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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/3/2024, 4/5/2024 and 3/9/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 3-4) 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al (US 20040196574).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract; figs. 1-10), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens with a refractive power (fig. 1, L1),
a second lens with a refractive power (fig. 1, L2),
a third lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 1, L3—biconcave lens), and
a fourth lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 1, L4—biconvex lens),
(abstract; line 1-13, L1 having positive power, a second lens L2 having positive power, a third lens L3 having negative lens and a fourth lens L4 having positive power);
wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies 20 mm < f < 30 mm (¶[0121], EXAMPLE 1, Table gives f = 28.40 mm).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 0.1 < (f3+f4)/f <0.6,
(¶[0121], EXAMPLE 1, Table, from parameters in the table, f3 and f4 can be estimated as f3 = -10.64, f4 = 20.72, so (f3+f4)/f = 0.35).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy 0.3< (R7-R6)I(R7+R6) <0.7.
(¶[0121], EXAMPLE 1, Table, R7 = 32.0375, R6 = 8.6407, so (R7-R6)I(R7+R6) = 0.58).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a diaphragm, wherein SL is a distance from the diaphragm to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface on the optical axis, and SL and TTL satisfy 0.8< SL/TTL<1.0.
(¶[0121], EXAMPLE 1, Table, from parameters in the table, TTL and SL can be estimated as TTL = 40.8948, SL = 32.9355, so SL/TTL = 0.81).
Regarding Claim 9, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, and BFL and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 0.65 < BFL/f <0.85.
(¶[0121], EXAMPLE 1, Table, from parameters in the table, BFL can be estimated as BFL = 19.8733, SL = 32.9355, so BFL/f = 0.70).
Regarding Claim 13, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of at least two lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are spherical (¶[0133], line 1-6, While spherical surfaces are used for the lenses throughout the examples, it is understood that aspheric surfaces may be used).
Regarding Claim 14, Tanaka teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and FOV satisfies FOV<15° (¶[0090], line 1-3, 7.1° < φ < 20°; -- a maximum field of view can be 14.2°).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (JP 2003255223, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract, fig. 1), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens with a refractive power (fig. 1, 1),
a second lens with a refractive power (fig. 1, 2),
a third lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 1, 3—biconcave lens), and
a fourth lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 1, 4—biconvex lens),
wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies 20 mm < f < 30 mm (¶[0012], Table 1, f = 24.4 mm).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayashi teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a spacing distance T12 of the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T23 of the second lens and the third lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T34 of the third lens and the fourth lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis satisfy 0.2 < (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) < 0.8 ((¶[0012], Table 1, (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) can be estimated as (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) = 0.45).
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamano (US 20130063634).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamano teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract; fig. 9), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens with a refractive power (fig. 9, G1),
a second lens with a refractive power (fig. 9, G2),
a third lens with a negative refractive power (fig. 9, G3—biconcave lens), and
a fourth lens with a positive refractive power (fig. 9, G4—biconvex lens),
(¶[0146], line 1-4, a first negative lens G1, a first positive lens G2, a second negative lens G3, and a second positive lens G4),
wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies 20 mm < f < 30 mm (¶[0155], Table 11 gives f = 29.96 mm).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamano teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and FOV satisfies FOV<15° (¶[0075], line 1-3, 5° < θmax < 35°; ¶[0077], line 1-3, 7.5° < θmax < 25°).
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 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 20130063634).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamano discloses in embodiment of fig. 9 as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly and TTL satisfy TTL/f < 1.2.
However, in embodiment of fig. 7, Yamano teaches that wherein TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly and TTL satisfy TTL/f < 1.2 (¶[0140], table 7, TTL can be estimated as TTL = 46.76, f = 36.11 (see table 8), so TTL/f = 1.29; ---which is very close to the claimed value, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
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 lens unit of Yamano to have TTL/f < 1.2, for the purpose of providing of a lens optical unit and an imaging device, which are capable of implementing high optical performance by performing size reduction and sufficient field curvature correction (¶[0008], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamano teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens satisfy 0.1 < R1/R2 < 1.3 (¶[0114], Table 1, R1 = 24.762, R2 = 84.898, so R1/R2 = 0.29)
Regarding Claim 6, Yamano teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a refractive index N1 of the first lens, a refractive index N2 of the second lens, a refractive index N3 of the third lens and a refractive index N4 of the fourth lens satisfy 1.8 < (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 < 2.1 (¶[0114], Table 1, n1 = 1.88, n2 = 1.85, n3 = 1.82, n4 = 1.59, so (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 = 1.79, -----which is very close to the claimed value, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamano teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a spacing distance T12 of the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T23 of the second lens and the third lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T34 of the third lens and the fourth lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis satisfy 0.2 < (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) < 0.8 ((¶[0114], Table 1, (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) can be estimated as (T12+T23+T34)/(CT1+CT2+CT3) = 0.82, -----which is very close to the claimed value, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano (US 20130063634) in a view of Lui et al (US 20170003478).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamano discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein at least two lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material.
However, glass lens elements are common optical element; it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 146.
Further, Lui teaches an optical image capturing system (abstract; fig. 1), wherein at least two lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material (¶[0087], line 1-10, The optical image capturing system provided by the disclosure, the lens elements may be made of glass or plastic material; ¶[0172], table 7, glass lenses of lens 1 and 2; ¶[0186], table 9, glass lenses of lens 1 and 2).
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 lens unit of Yamano by the optical image capturing system of Lui for the purpose of an optical image capturing system to increase the quantity of incoming light of the optical image capturing system and the view angle of the optical lenses, and to improve total pixels and imaging quality for image formation, so as to be applied to minimized electronic products (¶[0008], line 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are rejected as having 112 issues and 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, in case of the 112 issues are overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claims 10-11, The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical imaging lens assembly further comprising wherein 0.4 < (SAG11+SAG12)/ImgH <1.3 and 0.5 < (SAG41-SAG42)/CT4 < 0.7.
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