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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17641453 filed on 09 March 2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Foreign Priority CN2019 10866380.X filed 12 September 2019 and 371 of PCT/CN2020/104461 filed 24 July 2020.
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. Therefore, the SL, SAG41, SAG42, and SAG11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The as-filed specification fails to disclose a sensor size relative to the excessively small field of view and large effective focal length. The field of view depends not only on the focal length but also on the sensor size. Without knowing the sensor size, the stated expression 10° < FOV < 15° for the focal length range of 20 mm < f < 30 mm cannot be accurately determined or replicated. The same focal length produces different fields of view on different sensor sizes (e.g., full-frame, APS-C, etc.,), so omitting this detail leaves critical information about the optical system and disclosure incomplete, hindering its proper understanding or use.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 8 and 9, the sentences recite “a distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of the [x] surface of the [x] lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the [x] surface of the [x] lens” seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the terms “intersection point” and “effective radius vertex” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
“[A] distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of the [x] surface of the [x] lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the [x] surface of the [x] lens” is ambiguous and unclear, for “intersection point” and “effective radius vertex” are not defined or illustrated, and thus, leaving their meaning open to interpretation. Without clear context, it is uncertain where these points are on the lens surface or how they relate to each other. Therefore, the “intersection point” limitation could be interpreted as the intersection point being where the lens surface crosses the optical axis, or the intersection point being a hypothetical point where the optical axis intersects the projected plane of the lenses, or even the intersection point representing the point where the optical axis meets a reference plane. Also, the “effective radius vertex” of this limitation could be interpreted as the effective radius vertex being the center curvature of a lens surface, or the effective radius vertex being the apex of the lens curvature, or even the effective radius vertex being the geometrical vertex of the lens at the end of its effective curvature.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner assumes “a distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of the [x] surface of the [x] lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the [x] surface of the [x] lens” as “a distance on the optical axis from any point of the [x] surface of the [x] lens to another point of the [x] surface of the [x] lens.”
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori JP 2017102314 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 1, Mori discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (eyepiece EL and an optical apparatus; [0006-96]; fig. 1-20), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (observation object side to eyepoint side along an optical axis; [0006]):
a first lens with a refractive power (f1 of L11a; table 1 & fig. 2);
a second lens with a refractive power (f2 of L11b; table 1 & fig. 2);
a third lens with a positive refractive power (fp of L21 = 28.11; table 1 & fig. 2);
a fourth lens with a negative refractive power (fn of L22 = -37.69; table 1 & fig. 2), wherein an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (lens L22 is a lens in which the lens surface 7 on the observation object side is convex toward the observation object side; [0017]; fig. 2); and
a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly meets:
20 mm < f < 30 mm (f = 22.52 mm; table 1).
With respect to Claim 2, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R7 of the object-side surface of the fourth lens (table 1), a curvature radius R8 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens (table 1), and an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens (fn; table 1) meet:
-1.7 < (R7-R8)/f4 < 0 ((R7= 22.0138 - R8= 12.0964)/f4= -37.69 ≈ -0.3; table 1).
With respect to Claim 7, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the fourth lens to the imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis (table 1), BFL and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly meet: 0.7 < BFL/f < 1.2 (BFL= 16.0000/f= 22.52 ≈ 0.7; table 1).
With respect to Claim 11, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of at least one of the first lens to the fourth lens are spherical surfaces (second lens object-side and image-side surfaces L11a and L11b with spherical surfaces as seen in fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 14, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 2, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of at least one of the first lens to the fourth lens are spherical surfaces (second lens object-side and image-side surfaces L11a and L11b with spherical surfaces as seen in fig. 2).
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.
Claims 3, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori JP 2017102314 A (see machine translation) in view of Tseng et al. US 20180267271 A1 (herein after "Tseng").
With respect to Claim 3, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens (fp; table 1), an effective radius DT31 of an object-side surface of the third lens (table 1), and an effective radius DT32 of an image-side surface of the third lens (table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 1.2 < f3/(DT31+DT32) < 2.3 and instead teaches f3/(DT31+DT32) ≈ -0.2 (table 1).
However, in a related field of endeavor, Tseng teaches an optical image capturing assembly, imaging apparatus, and electronic device ([0004-246]; fig. 1-26), wherein a four-lens imaging apparatus (fig. 7) satisfies the following conditional expression 1.2 < f3= 4.31/(DT31= 6.681+DT32= -4.756) ≈ 2.2 < 2.3 (table 7).
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 eyepiece and an optical apparatus of Mori to include the technical feature of f3/(DT31+DT32) ≈ 2.2, for the purpose of reducing astigmatism within an optical imaging system, as taught by Tseng ([0073]).
With respect to Claim 16, Mori in view of Tseng teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 3, wherein at least three lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material (refractive index nd for the d line of the material of the lens ranging from 1.5 to 1.85, with the refractive index for glass ranging between 1.4 and 1.7; [0059] & table 1; Mori).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select glass as a material for multiple lenses within an optical imaging lens assembly, since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). See MPEP § 2131.02(III).
With respect to Claim 17, Mori in view of Tseng teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 3, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of at least one of the first lens to the fourth lens are spherical surfaces (second lens object-side and image-side surfaces L11a and L11b with spherical surfaces as seen in fig. 2; Mori).
With respect to Claim 18, Mori in view of Tseng teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 3, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly (2ω; table 1; Mori).
Mori in view of Tseng does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 10° < FOV < 15° and instead teaches FOV = 2ω = 25.01° (table 1; Mori).
Thus, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for 10° < FOV < 15°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyepiece and optical apparatus of Mori-Tseng to either adjust the effective focal length or adjust an image sensor size to achieve 10° < FOV < 15° within an optical imaging lens system, 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, adjusting lens design parameters through lens iterative optimization to achieve a desired performance of an optical imaging system is an art recognized results effective variable in that if the distance between the first lens group G1 and the second lens group G2 of Mori becomes large, the effective focal length becomes excessively large, and results in the field of view of the lens system to become excessively small, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the eyepiece and optical apparatus design parameters of Mori 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.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because modifying the lens design parameters results in the field of view of the optical system to become excessively small similar to that of the claimed invention, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
Claims 4-5, 10, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori JP 2017102314 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 4, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein an effective radius DT11 of an object-side surface of the first lens (table 1; surface 2 as seen in fig. 2) and an effective radius DT41 of the object-side surface of the fourth lens (table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 0.8 < DT11/DT41 < 1.2 and instead teaches DT11= 37.8443/DT41= 22.0138 ≈ 1.7 (table 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 0.8 < DT11/DT41 < 1.2 range and value of Mori, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 0.8 < DT11/DT41 < 1.2 range and value of Mori 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). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification, for this modification would still ensure a reduction of chromatic aberration, as taught by Mori ([0029-30]).
With respect to Claim 5, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein a refractive index N1 of the first lens (nd; table 1), a refractive index N2 of the second lens (nd; table 1), a refractive index N3 of the third lens (nd; table 1), and a refractive index N4 of the fourth lens (nd; table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 1.8 < (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 < 2.0 and instead teaches (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 ≈ 1.7 (table 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 1.8 < (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 < 2.0 range and value of Mori, 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 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 1.8 < (N1+N2+N3+N4)/4 < 2.0 range and value of Mori 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).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification, for this would result in easy correction of distortion and spherical aberration since glass lenses produce better optical clarity and maintain their shape longer, and thus, directly affect aberrations, as taught by Mori ([0044]).
With respect to Claim 10, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein at least three lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material (refractive index nd for the d line of the material of the lens ranging from 1.5 to 1.85, with the refractive index for glass ranging between 1.4 and 1.7; [0059] & table 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select glass as a material for multiple lenses within an optical imaging lens assembly, since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). See MPEP § 2131.02(III).
With respect to Claim 12, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly (2ω; table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 10° < FOV < 15° and instead teaches FOV = 2ω = 25.01° (table 1).
