cao teaches track length [Par 116], and the image height (image plane diameter or general image size is optimized) [Par 30], as variables which achieves a recognized result, improved infrared confocality and minimizing or eliminating defocusing at high and low temperatures [Par 30].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting, track length and image height, and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, TL/Imgh, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 2, modified Cao, obviates the image capturing optical system of claim 1.
But modified Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein, wherein the axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL, the maximum image height of the image capturing optical system is ImgH, and the following condition is satisfied
0.6<TL/Imgh<2.8
Optimizing track length and image height is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Cao teaches track length [Par 116], and the image height (image plane diameter or general image size is optimized) [Par 30], as variables which achieves a recognized result, improved infrared confocality and minimizing or eliminating defocusing at high and low temperatures [Par 30].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting, track length and image height, and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, TL/Imgh, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 3, modified Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein |R15/f8|=3.52 [Table 1-1], wherein the curvature radius of the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is R15, a focal length of the eighth lens element is f8.
But modified Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein the following condition is satisfied:
|R15/f8|<3.5
Optimizing the radius of curvature of the object side of the eighth lens and the focal length of the eighth lens, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Cao teaches the radius of curvature of the object side of the eighth lens and the focal length of the eighth lens as variables [Table 1-1] which achieves a recognized result, improved confocality [Par 28].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting R15 and f8 and identifies said ratio as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Cao such that, |R15/f8|<3.5 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 4, modified Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1.
But Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein the axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL, the focal length of the image capturing optical system is f, the maximum image height of the image capturing optical system is ImgH, an entrance pupil diameter of the image capturing optical system is EPD, and the following condition is satisfied:
1.0 <(TL * f)/ (ImgH * EPD)< 3.00
Optimizing track length, image height, and focal length, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Cao teaches track length [Par 116], image height (image plane diameter or general image size is optimized) [Par 30], and focal length [Par 115-116], as variables which achieves a recognized result, improved infrared confocality and minimizing or eliminating defocusing at high and low temperatures [Par 30].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting, track length, image height, and focal length, and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, 1.0 <(TL * f)/ (ImgH * EPD)< 3.00, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 7, modified Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1, and Cao further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the second lens element has positive refractive power (lens 2 is positive) [Table 1-1], and the third lens element has negative refractive power (lens 3 is negative) [Table 1-1].
Re claim 11, modified Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1, and further teaches on Table 1-1, wherein an Abbe number of the first lens element is V1, an Abbe number of the second lens element is V2, an Abbe number of the third lens element is V3, an Abbe number of the fourth lens element is V4, an Abbe number of the fifth lens element is V5, an Abbe number of the sixth lens element is V6, an Abbe number of the seventh lens element is V7, an Abbe number of the eighth lens element is V8, an Abbe number of the ninth lens element is V9, an Abbe number of the tenth lens element is V10, an Abbe number of the i-th lens element is Vi, and at least one lens element of the image capturing optical system satisfies the following condition: 25.0<Vi<50.0, wherein i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 (lens 3 has V3=25.456).
But modified Cao does not explicitly teach, wherein at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of each of at least three lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one inflection point.
However, Cao does teach, on Fig. 1 explicit control of, the inflection points on the surface of a lens (Lens 7 has inflection points on the object side and image side, Lens 5 has an inflection point on the image side)[Par 97] and different arrangements of lenses with inflection points (lens 5 and 7 have inflection points at different positions). Thus Cao teaches that it is known within the art, to configure multiple lens surfaces with inflection point. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be capable of simply applying said inflection points, to more surfaces such that, at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of each of at least three lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one inflection point. Further, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to so in order to provide aberration or dispersion control [Par 115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Coa, such that at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of each of at least three lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one inflection point, in order to provide control of aberration as taught by Cao [Par 115].
Re Claim 13, Cao discloses, the image capturing optical system of claim 12.
But Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element is Y11, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is Y62, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the seventh lens element is Y71, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the tenth lens element is Y102, and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.55<Y11/Y62< 1.2
1.5<Y102/Y11< 5
1.5<Y102/Y71< 3.0
Optimizing maximum effective radius (otherwise known as effective lens diameter) is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Cao teaches, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the seventh lens element, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the tenth lens element, as variables which achieve a recognized result, as evidenced by the explicit ray diagrams of Fig. 1 which show the maximum effective radius of surfaces 11, 62, 71, and 102, and their effect on the light path of the image [Par 97].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the maximum effective radius of surfaces 11, 62, 71, and 102 and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, said variables such that the following expressions are satisfied: 0.55<Y11/Y62< 1.2, 1.5<Y102/Y11< 5, 1.5<Y102/Y71< 3.0, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 15, Cao discloses, on Table 1-1, wherein a minimum value among Abbe numbers of all lens elements of the image capturing optical system is Vmin, and the following condition is satisfied: 10<Vmin<20 (Vmin for lens 4 is 17.944).
But Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the object-side surfaces and the image-side surface of each of at least two lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof.
