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.
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 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 1: Claim 1 recites the first lens having “an image side surface is a flat surface”, but also recites “the image side surface of the first lens is a spherical mirror surface”, which contradict each other, making the metes and bounds unclear. It is unclear to those of ordinary skill in the art if the image side surface of the first lens is flat or spherical.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “spherical mirror surface” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “an inflection point,” while the accepted meaning is “having reflection on that surface.” In the applicant’s specification, page 11, the use of mirror does not seem to indicate the presence of reflection on the surface, but seems to indicate an inflection point. Additionally, there is no reflection disclosed in the specification. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With regards to claims 2-14, since they are dependent on the independent claim 1, they also have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 15: Similarly, claim 15 recites “…an image side surface thereof is a flat surface”, the specification does not support the first lens having a flat image-side surface. The specification does not support infinite curvature, but the specification does disclose some curvature values for the image-side surface, making the claim unclear to those of ordinary skill in the art what is meant by “flat”.
With regards to claims 16-20, since they are dependent on claim 15, they also have the same deficiencies.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed that the first lens has an image side surface to be an aspheric surface with an image-side on-axis curvature magnitude greater than the object-side on-axis curvature magnitude.
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, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Patent Publication 20160124191) in view of Shimada (US Patent Publication 20150323771).
Regarding claim 1: Hashimoto teaches (example 8, table 8; figure 15) wherein an optical imaging lens assembly, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L1) with a positive refractive power (Table 8), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 15), and an image-side surface wherein the curvature radius magnitude is greater than the curvature radius magnitude of the object-side surface of the first lens (Table 8); a second lens (L2) with a negative refractive power (table 8); a third lens (L3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L4) with a positive refractive power (table 8), an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 15);a fifth lens (L5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) with a positive refractive power (table 8); and a seventh lens (L7) with a negative refractive power (table 8), and the image-side surface of the first lens is aspheric (table 8).
Hashimoto does not teach wherein the optical imaging lens assembly includes a variable diaphragm, or wherein the first lens is made of glass.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimada teaches (fig. 1) an imaging lens assembly that includes a variable diaphragm (s1) and has lenses made of glass ([0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Hashimoto, to include a variable diaphragm, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of having the ability to change the F number and to decrease the front lens diameter (Shimada [0043]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Hashimoto, to make the first lens to be made of glass, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of utilizing lenses that can be made aspheric or to achieve desired optical effects (Shimada [0114]).
Regarding claim 3: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hashimoto teaches wherein f4/R7 = 1.718 (calculated from table 8), which closely approaches the required conditional expression of 1.2<f4/R7<1.7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05).
Regarding claim 4: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hashimoto further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.2<(R11+R12)/f6<1.7 (From table 8: (R11+R12)/f6 = 1.304).
Regarding claim 7: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hashimoto teaches wherein CT1+T12)/(CT2+T23+CT3) = 0.718 (calculated from table 8), which closely approaches the claimed range of 0.8<(CT1+T12)/(CT2+T23+CT3)<1.2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05).
Regarding claim 12: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Since Shimada teaches a variable diaphragm there would inherently be an EPDmax and EPDmin; and finding the ration for which the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0 is satisfied would be routine skill in the art through routine optimization. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05).
Regarding claim 14: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hashimoto further teaches wherein the object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface (fig. 15); and wherein the image-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 15: Hashimoto teaches (example 8, table 8; figure 15) wherein an optical imaging lens assembly, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (L1) with a positive refractive power (Table 8), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 15), and an image-side surface wherein the curvature radius magnitude is greater than the curvature radius magnitude of the object-side surface of the first lens (Table 8); a second lens (L2) with a negative refractive power (table 8); a third lens (L3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L4) with a positive refractive power (table 8), an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 15);a fifth lens (L5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) with a positive refractive power (table 8); and a seventh lens (L7) with a negative refractive power (table 8), and the image-side surface of the first lens is aspheric (table 8).
Hashimoto does not teach wherein the optical imaging lens assembly includes a variable diaphragm, wherein the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0, or wherein the first lens is made of glass.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimada teaches (fig. 1) an imaging lens assembly that includes a variable diaphragm (s1) and has lenses made of glass ([0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Hashimoto, to include a variable diaphragm, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of having the ability to change the F number and to decrease the front lens diameter (Shimada [0043]). Since Shimada teaches a variable diaphragm there would inherently be an EPDmax and EPDmin; and finding the ration for which the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0 is satisfied would be routine skill in the art through routine optimization. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Hashimoto, to make the first lens to be made of glass, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of utilizing lenses that can be made aspheric or to achieve desired optical effects (Shimada [0114]).
Regarding claim 17: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 15, as set forth above. Hashimoto teaches wherein f4/R7 = 1.718 (calculated from table 8), which closely approaches the required conditional expression of 1.2<f4/R7<1.7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05).
Regarding claim 18: Hashimoto and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Hashimoto further teaches wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.2<(R11+R12)/f6<1.7 (From table 8: (R11+R12)/f6 = 1.304).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent 11644647) in view of Shimada (US Patent Publication 20150323771).
