DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The instant application having Application No. 17/712,081 filed on 5/10/2022 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. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application CN202110426999.6 (China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers have not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 and 14 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 imaging lens assembly with seven lenses having +--+++- optical powers and satisfying two numerical conditions, does not reasonably provide enablement for a lens assembly of seven or more lenses with innumerable combinations of optical powers. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 1 and 14, 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:
In the instant case, (A) the breadth of the claims includes all optical imaging lens assemblies with seven or more lenses having any arbitrary lens power combination that meet the claimed conditions; (B) However, the nature of the invention points to optical imaging lens assemblies with seven lenses arranged with positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, positive, and negative powers; (C) the state of the prior art includes a number of optical imaging assemblies with almost any arrangement of powers; (D) the level of ordinary skill in the art is high, but with the large number of possible arrangements of powers; (E) the level of predictability in the art is high given the laws of optics, but again the number of possible lens systems is beyond the level of predictability; (F) the inventor only provides direction for optical imaging lens assemblies with 7 lenses arranged positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, positive, negative; (G) the working examples only include optical imaging lens assemblies with 7 lenses arranged positive, negative, negative, positive, positive, positive, negative. Thus (H) there is an undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (see In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The scope of claim 13 is enabled because the lens powers are recited.
Claims 2-12 and 15-20 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the same deficiency.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “T1 is a distance from the variable diaphragm corresponding to a maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly to an image-side surface of the first lens on the optical axis, FNO1 is an F-number corresponding to the maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly, and T1 and FNO1 satisfy 0.5<T1/FNO1<1.0” is indefinite because the claim does not indicate the units for the expression T1/FNO1. FNO1 is an F-number which is a dimensionless quantity whereas T1 is a measurement of distance which must implicitly have a unit. Therefore, the ratio T1/FNO1 must have a unit. It is suggested to amend the claim and provide explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness issue.
Claims 2-13 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the same deficiency.
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 1-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta (CN 112285904 A)(Embodiment 2)(see attached machine translation), in view of Huh (US 20190137736 A1)(Embodiment 5).
Regarding claim 1, Nitta (Embodiment 2) discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, in at least Figure 5, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (figure 5):
…;
a first lens (L1 “first lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a second lens (L2 “second lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a third lens (L3 “third lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a fifth lens (L5 “fifth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (page 6, paragraph 10 of translation states “the object side of the fifth lens is convex at the near shaft”);
a sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation); and
a seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation),
wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) on the optical axis and an air space T67 between the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”) on the optical axis satisfy CT1/T67<1.0 (Table 5, CT1 = 0.807 mm and T67 = 0.849 mm, so therefore CT1/T67 = 0.95 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range); and
T1 is a distance from the variable diaphragm (S1 “aperture”) corresponding to a maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly to an image-side surface of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) on the optical axis, FNO1 is an F-number corresponding to the maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly, and T1 and FNO1 satisfy 0.5<T1 /FNO1<1.0 (Tables 5 and 13, T1 = 0.511 mm + 0.807 mm = 1.318 mm and FNO1 = 2.1, so therefore F1/TNO1 = 0.628 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
However, Nitta (Embodiment 2) fails to teach “a variable diaphragm.”
Huh (Embodiment 5) teaches a variable diaphragm (VST “variable stop”, paragraph 0241). Huh (Embodiment 5) states in paragraph 0241 that the variable stop is a device used to selectively change the amount of light incident on the optical system. If the diameter of the variable stop is increased, a high amount of light can pass through the aperture in the case of a low light environment. Alternatively, decreasing the diameter of the variable stop will allow a low amount of light through the aperture in the case of a high light environment (paragraph 0241, figure 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable aperture which can fluctuate in diameter as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5) in order to control the level of light that can pass through the aperture to accommodate for different light levels in the lens environment and increase image quality (paragraphs 0241, 0251, figure 9).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses an effective focal length f (Table 13, f = 6.574 mm) and an entrance pupil diameter (page 12, paragraph 4, EPD = 3.130 mm), but does not teach ΔEPD which is a difference between a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly and a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly such that f and ΔEPD satisfy f/ΔEPD < 5.5.
Huh (Embodiment 5) teaches an optical imaging lens assembly, in at least figure 9, comprising ΔEPD is a difference between a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly and a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and ΔEPD and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy f/ΔEPD < 5.5 (Tables 17 and 18, FNO2 = 2.6, FNO1 = 1.7, and f = 4.10 mm so therefore EPD(max) = 2.41, EPD(min) = 1.57, ΔEPD = 0.83 which gives f/ΔEPD = 4.91 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose f and ΔEPD such that f/ΔEPD < 5.5, similar to Huh (Embodiment 5) where f/ΔEPD = 4.91, 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, the difference between maximum and minimum entrance pupil diameter determines how large of a range of light can be incident upon the lens system as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f/ΔEPD 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 a range of entrance pupil diameter values is inherent to a variable aperture and restricting ΔEPD to meet the condition f/ΔEPD < 5.5 will not cause any perturbation to the existing setup.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable aperture which can fluctuate in diameter and meets the condition f/ΔEPD < 5.5 as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5) in order to control the level of light that can pass through the aperture to accommodate for different light levels in the lens environment and control spherical aberration to increase image quality (paragraphs 0241, 0251, figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface, and TTL and ImgH satisfy TTL/ImgH<1.5 (Table 13, TTL = 7.805 mm and IH = 6.247 mm, so therefore TTL/IH = 1.249 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses EPD1 is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and EPD1 and Semi-FOV satisfy EPD1*tan(Semi-FOV)<3.0 mm (page 12, paragraph 4, Table 13, EPD = 3.130 mm and FOV = 85.56 degrees which means Semi-FOV = 42.78 degrees, so therefore EPD1*tan(Semi-FOV) = 2.89 mm which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses f1234 is a combined focal length of the first lens (L1 “first lens”), the second lens (L2 “second lens”), the third lens (L3 “third lens”) and the fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”), f56 is a combined focal length of the fifth lens (L5 “fifth lens”) and the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), and f1234 and f56 satisfy f56/f1234 (Table 13, f1 = 6.077 mm, f2 = -17.388 mm, f3 = 131.443 mm, f4 = 68.277 mm, f5 = 234.907 mm, and f6 = 9.367 mm, so therefore f56/f1234 = 0.859 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and Semi-FOV and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy f*tan(Semi-FOV)>4.5mm (Table 13, FOV = 85.56 degrees which means Semi-FOV = 42.78 degrees and f = 6.574 mm, so therefore f*tan(Semi-FOV) = 6.083 mm which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses a center thickness CT4 of the fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”) on the optical axis and an air space T23 between the second lens (L2 “second lens”) and the third lens (L3 “third lens”) on the optical axis satisfy 0.5<CT4/T23<1.0 (Table 5, CT4 = 0.380 mm and T23 = 0.520 mm, so therefore CT4/T23 = 0.731 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further teaches SAG61 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), SAG62 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), and SAG61 and SAG62 satisfy 0<SAG61/SAG62<1.0 (as SAG61 and SAG62 depicted in Figure 5, given the effective radius and SAG of the object side of the sixth lens and effective radius and SAG of the image side of the sixth lens, disclosed due to proportionality of lengths of the diagram of Figure 5, e.g. values 5, 6 resulting in ratio of 0.83, page 10, paragraphs 21-23 of translation, Tables 5 and 6).
In the alternative that the ratio of SAG61/SAG62 is close or just outside the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the above SAG61/SAG62 ratio of the sixth lens to the above range in order to correct aberration, realize ultra-thinning, and improve imaging quality (page 7, paragraphs 4-6 of translation), 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).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further teaches SAG71 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”), SAG72 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”), and SAG71 and SAG72 satisfy 0<SAG72/SAG71<1.0 (as SAG71 and SAG72 depicted in Figure 5, given the effective radius and SAG of the object side of the seventh lens and effective radius and SAG of the image side of the seventh lens, disclosed due to proportionality of lengths of the diagram of Figure 5, e.g. values 13, 11 resulting in ratio of 0.84, page 10, paragraphs 21-23 of translation, Tables 5 and 6).
In the alternative that the ratio of SAG71/SAG72 is close or just outside the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the above SAG71/SAG72 ratio of the seventh lens to the above range in order to correct aberration, realize ultra-thinning, and improve imaging quality (page 7, paragraphs 8-10 of translation), 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).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses an effective focal length f2 of the second lens (L2 “second lens”), an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”) satisfy 0.3<f6/(f7-f2)<1.3 (Table 13, f2 = -17.388 mm, f6 = 9.367 mm, and f7 = -4.608 mm, so therefore f6/(f7 - f2) = 0.733 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses an effective focal length f1 of the first lens (L1 “first lens”), a curvature radius R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) and a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) satisfy 0<f1/(R2-R1)<1.0 (Tables 13 and 5, f1 = 6.077 mm, R2 = 10.575 mm, and R1 = 2.558 mm, so therefore f1(R2 - R1) = 0.82 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, Nitta (Embodiment 2) discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, in at least Figure 5, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (figure 5):
…;
a first lens (L1 “first lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a second lens (L2 “second lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a third lens (L3 “third lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation);
a fifth lens (L5 “fifth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (page 6, paragraph 10 of translation states “the object side of the fifth lens is convex at the near shaft”);
a sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation); and
a seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”, last paragraph of page 4 of translation),
wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) on the optical axis and an air space T67 between the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the seventh lens (L7 “seventh lens”) on the optical axis satisfy CT1/T67<1.0 (Table 5, CT1 = 0.807 mm and T67 = 0.849 mm, so therefore CT1/T67 = 0.95 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range); and
EPD1 is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and EPD1 and Semi-FOV satisfy EPD1*tan(Semi-FOV)<3.0 mm (page 12, paragraph 4 of translation, Table 13, EPD = 3.130 mm and FOV = 85.56 degrees which means Semi-FOV = 42.78 degrees, so therefore EPD1*tan(Semi-FOV) = 2.89 mm which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
However, Nitta (Embodiment 2) fails to teach “a variable diaphragm.”