However, Cao does teach, on Fig. 1 explicit control of, the inflection points on the surface of a lens (Lens 7 has inflection points on the object side and image side, Lens 5 has an inflection point on the image side) [Par 97] and different arrangements of lenses with inflection points (lens 5 and 7 have inflection points at different positions). Thus Cao teaches that it is known within the art, to configure multiple lens surfaces with inflection point. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be capable of simply applying said inflection points, to more surfaces such that, wherein at least one of the object-side surfaces and the image-side surface of each of at least two lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof. Further, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to so in order to provide aberration or dispersion control [Par 115].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Coa, such that at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of each of at least three lens elements of the image capturing optical system has at least one inflection point, in order to provide control of aberration as taught by Cao [Par 115].
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Mansurov ("What is Field Curvature?", Photographylife.com, December 2019, Page 1)
.
Re Claim 8, modified Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1, and further teaches on Fig. 1 and Table 1-1, the image-side surface of the third lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (surface 32 is concave) [Table 1-1], the fourth lens element has positive refractive power (lens 4 is positive) [Table 1-1], and the tenth lens element has negative refractive power (lens 10 is negative) [Table 1-1].
But modified Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein the object-side surface of the third lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof.
Cao and Mansurov are in the same field of endeavor: optical systems and camera components. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of controlling Field Curvature. “Field Curvature, also known as “curvature of field” or “Petzval field curvature”, is a common optical problem that causes a flat object to appear sharp only in a certain part(s) of the frame, instead of being uniformly sharp across the frame” [Par 1].
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; the surface can be concave, planar, or convex.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a device where the curved nature of the object side of the third lens is either concave, planar, or convex.
The results would have been predictable, and since Mansurov teaches the relationship between the curved nature of the lens and field curvature, it is a solution with finite predictable outcomes; a flat lens would produce less field curvature, a convex surface would produce more field curvature, and a concave surface would produce more field curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the object side of the third lens to be convex because a convex surface is one of the finite number of choices of curvatures which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control field curvature for lens systems.
Re Claim 10, Cao obviates, the image capturing optical system of claim 1, and Cao further teaches on Fig. 1 and Table 1-1, the tenth lens element has negative refractive power (lens 10 is negative) [Table 1-1], the object-side surface of the tenth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (Surface 101 is concave).
But modified Cao does not explicitly disclose, wherein the image-side surface of the seventh lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof, and the image-side surface of the tenth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof.
Cao and Mansurov are in the same field of endeavor: optical systems and camera components. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of controlling Field Curvature. “Field Curvature, also known as “curvature of field” or “Petzval field curvature”, is a common optical problem that causes a flat object to appear sharp only in a certain part(s) of the frame, instead of being uniformly sharp across the frame” [Par 1].
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; the surface can be concave, planar, or convex.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a device where the curved nature of the image side of the seventh and the image side of the tenth lens is either concave, planar, or convex.
The results would have been predictable, and since Mansurov teaches the relationship between the curved nature of the lens and field curvature, it is a solution with finite predictable outcomes; a flat lens would produce less field curvature, a convex surface would produce more field curvature, and a concave surface would produce more field curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the image side of the seventh lens to be convex and an image side of the tenth lens is concave, because a concave surface and convex surface is one of the finite number of choices of curvatures which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control field curvature for lens systems.
Re claim 14, Cao discloses, the image capturing optical system of claim 12, and Cao further discloses on Fig. 1 and Table 1-1, wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power (lens 1 is positive) [Table 1-1], the image-side surface of the third lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (surface 32 is concave) [Table 1-1].
But Cao does not explicitly disclose, the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof, and the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof.
Cao and Mansurov are in the same field of endeavor: optical systems and camera components. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of controlling Field Curvature. “Field Curvature, also known as “curvature of field” or “Petzval field curvature”, is a common optical problem that causes a flat object to appear sharp only in a certain part(s) of the frame, instead of being uniformly sharp across the frame” [Par 1].
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; the surface can be concave, planar, or convex.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a device where the curved nature of the image side of the first and the image side of the fifth lens is either concave, planar, or convex.
The results would have been predictable, and since Mansurov teaches the relationship between the curved nature of the lens and field curvature, it is a solution with finite predictable outcomes; a flat lens would produce less field curvature, a convex surface would produce more field curvature, and a concave surface would produce more field curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the image side of the fifth lens to be concave and an image side of the fifth lens is convex, because a concave surface and a convex surface is one of the finite number of choices of curvatures which could have been pursued with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control field curvature for lens systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, and 9 are 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.
Re Claim 5, Cao and the prior art fails to teach or suggest, wherein the focal length of the image capturing optical system is f, a focal length of the second lens element is f2, a focal length of the third lens element is f3, a focal length of the fourth lens element is f4, a focal length of the fifth lens element is f5, a focal length of the sixth lens element is f6, a focal length of the seventh lens element is f7, a focal length of the eighth lens element is f8, a focal length of the ninth lens element is f9, a focal length of the i-th lens element is fi, and the following condition is satisfied: Γ|f/fi|<4.0, wherein i=2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, in combination with the other claim limitations.
Re Claim 6, Cao and the prior art fails to teach or suggest, the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof; wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element is R1, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.2<R1/CT1<7.0, in combination with the other claim limitations.
Re Claim 9, Cao and the prior art fails to teach or suggest, wherein the seventh lens element has positive refractive power, and the eighth lens element has positive refractive power, in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US 20210389575 A1) similarly teaches a ten lens system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights