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 filed 10/9/2022 has been considered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/588,277 filed on 1/29/2022 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an optical image lens assembly comprising ten lenses having a + + - + () – + + () -, does not reasonably provide enablement for any combination of at least ten positive/negative lenses. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. For example, the specification discloses the following combinations of lenses + + - + - – + + + - (one time), + + - + + – + + - - (five times), + + - + - – + + - - (two times). However, the specification does not describe an optical image lens assembly comprising ten or more lens elements having other combinations of refractive powers.
Regarding claim 1, there are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, (A) the breadth of claim 1 which broadly recites eight lens elements having a refractive power, is such that the specification at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(B) the nature of the invention, i.e., a compound optical lens, is such that the particulars of the lens elements constituting the compound lens affect the performance of the compound lens, so that the disclosure of the particular characteristics of the constituent lens elements is crucial.
(F) The inventor does not provide any direction as to how an optical image lens assembly that does not have the configuration of the first lens positive, the second lens positive, the third lens negative, the fourth lens positive, the sixth lens negative and the tenth lens negative, should be constructed that still satisfies the other conditions of the claims.
(G) all working examples are drawn to optical image lens assemblies with the first lens positive, the second lens positive, the third lens negative, the fourth lens positive, the sixth lens negative and the tenth lens negative.
Thus, an undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make the invention commensurate with the full breadth of the claims based on the content of the disclosure.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, the additional limitations recited in these claims do not alleviate or mitigate the problem that the full scope of the claims is not enabled by the disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 211857040U, hereinafter, “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses (hereinafter, paragraphs refer to the English translation, Figures and Tables refer to the original) a camera lens assembly (Fig. 1), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens and a tenth lens ([0010]-[0013]), wherein
the seventh lens has a positive refractive power ([0012]);
the eighth lens has a positive refractive power ([0013]);
an object-side surface of the ninth lens is concave surface, and an image-side surface of the ninth lens is convex surface ([0013], Fig. 1): and
ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the camera lens assembly, ImgH satisfies: ImgH>6mm (ImgH=8.8, [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an optical distortion DIST at a maximum field of view of the camera lens assembly satisfies:
|DIST| ≤ 3% ([0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens satisfy:
2<(R1+R2)/(R2-R1)<10 (R1=27.8, R2=73.0, from the Table, thus, (R1+R2)/(R2-R1)=2.23).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a central thickness CT1 of the first lens and a central thickness CT2 of the second lens satisfy:
1.5<CT1/CT2 ≤3.5 (CT1=4.3, CT2=2.2, from the Table, thus, CT1/CT2=1.95).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R17 of an object-side surface of the ninth lens and a curvature radius R18 of an image-side surface of the ninth lens satisfy:
1<(R17+R18)/R17<3.5 (R17=-8.4, R18=-17.0, from the Table, thus, (R17+R18)/R17=3.02).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f of the camera lens assembly and an effective focal length f10 of the tenth lens satisfy:
-2<f/f10<0 (f=16, [0050], f10=-28.38 calculated from the relevant values in the Table, thus, f/f10=-0.60).
Claims 1, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (CN 209570746U, hereinafter, “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses (hereinafter, paragraphs refer to the English translation, Figures and Tables refer to the original) a camera lens assembly (Fig. 1), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens and a tenth lens ([0031]), wherein
the seventh lens has a positive refractive power ([0031]);
the eighth lens has a positive refractive power ([0031]);
an object-side surface of the ninth lens is concave surface, and an image-side surface of the ninth lens is convex surface ([0020]): and
ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the camera lens assembly, ImgH satisfies: ImgH>6mm (ImgH=31.5, [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f of the camera lens assembly and an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens satisfy:
1<f/f4<2.5 (f=98, [0044], f4=89.97, calculated from the relevant values in the Table, thus, f/f4=1.08).
Regarding claim 12, Zeng the camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a central thickness CT6 of the sixth lens, a central thickness CT8 of the eighth lens, and an effective focal length f8 of the eighth lens satisfy:
0<(CT6+CT8)/f8 <0.1 (CT6=1.98, CT8=4.34, from the Table, F8=95.98, calculated from relevant values in the Table, thus, (CT6+CT8)/f8=0.0658).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1.
Lin does not disclose wherein TTL is an on-axis distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface, TTL and an f-number Fno of the camera lens assembly satisfy: 5 mm< TTL/Fno< 6mm.
However, Lin discloses Fno=16, [0023], TTL=67.2, from the Table, thus, TTL/Fno=4.2.
The TTL (i.e., thickness of lenses and distance between lenses) parameter is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the actual thickness of the lens system.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for 5 mm< TTL/Fno< 6mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lin so that TTL/Fno lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, TTL is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the thickness of the lens system. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize TTL/Fno because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1.
Lin does not disclose wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens, and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: -8<f3/(R5-R6) <-2.
However, Lin discloses f3=-33.8, [0050], R5=43.7, R6=13.8, from the Table, thus, f3/(R5+R6)=-1.13.
The R5, R6, f3 (i.e., radii of lenses and focal length of lens) parameters are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting distortions.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for -8<f3/(R5-R6) <-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Lin so that f3/(R5-R6) lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, f3/(R5-R6) is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the optimization of distortions, i.e., astigmatism. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f3/(R5-R6) because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng discloses the camera lens assembly according to claim 1.
Zeng does not disclose wherein a central thickness CT5 of the fifth lens, a central thickness CT7 of the seventh lens, and an air space T45 between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis satisfy: 1<CT7/(CT5+T45) <2.5.
However, Zeng discloses CT7=5.77, CT5=6.80, T45=0.0, from the Table, thus,
CT7/(CT5+T45)=0.84.
The CT5, CT7, T45 (i.e., thickness of lenses and distance between lenses) parameters are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the actual thickness of the lens system.
Zeng discloses the claimed invention except for 1<CT7/(CT5+T45) <2.5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Zeng so that CT7/(CT5+T45) lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, CT7/(CT5+T45) is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it affects the thickness of the optical system. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize TTL/Fno because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 and overcome the 112(a) rejection of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pandit et al. (US 2023/0236399) discloses a ten-lens optical imaging system comprising ten lenses in the claimed ()()()()()()++()() sequence (example 3) where the ninth lens has a convex object side and a concave image side, [0175].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2334. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872