DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 10 - SAG51, SAG52 and effective radius vertex;
Claim 11 – SAG62, SAG71 and effective radius vertex.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, claimed term of “…an effective radius vertex…” (line 3) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Commonly, in geometry, a vertex is a point where two or more curves, lines, or edges meet or intersect. A curve with a defined radius would not have a vertex. The term of “radius vertex” is confusing.
Claim 11 has the same undefined issue (line 3) as that of claim 10.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20190369368) in a view of Thorlabs “Thorlabs Catalog V21”, Thorlabs Inc., 2011.
Regarding Claim 1, Jung teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract; figs. 1, 13, 15, 25, 29, 23, and 25), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (fig. 29):
a first lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 29, 1015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f1 = 4.290),
a diaphragm (¶[0225], Table 29, stop between S2 and S3),
a second lens (fig. 29, 2015),
a third lens (fig. 29, 3015),
a fourth lens (fig. 29, 4015),
a fifth lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 29, 5015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f5 = -21.133),
a sixth lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 29, 6015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f6 = 3.784), and
a seventh lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 29, 7015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f7 = -2.465),
But Jung does not specifically disclose wherein a variable diaphragm.
However, variable diaphragms are common optical components, Thorlabs discloses Iris diaphragms (Thorlabs Catalog V21, p 324, Unmounted Iris Diaphragms, lever-activated iris diaphragms, continuously variable aperture control, D5S, D12S, D25S, D50S, MIN APERTURE, MAX APERTURE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the d optical imaging lens assembly of Jung by the variable diaphragms from Thorlabs to control (reducing) light intensity, for a purpose of controlling lights entering optical assemblies.
Jung-Thorlabs combination teaches that the variable diaphragm can be used to reduce the entrance pupil of Jung. The entrance pupil of Jung is given from ¶[0296], Table 59 of Jung, for example 15, f = 4.400, Fno = 1.81, so entrance pupil of Jung (maximum entrance pupil diameter) EPDmax = 4.400/1.81 = 2.43 mm; Thorlabs teaches that variable diaphragms have minimum entrance pupil diameters, for example, D25S, EPDmin = 1.0 mm; so, f / (EPDmax -EPDmin) = 3.08, satisfying
3.0 < f / (EPDmax -EPDmin) < 6.0,
wherein EPDmax is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, EPDmin is a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and EPDmax, EPDmin and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein
an object-side surface of the second lens is a convex surface, while an image-side surface is a concave surface (fig. 29, 2015; ¶[0225], Table 29, S3, S4, as disclosed in Jung); and
an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface, while an image-side surface is a concave surface (fig. 29, 3015; ¶[0225], Table 29, S5, S6, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 3, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein EPDmax is the maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and EPDmax meet:
1.2 < f1 / EPDmax < 1.8,
(¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f1 = 4.290; EPDmax = 2.43 mm, see above; so f1 / EPDmax = 1.765, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 4, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein ΔDT isa maximum variation of a clear aperture of the variable diaphragm, and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly and ΔDT meet:
7 < f / ΔDT <9,
(¶[0296], Table 59 of Jung, example 8, f = 4.320; EPDmax = 4.32/1.68 = 2.57 mm; in case of D50S of Thorlabs, EPDmin = 2.0 mm, ΔDT = 0.57 mm; f / ΔDT = 7.58).
Regarding Claim 5, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and an effective focal length f3 of the third lens meet:
0.5 < (f2 +f5) / f3 < 1.5,
(¶[0297], Table 60, example 25, f2 = 6.019, f3 = -10.927, f5 = -16.283, so (f2+f5) / f3 = 0.94, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 7, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens, a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens, a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens and a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens meet:
1.4 < (R5 + R6) / (R3 +R4) < 2.1,
(fig. 13; ¶[0185], Table 13, second and third lens gives (R5 + R6) / (R3 +R4) =(8.06552 +7.83668) / (5.58930 + 2.57397) = 1.95, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 8, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT6 of the sixth lens on the optical axis meet:
0.9 < CT1 / (CT5 + CT6) < 1.3,
(fig. 43; ¶[0260], Table 43, gives CT1 = 0.9200, CT5 = 0.2295, CT6 = 0.7714; so CT1 / (CT5 + CT6) = 0.919, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 9, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a combined focal length f12 of the first lens and the second lens and a combined focal length f56 of the fifth lens and the sixth lens meet:
1.3 < f12 / f56 < 1.8,
(¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, gives, f1 = 4.290, f2 = -10.606, f5 = -21.133, f6 = 3.784; so f12 = 7.20, f56 = 4.61; f12 / f56 = 1.56, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 12, Jung teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract; figs. 1, 13, 15, 25, 29, 23, and 25), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (fig. 29):
a first lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 29, 1015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f1 = 4.290),
a diaphragm (¶[0225], Table 29, stop between S2 and S3),
a second lens (fig. 29, 2015),
a third lens (fig. 29, 3015),
a fourth lens (fig. 29, 4015),
a fifth lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 29, 5015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f5 = -21.133),
a sixth lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 29, 6015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f6 = 3.784), and
a seventh lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 29, 7015; ¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f7 = -2.465),
wherein EPDmax is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and EPDmax meet:
1.2 < f1 / EPDmax < 1.8,
(¶[0296], Table 59 of Jung, for example 15, f = 4.400, Fno = 1.81, so entrance pupil (maximum entrance pupil diameter) EPDmax = 4.400/1.81 = 2.43 mm; (¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, f1 = 4.290; so f1 / EPDmax = 1.765).
