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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/9/2022 has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 filed on 3/23/2022.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/691,143 filed on 3/10/2022 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2<(f4+f5)/f<0 should be changed to -2<(f4+f5)/f<0 to correct an apparent typographical error (see second paragraph in p. 8 of the specification).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 2020/0257086, hereinafter, “Im”) in view of Huang (US 2019/0258028, hereinafter, “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Im discloses optical imaging lens assembly 100 (Fig. 1), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens 110 having a refractive power ([0078]);
a second lens 120 having a negative refractive power ([0078]);
a third lens 130 having a refractive power ([0078]);
a fourth lens 140 having a negative refractive power ([0078]);
a fifth lens 150 having a negative refractive power ([0078]);
a sixth lens 160 having a refractive power, an object – side surface thereof being a concave surface, and an image side surface thereof being a convex surface ([0078]); and
a seventh lens 170 having a refractive power ([0078]), wherein
TTL, a distance from an object - side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly along the optical axis and f, a total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy TTL / f < 1 (TTL/f=0.8214, Table 13, first Example).
Im does not disclose ImgH, a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface and Semi -FOV, a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 8 mm<ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV).
However, Im discloses TTL/ImgH=2.0794, Table 13, TTL=5.75, Table 11, thus, ImgH=2.77. Also, FOV=43.40, Table 11, thus, ImgH/ tan(Semi-FOV)=6.96.
The parameters ImgH and FOV (i.e., imaging height of the optical imaging assembly and field of view) are result-effective variables, i.e., recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, adjusting the resolution of a magnified image and the effective imaging range, [0048], [0056] in Huang.
Im discloses the claimed invention except for 8 mm<ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV).
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 Im so that ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) 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, ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the image resolution and the effective imaging range.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) 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 2, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein
8 mm < ImgH / tan (Semi - FOV) < 10 mm (ImgH / tan (Semi - FOV)=6.96, see above re claim 1), and 0 < TTL / f < 1 (TTL/f=0.8214, Table 13 in Im).
Regarding claim 3, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein TTL, the distance from the object - side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface along the optical axis, f, the total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly, and Semi - FOV, the half of the maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 2.5 < TTL / f / tan ( Semi - FOV ).
However, Im/Huang discloses TTL/f=0.8214, Table 13, FOV=43.40, Table 11, in Im, thus, TTL/ f/ tan(Semi-FOV)=2.06.
The parameters TTL/f and Semi-FOV (i.e., related to total optical track and focal length and field of view) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, adjusting the resolution of a magnified image and controlling the total track length, [0046], [0048] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 2.5 < TTL / f / tan ( Semi - FOV ).
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 Im/Huang so that TTL/f/tan(Semi-FOV) 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/f/tan(Semi-FOV) is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the image resolution.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize TTL/f/tan(Semi-FOV) 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 4, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein Semi - FOV, a half of the maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly and Fno, an f number of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 0.5 < tan ( Semi - FOV ) * Fno < 1.
However, Im/Huang discloses FOV=43.40, Table 11, in Im, thus, tan(Semi-FOV)=0.3979, Fno=2.86, Table 11, in Im, thus, tan ( Semi - FOV ) * Fno=1.138.
Here, the claimed range for tan ( Semi - FOV ) * Fno is close with the value for
tan ( Semi - FOV ) * Fno disclosed by Im/Huang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, 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 Im/Huang so that
tan (Semi -FOV)*Fno lies within the claimed range, for adjusting an effective imaging range, see [0048] in Huang.
Regarding claim 6, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein f1, an effective focal length of the first lens, f2, an effective focal length of the second lens, f3, an effective focal length of the third lens, and f123 , a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens satisfy: fl + f2 + f3 / f123 < 1 (f1=2.4984,
f2=-7.0141, f3=-14.8347, Table 1 in Im, f123=3.80 from the values in Table 1 of Im, thus,
( fl + f2 + f3 / f123=-5.09).
Regarding claim 7, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein f123, a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens and f, the total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: f123 / f < 0.5.