Thus, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for 10° < FOV < 15°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyepiece and optical apparatus of Mori to either adjust the effective focal length or adjust an image sensor size to achieve 10° < FOV < 15° within an optical imaging lens system, 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, adjusting lens design parameters through lens iterative optimization to achieve a desired performance of an optical imaging system is an art recognized results effective variable in that if the distance between the first lens group G1 and the second lens group G2 of Mori becomes large, the effective focal length becomes excessively large, and results in the field of view of the lens system to become excessively small, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the eyepiece and optical apparatus design parameters of Mori 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.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because modifying the lens design parameters results in the field of view of the optical system to become excessively small similar to that of the claimed invention, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
With respect to Claim 13, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 2, wherein at least three lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material (refractive index nd for the d line of the material of the lens ranging from 1.5 to 1.85, with the refractive index for glass ranging between 1.4 and 1.7; [0059] & table 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select glass as a material for multiple lenses within an optical imaging lens assembly, since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). See MPEP § 2131.02(III).
With respect to Claim 15, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 2, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly (2ω; table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein 10° < FOV < 15° and instead teaches FOV = 2ω = 25.01° (table 1).
Thus, Mori discloses the claimed invention except for 10° < FOV < 15°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyepiece and optical apparatus of Mori to either adjust the effective focal length or adjust an image sensor size to achieve 10° < FOV < 15° within an optical imaging lens system, 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, adjusting lens design parameters through lens iterative optimization to achieve a desired performance of an optical imaging system is an art recognized results effective variable in that if the distance between the first lens group G1 and the second lens group G2 of Mori becomes large, the effective focal length becomes excessively large, and results in the field of view of the lens system to become excessively small, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the eyepiece and optical apparatus design parameters of Mori 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.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because modifying the lens design parameters results in the field of view of the optical system to become excessively small similar to that of the claimed invention, as taught by Mori ([0027]).
With respect to Claim 19, Mori teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 4, wherein at least three lenses of the first lens to the fourth lens are made of a glass material (refractive index nd for the d line of the material of the lens ranging from 1.5 to 1.85, with the refractive index for glass ranging between 1.4 and 1.7; [0059] & table 1; Mori).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select glass as a material for multiple lenses within an optical imaging lens assembly, since 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 obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). See MPEP § 2131.02(III).
With respect to Claim 20, Mori teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 4, wherein an object-side surface and an image-side surface of at least one of the first lens to the fourth lens are spherical surfaces (second lens object-side and image-side surfaces L11a and L11b with spherical surfaces as seen in fig. 2; Mori).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori JP 2017102314 A (see machine translation) in view of Mliyazaki US 20090109547 A1.
With respect to Claim 6, Mori discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to Claim 1, and 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 (fig. 2 & table 1), a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis, and a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis (table 1).
Mori does not appear to teach the following limitations wherein the optical imaging lens assembly further comprises a diaphragm, SL is a distance from the diaphragm to the imaging surface on the optical axis, and 0.1 < (CT1+CT2)/(TTL-SL) < 0.9.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Mliyazaki teaches a zoom lens system and imaging optical device ([0005-182]; fig. 1-10), wherein the zoom lens system comprises an aperture diaphragm (5; [0097]; fig. 1), and thus, also comprises a distance from the diaphragm to the optical low-pass filter (6; [0097]), and is comprising four lenses (fig. 1) while satisfying the following conditional expression 0.1 < (CT1= 1.00+CT2=2.71)/(TTL≈ 65.42-SL≈29.22) ≈ 0.1 < 0.9 (table 1-3).
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 eyepiece and an optical apparatus of Mori to include the technical feature of (CT1+CT2)/(TTL-SL) ≈ 0.1, for the purpose of producing a more compact construction of the zoom lens system while reducing assembling cost, as taught by Mliyazaki ([0110]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to Claim 8, the prior art of Mori taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the specific arrangement wherein SAG41 is a distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the fourth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the fourth lens, SAG42 is a distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the fourth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the fourth lens, and ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly, SAG41 and SAG42 and ImgH meet: 0.4 < (SAG41+SAG42)/ImgH < 1.6.
With regard to Claim 9, the prior art of Mori taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the specific arrangement wherein SAG11 is a distance on the optical axis from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the first lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the first lens, and T12 is a spacing distance between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis and SAG11 and T12 meet: 0.1 <|SAG11|/(CT1+T12) < 0.8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang US 20140232925 A1 discloses a four-lens module for image capture similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 14 September 2024
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
September 18, 2024