But Jung does not specifically disclose wherein a variable diaphragm.
However, variable diaphragms are common optical components, Thorlabs discloses Iris diaphragms (Thorlabs Catalog V21, p 324, Unmounted Iris Diaphragms, lever-activated iris diaphragms, continuously variable aperture control, D5S, D12S, D25S, D50S, MIN APERTURE, MAX APERTURE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the d optical imaging lens assembly of Jung by the variable diaphragms from Thorlabs to control (reducing) light intensity, for a purpose of controlling lights entering optical assemblies.
Regarding Claim 13, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein
an object-side surface of the second lens is a convex surface, while an image-side surface is a concave surface (fig. 29, 2015; ¶[0225], Table 29, S3, S4, as disclosed in Jung); and
an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface, while an image-side surface is a concave surface (fig. 29, 3015; ¶[0225], Table 29, S5, S6, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 14, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 13, wherein EPDmax is the maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, EPDmin is a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and EPDmax, EPDmin and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly meet:
3.0 < f / (EPDmax-EPDmin) < 6.0,
(The entrance pupil of Jung is given from ¶[0296], Table 59 of Jung, for example 15, f = 4.400, Fno = 1.81, so entrance pupil of Jung (maximum entrance pupil diameter) EPDmax = 4.400/1.81 = 2.43 mm; Thorlabs teaches that variable diaphragms have minimum entrance pupil diameters, for example, D25S, EPDmin = 1.0 mm; So, f / (EPDmax -EPDmin) = 3.08).
Regarding Claim 15, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein ΔDT is a maximum variation of a clear aperture of the variable diaphragm ,and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly and ΔDT meet
7 < f /ΔDT < 9,
(¶[0296], Table 59 of Jung, example 8, f = 4.320; EPDmax = 4.32/1.68 = 2.57 mm; in case of D50S of Thorlabs, EPDmin = 2.0 mm, ΔDT = 0.57 mm; f / ΔDT = 7.58).
Regarding Claim 16, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and an effective focal length f3 of the third lens meet
0.5 < (f2+f5) / f3 < 1.5,
(¶[0297], Table 60, example 25, f2 = 6.019, f3 = -10.927, f5 = -16.283, so (f2+f5) / f3 = 0.94, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 18, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens, a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens, a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens and a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens meet:
1.4 < (R5+R6) / (R3+R4) < 2.1,
(fig. 13; ¶[0185], Table 13, second and third lens gives (R5 + R6) / (R3 +R4) =(8.06552 +7.83668) / (5.58930 + 2.57397) = 1.95, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 19, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT6 of the sixth lens on the optical axis meet
0.9 < CT1 / (CT5+CT6) < 1.3,
(fig. 43; ¶[0260], Table 43, gives CT1 = 0.9200, CT5 = 0.2295, CT6 = 0.7714; so CT1 / (CT5 + CT6) = 0.919, as disclosed in Jung).
Regarding Claim 20, Jung- Thorlabs combination teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein a combined focal length f12 of the first lens and the second lens and a combined focal length f56 of the fifth lens and the sixth lens meet
1.3 < f12 / f56 < 1.8,
(¶[0297], Table 60, example 15, gives, f1 = 4.290, f2 = -10.606, f5 = -21.133, f6 = 3.784; so f12 = 7.20, f56 = 4.61; f12 / f56 = 1.56, as disclosed in Jung).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 20190369368) in a view of Thorlabs “Thorlabs Catalog V21”, Thorlabs Inc., 2011, further in a view of Tang et al (US 20190227277).
Regarding Claim 6, Jung- Thorlabs combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R14 of an image-side surface of the seventh lens, a curvature radius R13 of an object-side surface of the seventh lens and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens meet:
0.3 < (R14 – R13) / f7 < 2.1.
However, Tang teaches an imaging optical lens assembly (abstract; fig. 3A), wherein 0.3 < (R14 – R13) / f7 < 2.1,
(fig. 3A; ¶[0130], Table 5, gives f7 = - 3.84, R13 = 3.663, R14 = 1.285; so (R14 – R13) / f7 = 0.62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the d optical imaging lens assembly of Jung- Thorlabs combination by the imaging optical lens assembly of Tang for a purpose to correct aberrations in the off-axis region and reduce the surface reflection from surrounding light (¶[0036], line 1-12).
Regarding Claim 17, Jung- Thorlabs combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 12, wherein a curvature radius R14 of an image-side surface of the seventh lens, a curvature radius R13 of an object-side surface of the seventh lens and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens meet: 0.3 < (R14-R13) / f7 < 2.1.
However, Tang teaches an imaging optical lens assembly (abstract; fig. 3A), wherein 0.3 < (R14 – R13) / f7 < 2.1,
(fig. 3A; ¶[0130], Table 5, gives f7 = - 3.84, R13 = 3.663, R14 = 1.285; so (R14 – R13) / f7 = 0.62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the d optical imaging lens assembly of Jung- Thorlabs combination by the imaging optical lens assembly of Tang for a purpose to correct aberrations in the off-axis region and reduce the surface reflection from surrounding light (¶[0036], line 1-12).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872