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 9/14/2022 has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 filed on 3/25/2022.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 3/25/2022 is acknowledged. In the amendment, Applicant amended claim 13 and cancelled claims 21-26.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 17/763,668 filed on 3/25/2022 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 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 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2015/0198791, hereinafter, “Kubota”).
Regarding claim 14, Kubota discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 16), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens L1 with a positive refractive power ([0071]),
a second lens L2 with a negative refractive power ([0071]),
a third lens L3 with a refractive power ([0073]),
a fourth lens L4 with a refractive power ([0074]),
a fifth lens L5 with a refractive power ([0074]),
a sixth lens L6 with a positive refractive power ([0076]), and
a seventh lens L7 with a negative refractive power ([0076]),
wherein a combined focal length f123 of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 1.0<f123/f<1.4 (f=7.13, f123=7.73, thus, f123/f=1.08, [0100]).
Regarding claim 18, Kubota discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14, wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens satisfy:
-1 <(f2+f7)/(f1+f6)<-0.6 (f1=7.39, f2=-14.01, f6=30.44, f7=-17.04, [0100], thus, (f2+f7)/(f1+f6)=-0.82).
Regarding claim 20, Kubota discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14, wherein 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 and an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens satisfy: 0.1mm<(R7xR8)/f4<0.6mm (R7=-3.825, R8=-4.241, f4=-102.02, [0100], thus, (R7xR8)/f4=0.15.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (CN 109031590, hereinafter, “Guo”).
Regarding claim 14, Guo discloses (cited figures and Tables refer to the original, paragraphs refer to the English translation) an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 1), sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens L1 with a positive refractive power ([0119]),
a second lens L2 with a negative refractive power ([0119]),
a third lens L3 with a refractive power ([0119]),
a fourth lens L4 with a refractive power ([0119]),
a fifth lens L5 with a refractive power ([0119]),
a sixth lens L6 with a positive refractive power ([0119]), and
a seventh lens L7 with a negative refractive power ([0119]),
wherein a combined focal length f123 of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 1.0<f123/f<1.4 (f=4.08, f123=4.69, Table 3, thus, f123/f=1.15).
Regarding claim 19, Guo discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14, wherein a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: 0.6<(R3+R4)/(R5+R6)<1.1 (R3=3.777, R4=2.002, R5=2.320, R6=6.479, Table 1, thus,
(R3+R4)/(R5+R6)=0.66).
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 1-9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2019/0258028, hereinafter, “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 with a positive refractive power ([0200]),
a second lens 720 with a negative refractive power ([0201]),
a third lens 730 with a refractive power ([0202]),
a fourth lens 740 with a refractive power ([0203]),
a fifth lens 750 with a refractive power ([0204]),
a sixth lens 760 with a positive refractive power ([0205]), and
a seventh lens 770 with a negative refractive power ([0206]).
Huang does not disclose wherein EPD is an 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 EPD and Semi-FOV satisfy: 11mm <EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV)<20mm.
However, Huang discloses f=6.39, Table 13, f/EPD=1.82, [0212], thus, EPD=3.51. Also, TAN(Semi-HOV)=0.37, [0212], thus, EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV)=9.486.
Here, the claimed range for EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV) is close with the value for EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV) 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/TAN(Semi-FOV) lies within the claimed range, for controlling the amount of incident light, thus, further enhancing the image brightness and for adjusting an effective imaging range, thus, improving the resolution of a magnified image from a telephoto shot, see [0047], [0048] of Huang.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly and EPD satisfy: f/EPD<1.4.
However, Huang discloses f/EPD=1.82, [0212].
The parameters f and EPD (i.e., focal length and entrance pupil diameter) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, controlling the amount of incident light, [0047] in Huang.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for f/EPD<1.4.
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 f/EPD 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/EPD is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it enhances image brightness.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f/EPD 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 3, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, and TTL and EPD satisfy: 1.2<TTL/EPD<1.6.
However, Huang discloses TTL=6.454, Table 13, EPD=3.51, see above, thus, TTL/EPD=1.83.
Here, the claimed range for TTL/EPD is close with the value for TTL/EPD 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/EPD lies within the claimed range, for balancing between a large aperture and a shorter total track length, thereby meeting the specification of a compact lens system with a large aperture, see [0053] of Huang.
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens satisfy: -1<(f2+f7)/(f1+f6)<-0.6.
However, Huang discloses f2=-27.73, f7=-5.65, f1=3.86, f6=7.18, Table 13, thus, (f2+f7)/(f1+f6)=-3.02.
The parameters f1, f2, f6, f7 (i.e., focal lengths of lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, correcting aberrations so as to improve image quality, [0067] in Huang.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for -1<(f2+f7)/(f1+f6)<-0.6.
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 (f2+f7)/(f1+f6) 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, (f2+f7)/(f1+f6) is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it enhances image brightness.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize (f2+f7)/(f1+f6) 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 a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens, a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: 0.6<(R3+R4)/(R5+R6)<1.1.
However, Huang discloses R3=7.856, R4=5.431, R5=18.305, R6=4.485, Table 13, thus,
(R3+R4)/(R5+R6)=0.583.
Here, the claimed range for (R3+R4)/(R5+R6) is close with the value for (R3+R4)/(R5+R6) 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 (R3+R4)/(R5+R6) lies within the claimed range, for effectively controlling the shape of the lens elements close to the object for better imaging.
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein 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 and an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens satisfy: 0.1mm<(R7xR8)/f4<0.6mm.
However, Huang discloses R7=63.136, R8=8.732, f4=-14.76, Table 13, thus, (R7xR8)/f4=37.35.