Huh (Embodiment 5) teaches a variable diaphragm (VST “variable stop”, paragraph 0241). Huh (Embodiment 5) states in paragraph 0241 that the variable stop is a device used to selectively change the amount of light incident on the optical system. If the diameter of the variable stop is increased, a high amount of light can pass through the aperture in the case of a low light environment. Alternatively, decreasing the diameter of the variable stop will allow a low amount of light through the aperture in the case of a high light environment (paragraph 0241, figure 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable aperture which can fluctuate in diameter as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5) in order to control the level of light that can pass through the aperture to accommodate for different light levels in the lens environment and increase image quality (paragraphs 0241, 0251, figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 1 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses an effective focal length f (Table 13, f = 6.574 mm) and an entrance pupil diameter (page 12, paragraph 4, EPD = 3.130 mm), but does not teach ΔEPD which is a difference between a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly and a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly such that f and ΔEPD satisfy f/ΔEPD < 5.5.
Huh (Embodiment 5) teaches an optical imaging lens assembly, in at least figure 9, comprising ΔEPD is a difference between a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly and a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and ΔEPD and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy f/ΔEPD < 5.5 (Tables 17 and 18, FNO2 = 2.6, FNO1 = 1.7, and f = 4.10 mm so therefore EPD(max) = 2.41, EPD(min) = 1.57, ΔEPD = 0.83 which gives f/ΔEPD = 4.91 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose f and ΔEPD such that f/ΔEPD < 5.5, similar to Huh (Embodiment 5) where f/ΔEPD = 4.91, 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, the difference between maximum and minimum entrance pupil diameter determines how large of a range of light can be incident upon the lens system as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f/ΔEPD 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 a range of entrance pupil diameter values is inherent to a variable aperture and restricting ΔEPD to meet the condition f/ΔEPD < 5.5 will not cause any perturbation to the existing setup.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable aperture which can fluctuate in diameter and meets the condition f/ΔEPD < 5.5 as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5) in order to control the level of light that can pass through the aperture to accommodate for different light levels in the lens environment and control spherical aberration to increase image quality (paragraphs 0241, 0251, figure 9).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 14 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens (L1 “first lens”) to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface, and TTL and ImgH satisfy TTL/ImgH<1.5 (Table 13, TTL = 7.805 mm and IH = 6.247 mm, so therefore TTL/IH = 1.249 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 14 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses f1234 is a combined focal length of the first lens (L1 “first lens”), the second lens (L2 “second lens”), the third lens (L3 “third lens”) and the fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”), f56 is a combined focal length of the fifth lens (L5 “fifth lens”) and the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), and f1234 and f56 satisfy f56/f1234 (Table 13, f1 = 6.077 mm, f2 = -17.388 mm, f3 = 131.443 mm, f4 = 68.277 mm, f5 = 234.907 mm, and f6 = 9.367 mm, so therefore f56/f1234 = 0.859 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 14 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and Semi-FOV and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy f*tan(Semi-FOV)>4.5mm (Table 13, FOV = 85.56 degrees which means Semi-FOV = 42.78 degrees and f = 6.574 mm, so therefore f*tan(Semi-FOV) = 6.083 mm which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 14 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further discloses a center thickness CT4 of the fourth lens (L4 “fourth lens”) on the optical axis and an air space T23 between the second lens (L2 “second lens”) and the third lens (L3 “third lens”) on the optical axis satisfy 0.5<CT4/T23<1.0 (Table 5, CT4 = 0.380 mm and T23 = 0.520 mm, so therefore CT4/T23 = 0.731 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nitta (Embodiment 2) and Huh (Embodiment 5) discloses all the limitations in claim 14 and Nitta (Embodiment 2) further teaches SAG61 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), SAG62 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”) and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens (L6 “sixth lens”), and SAG61 and SAG62 satisfy 0<SAG61/SAG62<1.0 (as SAG61 and SAG62 depicted in Figure 5, given the effective radius and SAG of the object side of the sixth lens and effective radius and SAG of the image side of the sixth lens, disclosed due to proportionality of lengths of the diagram of Figure 5, e.g. values 5, 6 resulting in ratio of 0.83, page 10, paragraphs 21-23, Tables 5 and 6 of translation).