However, Im/Huang discloses f123=3.80, from values in Table 1 of Im, f=7.00, Table 11 in Im, thus, f123/f=0.54.
Here, the claimed range for f123 / f is close with the value for f123 / f disclosed by Im/Huang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, 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 Im/Huang so that f123 / f lies within the claimed range, for adjusting the refractive power of the optical imaging lens assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein f4, an effective focal length of the fourth lens and f5, an effective focal length of the fifth lens satisfy: -2 < ( f4 + f5 ) /f < 0.
However, Im/Huang discloses f4=-16.9656, f5=-7.7278, Table 1 in Im, f=7.00, Table 11 in Im, thus, ( f4 + f5 ) /f= -3.52.
The parameters f4, f5, f (i.e., related to the focal lengths of the lens assembly) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, for correcting aberrations, [0065] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for -2 < ( f4 + f5 ) /f < 0.
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 Im/Huang so that ( f4 + f5 ) /f .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, ( f4 + f5 ) /f .is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects optical aberrations
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize ( f4 + f5 ) /f 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 10, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein T12, a spacing distance between the first lens and the second lens along the optical axis, T23, a spacing distance between the second lens and the third lens along the optical axis, T34, a spacing distance between the third lens and the fourth lens along the optical axis and T45, a spacing distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens along the optical axis satisfy: ( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / T45 < 1.
However, Im/Huang discloses T12=0.025, T23=0.147, T34=0.235, T45=0.104, Table 1 in Im, thus, ( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / T45 =3.91.
The parameters T12, T23, T34, T45 (i.e., distances between lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, assembling the lens assembly, [0051] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for ( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / T45 < 1.
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 Im/Huang so that ( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / 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,
( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / T45 is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the assembling of the lens assembly.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize ( T12 + T23 + T34 ) / T45 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 11, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein T45, a spacing distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens along the optical axis, T56, a spacing distance between the fifth lens and the sixth lens along the optical axis, and T67, a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens along the optical axis satisfy: 1 < T67 / ( T45 + T56 ) < 2.
However, Im/Huang discloses T67=0.025, T45=0.104, T56=1.408, Table 1 in Im, thus,
T67 / ( T45 + T56 )=0.016.
The parameters T45, T56, T67 (i.e., distances between lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, assembling the lens assembly, [0051] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 1 < T67 / ( T45 + T56 ) < 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 Im/Huang so that T67 / ( T45 + T56 ) 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,
T67 / ( T45 + T56 ) is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the assembling of the lens assembly.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize T67 / ( T45 + T56 ) 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 12, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein Nmin, a minimum value of refractive indexes of the first lens to the seventh lens satisfy: 1.5 < Nmin (Nmin=1.518 in Table 1 in Im).
Regarding claim 13, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein V5, an Abbe number of the fifth lens and V6, an Abbe number of the sixth lens satisfy: 2 < V5 / V6 < 3.
However, Im/Huang discloses V5=20.353, V6=55.656, in Table 1 in Im, thus, V5/V6=0.36.
The parameters V5 and V6 (i.e., Abbe numbers of lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, strengthening the refractive power of the optical imaging lens assembly so as to meet the requirements of high specification, [0062] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 2 < V5 / V6 < 3.
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 Im/Huang so that V5 / V6 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, V5 / V6 is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the refractive power of the lens assembly.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize V5 / V6 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 15, Im/Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Im/Huang does not disclose wherein f, a total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly, R9, a curvature radius of an object side surface of the fifth lens, and R10, a curvature radius of an image - side surface of the fifth lens satisfy: 2 < f / R10 – f / R9 < 3.
However, Im/Huang discloses f=7.00, table 11 in Im, R10=5.0074, R9=179.6534, Table 1 in Im, thus, f / R10 – f / R9=1.359.
The parameters f, R9 and R10 (i.e., focal distance of lens assembly and radii of lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, reducing the back focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly, [0054] in Huang.
Im/Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 2 < f / R10 – f / R9 < 3.
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 Im/Huang so that f / R10 – f / R9 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, f / R10 – f / R9 is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the back focal length of the lens assembly.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f / R10 – f / R9 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”.
Claims 1, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 13), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens 710 having a refractive power ([0200]);
a second lens 720 having a negative refractive power ([0201]);
a third lens 730 having a refractive power ([0202]);
a fourth lens 740 having a negative refractive power ([0203]);
a fifth lens 750 having a negative refractive power ([0204]);
a sixth lens 760 having a refractive power, an object – side surface thereof being a concave surface, and an image side surface thereof being a convex surface ([0205]); and
a seventh lens 770 having a refractive power ([0206]).
Huang does not disclose wherein TTL, a distance from an object - side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly along the optical axis and f, a total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy TTL / f < 1.
However, Huang discloses TTL/f=1.01, [0212].
Here, the claimed range for TTL/f is close with the value for TTL/f disclosed by Huang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, 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 Huang so that TTL/f lies within the claimed range, for improving the resolution of a magnified image and controlling the total track length, see [0046] in Huang.
Moreover, Huang does not disclose ImgH, a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface and Semi -FOV, a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 8 mm<ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV).
However, Huang discloses f/ImgH=2.74, f=6.39, [0212], thus, ImgH=2.33, tan(Semi-FOV)=0.37, [0212], thus, ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV)=6.297.
The parameters ImgH and FOV (i.e., imaging height of the optical imaging assembly and field of view) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, adjusting the resolution of a magnified image and the imaging range, [0048], [0056] in Huang.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 8 mm<ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV).
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 Huang so that ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) 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, ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it affects the image resolution and the imaging range.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize ImgH/tan(Semi-FOV) 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 5, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein EPD, an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly and ImgH, a half of the diagonal length of the effective pixel region on the imaging surface satisfy: 1 < EPD / ImgH < 1.5.
However, Huang discloses f=6.39, f/EPD=1.82, f/ImgH=2.74, [0212], thus, EPD=3.51, ImgH=2.33, EPD/ImgH=1.506.
Here, the claimed range for EPD / ImgH is close with the value for EPD / ImgH disclosed by Huang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, 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 Huang so that EPD / ImgH lies within the claimed range, for adjusting the amount of incident light relative to the light receiving area, see [0047], [0049] in Huang.
Regarding claim 16, Huang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 13), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens 710 having a refractive power ([0200]);
a second lens 720 having a negative refractive power ([0201]);
a third lens 730 having a refractive power ([0202]);
a fourth lens 740 having a negative refractive power ([0203]);
a fifth lens 750 having a negative refractive power ([0204]);
a sixth lens 760 having a refractive power, an object – side surface thereof being a concave surface, and an image side surface thereof being a convex surface ([0205]); and
a seventh lens 770 having a refractive power ([0206]),
and 2.5 < TTL / f / tan ( Semi - FOV ), (TTL/f=1.01, tan(Semi-FOV)=0.37, [0212], thus, TTL / f / tan ( Semi – FOV=2.73),
TTL being a distance from an object - side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface along the optical axis, f being a total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly, and Semi - FOV being half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly.
Huang does not disclose wherein TTL, a distance from an object - side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly along the optical axis and f, a total effective focal length of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy TTL / f < 1.
However, Huang discloses TTL/f=1.01, [0212].
Here, the claimed range for TTL/f is close with the value for TTL/f disclosed by Huang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, 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 Huang so that TTL/f lies within the claimed range, for improving the resolution of a magnified image and controlling the total track length, see [0046] in Huang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, Im, or Huang disclose values for TD/(CT7+T67) that are away from the claimed range (5.754 in Im, 5.159 in Huang).
Regarding claim 14, Im, or Huang disclose values for f4/R7 that are away from the claimed range (-0.48 in Im, -0.23 in Huang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung (US 2018/0074298) discloses lens assembly comprising seven lenses with the claimed refractive powers, with TTL/f<1, Table 3, where the sixth lens has both side surfaces concave, [0094].
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
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872