The parameters R7, R8 and f4 (i.e., radii and focal length of a lens) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, correcting aberrations.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 0.1mm<(R7xR8)/f4<0.6mm.
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 (R7xR8)/f4 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, (R7xR8)/f4 is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it corrects aberrations.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize (R7xR8)/f4 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 7, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies: 7mm<f<8mm.
However, Huang discloses f=6.39, Table 13.
Here, the claimed range for f is close with the value for 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 f lies within the claimed range, for effecting the desired imaging properties of the lens assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein a spacing distance T34 between the third lens and the fourth lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T45 between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T56 between the fifth lens and the sixth lens on the optical axis and a spacing distance T67 between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis satisfy: 0.6<(T34+T45)/(T56+T67) <1.0.
However, Huang discloses T34=0.320, T45=0.057, T56=0.873, T67=0.735, Table 13, thus, (T34+T45)/(T56+T67)=0.23.
The parameters T34, T45, T56, T67 (i.e., distances between lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting optical aberration.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 0.6<(T34+T45)/(T56+T67) <1.0.
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 Huang so that (T34+T45)/(T56+T67) 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, T34, T45, T56, T67 are art recognized result- effective variables in that they help realize the correction of aberration of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize (T34+T45)/(T56+T67) 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 9, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
Huang does not disclose wherein TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly, and a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis and TTL satisfy: 0.9<CT1/TTLx5<1.2.
However, Huang discloses CT1=1.325, TTL=6.454, Table 13, thus, CT1/TTLx5=0.041.
The parameters CT1 an TTL (i.e., thickness and distances between lenses) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting light convergence capability and lens assembling, see [0051], [0066] in Huang.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for 0.9<CT1/TTLx5<1.2.
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 Huang so that CT1/TTLx5 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, CT1, TTL are art recognized result- effective variables in that they help realize the correction of aberration of the lens and the assembly of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize CT1/TTLx5 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, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a combined focal length f123 of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 1.0<f123/f<1.4 (f=6.39, Table 13, f123=8 based on the values in Table 13, thus, f123/f=1.25).
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, sequentially comprising, from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens 710 with a positive refractive power ([0200]),
a second lens 720 with a negative refractive power ([0201]),
a third lens 730 with a refractive power ([0202]),
a fourth lens 740 with a refractive power ([0203]),
a fifth lens 750 with a refractive power ([0204]),
a sixth lens 760 with a positive refractive power ([0205]), and
a seventh lens 770 with a negative refractive power ([0206]), wherein
a combined focal length f123 of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 1.0<f123/f<1.4 (f=6.39, Table 13, f123=8 based on the values in Table 13, thus, f123/f=1.25).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14.
Huang does not disclose wherein EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and f and EPD satisfy: f/EPD<1.4.
However, Huang discloses f/EPD=1.82, [0212].
The parameters f and EPD (i.e., focal length and entrance pupil diameter) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, controlling the amount of incident light, [0047] in Huang.
Huang discloses the claimed invention except for f/EPD<1.4.
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 f/EPD 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/EPD is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it enhances image brightness.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize f/EPD 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 16, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 15.
Huang does not disclose wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and EPD and Semi-FOV satisfy: 11mm<EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV)<20mm.
However, Huang discloses f=6.39, Table 13, f/EPD=1.82, [0212], thus, EPD=3.51. Also, TAN(Semi-HOV)=0.37, [0212], thus, EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV)=9.486.
Here, the claimed range for EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV) is close with the value for EPD/TAN(Semi-FOV) 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/TAN(Semi-FOV) lies within the claimed range, for controlling the amount of incident light, thus, further enhancing the image brightness and for adjusting an effective imaging range, thus, improving the resolution of a magnified image from a telephoto shot, see [0047], [0048] of Huang.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo.
Regarding claim 15, Guo discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14.
Guo does not disclose wherein EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and f and EPD satisfy: f/EPD<1.4.
However, Guo discloses f=4.08, EPD=2.63, Table 3, thus, f/EPD=1.55.
Here, the claimed range for f/EPD is close with the value for f/EPD disclosed by Guo. 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 Guo so that f/EPD lies within the claimed range, for controlling the amount of incident light, thus, further enhancing the image brightness, see [0047] of Huang.
Regarding claim 17, Guo discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 14.
Guo does not disclose wherein TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, EPD is an entrance pupil diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and TTL and EPD satisfy: 1.2<TTL/EPD<1.6.
However, Guo discloses TTL=4.99, EPD=2.63, Table 3, thus, TTL/EPD=1.89.
The parameters TTL and EPD (i.e., optical length and entrance pupil diameter of the lens assembly) are result-effective variables, i.e., they are recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, balancing between a large aperture and a shorter total track length, see [0053] in Huang.
Guo discloses the claimed invention except for 1.2<TTL/EPD<1.6.
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 Guo so that TTL/EPD 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/EPD is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize balancing of the lens.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize TTL/EPD 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”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kubota.
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1.
However, Huang does not disclose wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is a convex surface, an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface (in Huang, in the seventh embodiment, the sixth lens has a concave object side surface, [0205]).
Kubota discloses an optical imaging lens assembly comprising a sequence of seven lenses (Fig. 16) with the lenses having the same refractive powers as those of Luang. In Kubota, the sixth lens has a convex surface, [0076].
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 the sixth lens has a convex surface, as taught by Kubota, for appropriately directing incident light to the image side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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 10, Huang is silent as to the on-axis distance 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, i.e., the SAG11 parameter.
Regarding claim 11, Huang is silent as to the on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the third lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the third lens, the on-axis distance from an intersection point of an 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, and the on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the seventh lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the seventh lens, i.e., the SAG31, SAG41 and SAG71 parameters.
Conclusion
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