Regarding claim 1: Park teaches (19th embodiment, fig.37, Tables 37 and 60) wherein an optical imaging lens assembly, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (1019) with a positive refractive power (Table 60), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 37), and an image-side surface wherein the curvature radius magnitude is greater than the curvature radius magnitude of the object-side surface of the first lens (Table 37); a second lens (2019) with a negative refractive power (table 60); a third lens (3019) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (4019) with a positive refractive power (table 60), an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig.37);a fifth lens (5019) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (6019) with a positive refractive power (table 60); and a seventh lens (7019) with a negative refractive power (table 60), and the image-side surface of the first lens is aspheric (table 37).
Park does not teach wherein the optical imaging lens assembly includes a variable diaphragm or wherein the first lens is made of glass.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimada teaches (fig. 1) an imaging lens assembly that includes a variable diaphragm (s1) and has lenses made of glass ([0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Park, to include a variable diaphragm, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of having the ability to change the F number and to decrease the front lens diameter (Shimada [0043]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Park, to make the first lens to be made of glass, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of utilizing lenses that can be made aspheric or to achieve desired optical effects (Shimada [0114]).
Regarding claim 8: Park and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Shimada teaches wherein the conditional expression (DT31+DT32)/DT11 = 2.02, which is just outside the claimed range of 1.6<(DT31+DT32)/DT11<2.0. Park discloses a value that is so close the to claimed range that one would expect the imaging lens to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11: Park and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Park and Shimada are silent regarding the conditional expression 1.1<(SAG71+SAG72)/(SAG51+SAG52)<1.8. However, relying on Park’s figure 37 we can approximate the conditional expression to be about 1.3, which is within the claimed range. Additionally, it has been held that “the description of the article pictured can be relied upon, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art”. In re Wright 569 F.2d 1124. 193 USPQ (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2125.
Regarding claim 12: Park and Shimada teach the optical imaging lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Since Shimada teaches a variable diaphragm there would inherently be an EPDmax and EPDmin; and finding the ration for which the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0 is satisfied would be routine skill in the art through routine optimization. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05).
Regarding claim 15: Park teaches (19th embodiment, fig.37, Tables 37 and 60) wherein an optical imaging lens assembly, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (1019) with a positive refractive power (Table 60), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig. 37), and an image-side surface wherein the curvature radius magnitude is greater than the curvature radius magnitude of the object-side surface of the first lens (Table 37); a second lens (2019) with a negative refractive power (table 60); a third lens (3019) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (4019) with a positive refractive power (table 60), an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface (fig.37);a fifth lens (5019) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (6019) with a positive refractive power (table 60); and a seventh lens (7019) with a negative refractive power (table 60), and the image-side surface of the first lens is aspheric (table 37).
Park does not teach wherein the optical imaging lens assembly includes a variable diaphragm, wherein the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0, or wherein the first lens is made of glass.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shimada teaches (fig. 1) an imaging lens assembly that includes a variable diaphragm (s1) and has lenses made of glass ([0114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Park, to include a variable diaphragm, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of having the ability to change the F number and to decrease the front lens diameter (Shimada [0043]). Since Shimada teaches a variable diaphragm there would inherently be an EPDmax and EPDmin; and finding the ratio for which the conditional expression 4.0<f1/(EPDmax-EPDmin)< 5.0 is satisfied would be routine skill in the art through routine optimization. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the conditional expression met through routine optimization, and since it has been held that finding the optimum or workable ranges is not inventive (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 214.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging lens assembly, taught by Park, to make the first lens to be made of glass, taught by Shimada, for the purposes of utilizing lenses that can be made aspheric or to achieve desired optical effects (Shimada [0114]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 13, 16 and 19-20 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.
The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or suggest all of the limitations of claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 13, 16 and 19-20 including, with all other limitations:
With regards to claim 2 and 16, wherein the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies the following conditional expression1.0<f3/(f2+f7)<2.0 (Hashimoto discloses the expression to be 5.47);
With regards to claim 5 and 19, wherein the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies the following conditional expression 1.8<R3/R4<2.3 (Hashimoto discloses 1.51);
With regards to claim 6 and 20, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied1.4<R5/R6<2.0 (Hashimoto discloses -0.83);
With regards to claim 9, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied 2.9<f34/f12<4.9 (Hashimoto discloses 1.61);
With regards to claim 10, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied 6.5<f56/(CT5+CT6)<7.5 (Hashimoto discloses 14.5);
With regards to claim 13, wherein the object-side surface of the fifth lens is convex and the image-side surface of the fifth lens is concave, in such a manner where a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be appropriate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Son (US Patent Publication 20190369359), Bian (US Patent Publication 20200209548), Song (US Patent Publication 20200249439), Kuo (US Patent publication 20200012078) and Yamazaki (US Patent Publication 20210364741) all disclose imaging lens assemblies with some similarities to the claimed invention, but do not meet all of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1401. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 4 pm (MST).
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 Mack can be reached on (571) 272-3333. 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.
/ANNA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/20/2024
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872