In the alternative that the ratio of SAG61/SAG62 is close or just outside the above range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the above SAG61/SAG62 ratio of the sixth lens to the above range in order to correct aberration, realize ultra-thinning, and improve imaging quality (page 7, paragraphs 4-6 of translation), 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).
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (CN 210572972 U)(Embodiment 6)(see attached machine translation), in view of Huh (US 20190137736 A1)(Embodiment 5).
Regarding claim 1, Dai (Embodiment 6) discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, in at least Figure 11, sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (figure 11):
…;
a first lens (E1 “first lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation);
a second lens (E2 “second lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation);
a third lens (E3 “third lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation);
a fourth lens (E4 “fourth lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation);
a fifth lens (E5 “fifth lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface (page 13, paragraph 2 of translation, figure 11);
a sixth lens (E6 “sixth lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation); and
a seventh lens (E7 “seventh lens”, first paragraph of page 13 of translation),
wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens (E1 “first lens”) on the optical axis and an air space T67 between the sixth lens (E6 “sixth lens”) and the seventh lens (E7 “seventh lens”) on the optical axis satisfy CT1/T67<1.0 (Table 11, CT1 = 0.7563 mm and T67 = 0.7525 mm, so therefore CT1/T67 = 1.00 which is infinitesimally close to the claimed range and thereby anticipates the claimed range); and
T1 is a distance from the variable diaphragm (STO “diaphragm”) corresponding to a maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly to an image-side surface of the first lens (E1 “first lens”) on the optical axis, FNO1 is an F-number corresponding to the maximum entrance pupil of the optical imaging lens assembly, and T1 and FNO1 satisfy 0.5<T1 /FNO1<1.0 (Tables 11 and 15, T1 = 0.4015 mm + 0.7563 mm = 1.158 mm and FNO1 = 1.46 mm, so therefore F1/TNO1 = 0.0.793 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
However, Dai (Embodiment 6) fails to teach “a variable diaphragm.”
Huh (Embodiment 5) teaches a variable diaphragm (VST “variable stop”, paragraph 0241). Huh (Embodiment 5) states in paragraph 0241 that the variable stop is a device used to selectively change the amount of light incident on the optical system. If the diameter of the variable stop is increased, a high amount of light can pass through the aperture in the case of a low light environment. Alternatively, decreasing the diameter of the variable stop will allow a low amount of light through the aperture in the case of a high light environment (paragraph 0241, figure 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a variable aperture which can fluctuate in diameter as taught by Huh (Embodiment 5) in order to control the level of light that can pass through the aperture to accommodate for different light levels in the lens environment and increase image quality (paragraphs 0241, 0251, figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, the optical imaging lens assembly of Dai (Embodiment 6) and Huh (Embodiment 6) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Dai (Embodiment 6) further discloses a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens (E2 “second lens”), a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens (E2 “second lens”), a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens (E3 “third lens”) and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens (E3 “third lens”) satisfy 0 < (R3 + R4)/(R5+R6) < 1.0 (Table 11, R3 = 0.2980 mm, R4 = 0.6582 mm, R5 = 0.2200 mm, and R6 = 0.1088 mm, so therefore (R3 + R4)/(R5+R6) = 0.348 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13, the optical imaging lens assembly of Dai (Embodiment 6) and Huh (Embodiment 6) discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Dai (Embodiment 6) further discloses
the second lens has a negative refractive power (Table 11, P = 1/f and f2 = -14.84 mm, so therefore P2 = -0.0673 mm^-1 is negative);
an image-side surface of the third lens (E3 “third lens”) is a concave surface (page 13, paragraph 2 of translation, figure 11);
the fourth lens has a positive refractive power (Table 11, P = 1/f and f4 = 51.01 mm, so therefore P4 = +0.0196 mm^-1 is positive);
the fifth lens has a positive refractive power (Table 11, P = 1/f and f5 = 22.42 mm, so therefore P5 = +0.0446 mm^-1 is positive);
the sixth lens has a positive refractive power (Table 11, P = 1/f and f6 = 3.88 mm, so therefore P6 = +0.258 mm^-1 is positive).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872