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 .
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2019/0137736) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0239117).
Regarding claim 1, Huh discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see figures 29-32, for instance), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis; a variable aperture (VST); a first lens (610) with a positive refractive power ([0286]), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (see figure 29); a second lens (620) with a refractive power; a third lens (630) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (640) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (650) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (660) with refractive power; a seventh lens (670) with a positive refractive power ([0292]); and an eighth lens (680) with a negative refractive power ([0294]), wherein EPDmax is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly (configuration of Figure 30; corresponding to Table 20), EPDmin is a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly (configuration of figure Fig. 31; corresponding to Table 21), and EPDmax, EPDmin and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: f/( EPDmax − EPDmin)>2.2 (according to optical calculations, Huh discloses a value of at least 4.748). However, Huh does not expressly disclose wherein the variable aperture is an iris diaphragm.
Lee discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the variable aperture (ST) is an iris diaphragm ([0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the iris diaphragm as the variable aperture as Lee in the device of Huh. The motivation for doing so would have been to be configured in an optimized and controlled manner to adjust the aperture for the light beam entering the optical lens assembly by using a alternative conventional technology in the art, as taught by Lee ([0046])
Regarding claim 7, Huh in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein f45 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens and the fifth lens, a curvature radius R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens, a curvature radius R8 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens, is a curvature radius R9 of an object-side of the fifth lens, is a curvature radius R10 of an image-side surface of the fifth lens and f45 satisfy: −2.0<f45/(R7+R8+R9+R10)<-0.2 (see Table 20).
Regarding claim 12, Huh in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein EPDmax and EPDmin satisfy: 1.1< EPDmax / EPDmin <3.1 (2.2975; based on values of EPDmax = 3.676, and EPDmin = 1.6).
Regarding claim 13, Huh in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein EPDmax, EPDmin and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 2.2<f/( EPDmax − EPDmin)<20 (f/( EPDmax − EPDmin) = 4.748, based on Table 20).
Regarding claim 14, Huh in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an object-side surface of the sixth lens (660) is a convex surface (see fig. 31), and an image-side surface of the sixth lens (660) is a concave surface (see fig. 31); an object-side surface of the seventh lens (670) is a convex surface (see fig. 31), and an image-side surface of the seventh lens (670) is a concave surface (see fig. 31).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2023/0034285) in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see figures 3a-3b, for instance), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis; a variable aperture (ST); a first lens (L1) with a positive refractive power (based on Table 1a), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (see figure 3a); a second lens (L2) with a refractive power; a third lens (L3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (L4) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (L5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) with refractive power; a seventh lens (L7) with a positive refractive power (based on Table 1a); and an eighth lens (L8) with a negative refractive power (based on Table 1a), wherein EPDmax is a maximum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly ([0139]; 4.31), EPDmin is a minimum entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly ([0139]; 3.0467), and EPDmax, EPDmin and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: f/( EPDmax − EPDmin)>2.2 (according to optical calculations, Hsu discloses a value of at least 4.9394). However, Hsu does not expressly disclose wherein the variable aperture is an iris diaphragm.
Lee discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the variable aperture (ST) is an iris diaphragm ([0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the iris diaphragm as the variable aperture as Lee in the device of Hsu. The motivation for doing so would have been to be configured in an optimized and controlled manner to adjust the aperture for the light beam entering the optical lens assembly by using a alternative conventional technology in the art, as taught by Lee ([0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens (L1), a curvature radius R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens satisfy: 0.3<f1/(R2−R1)<4.8 (based on Table 1a, a value of 1.5644).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein f45 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens and the fifth lens, a curvature radius R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens, a curvature radius R8 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens, is a curvature radius R9 of an object-side of the fifth lens, is a curvature radius R10 of an image-side surface of the fifth lens and f45 satisfy: −2.0<f45/(R7+R8+R9+R10)<-0.2 (based on Table 1a, value of -0.7883).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein EPDmax and EPDmin satisfy: 1.1< EPDmax / EPDmin <3.1 (1.415; based on values of EPDmax = 4.31 and EPDmin =3.0467).
Regarding claim 13, Hsu in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein EPDmax, EPDmin and the total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 2.2<f/( EPDmax − EPDmin)<20 (f/( EPDmax − EPDmin) = 4.9394, based on Table 1a).
Regarding claim 14, Hsu in view of Lee discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an object-side surface of the sixth lens (L6) is a convex surface (see fig. 3a), and an image-side surface of the sixth lens (L6) is a concave surface (see fig. 3a); an object-side surface of the seventh lens (L7) is a convex surface (see fig. 3a), and an image-side surface of the seventh lens (L7) is a concave surface (see fig. 3a).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN107703609B; translation attached herewith; rejection made with reference to US 2020/0201002 as the English translation of the US-filed application) in view of Lee, and in further view of in view of Gross et al (Handbook of Optical Systems, Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems. Oberkochen, Wiley-VCH, 2007).
Regarding 15, Xu discloses an optical imaging lens (see figure 19, for instance) assembly, sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (E1) with a positive refractive power ([0164]), an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (see fig. 19); a diaphragm (STO); a second lens (E2) with a refractive power; a third lens (E3) with a refractive power; a fourth lens (E4) with a refractive power; a fifth lens (E5) with a refractive power; a sixth lens (E6) with a refractive power; a seventh lens (E7) with a positive refractive power ([0164]); and an eighth lens (E8) with a negative refractive power ([0164]), wherein f123 is a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens, f67 is a combined focal length of the sixth lens and the seventh lens, and f123 and f67 satisfy: 1.2<f123/f67<1.8 (based on values from Table 28, f123/f67=1.7117). However, Xu does not expressly disclose wherein the diaphragm is an iris diaphragm, wherein the aperture stop is sequentially disposed before the first lens from an object side to an image side along an optical axis.
Lee discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the variable aperture (ST) is an iris diaphragm ([0046])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the iris diaphragm as the variable aperture as Lee in the device of Hsu. The motivation for doing so would have been to be configured in an optimized and controlled manner to adjust the aperture for the light beam entering the optical lens assembly by using a alternative conventional technology in the art, as taught by Lee ([0046]).
Within the same field of endeavor, Gross et al teaches that it is advantageous to move a stop position in an optical system for the purpose of finding a design with better performance without any great perturbation of the existing setup (page 378, section 33.1.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the stop of Jia et al to be discloses between the fourth and fifth lenses since Gross et al teaches that it is advantageous to move a stop position in an optical system for the purpose of finding a design with better performance without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Regarding claim 16, Xu in view of Lee and in further view of Gross discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 15, wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, a curvature radius R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens satisfy: 0.3<f1/(R2−R1)<4.8 (based on Table 28, f1/(R2−R1) = 0.3775)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-11 and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached on (571)-272-2286. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 12/10/2024