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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2022, 12/12/2022 and 04/09/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment that was filed on 3/25/2022 is entered.
Claim Objections
Inconsistency between the: claims and the disclosure: the specification fails to specifically disclose the range of the condition -1.2 < f123/f45 < -0.7 in claim 15, the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought and that said claims are supported by the disclosure. It seems that the data shown in Table yield the result f123/f45 = -0.01 instead of -0.81, -0.77 etc. as shown in Table 34. Please clarify.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANG et al. (US PUB 20140285907; herein after “TANG” in related 4th and 6th Embodiments).
Regarding claim 1, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: an optical imaging lens assembly (as shown in FIG. 7), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (para. [0102]): a first lens (410) with a refractive power (para. [0103]); a second lens (420) with a refractive power, an image-side surface (422) of the second lens is a concave surface (para. [0104]); a third lens (430) with a positive refractive power (para. [0105]); a fourth lens (440) with a refractive power (para. [0106]); and a fifth lens (450) with a refractive power (para. [0106]), 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 TTL/EPD<2 (i.e., Td/EPD = 1.70, TTL/f = 1.15, where Td=3.22, TTL=3.96, since the Td & TTL value are close that both would yield a value of TTL/EPD ~ <2 as calculated from Table 7 the parameters 4th Embodiment, para. [0111]).
TANG fails to teach in 4th Embodiment an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface.
However, in a related 6th Embodiment teaches The third lens element 630 with positive refractive power has a convex object-side surface 631, para. [0127], FIG. 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens assembly of FIG. 7 with that of FIG. 11 such that they are structurally similar and would be interchangeable, for the purpose of improving the light gathering ability of the lens assembly, and it is favorable for effectively correcting the Petzval Sum of the imaging lens assembly so as to improve the resolving power, see para. [0044] and [0045].
Regarding claim 15, TANG teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (as shown in FIG. 7), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens (410) with a refractive power; a second lens (420) with a refractive power, an image-side surface (422) of the second lens is a concave surface; a third lens (430) with a positive refractive power; a fourth lens (440) with a refractive power; and a fifth lens (450) with a refractive power (see para. [0102] to para. [0106] ad as set forth in claim 1 above), wherein f123 is a combined focal length of the first lens, the second lens and the third lens, f45 is a combined focal length of the fourth lens and the fifth lens, and f123 and f45 satisfy -1.2 < f123/f45 < -0.7 (f123 / f45 = -46.54/46.39 = (-1.003), calculated from Table 7 of 4th embodiment).
TANG fails to teach in 4th Embodiment an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface.
However, in a related 6th Embodiment teaches The third lens element 630 with positive refractive power has a convex object-side surface 631, para. [0127], FIG. 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens assembly of FIG. 7 with that of FIG. 11 such that they are structurally similar and would be interchangeable, for the purpose of improving the light gathering ability of the lens assembly, and it is favorable for effectively correcting the Petzval Sum of the imaging lens assembly so as to improve the resolving power, see para. [0044] and [0045].
Regarding claims 2 and 17, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 1<f1/f<1.5 (e.g., f1/f=2.64/3.68= 0.72).
TANG further teaches in 6th Embodiment: f1/f=3.71/5.0= 0.74.
5*
TANG teaches in 4th and 6th Embodiment f1/f = 0.72 and 0.74 instead of 1<f1/f<1.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have f1/f = 0.74 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough (~1) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it has 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the fifth lens to the imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis, and BFL and TTL satisfy BFL/TTL<0.12 (BFL/TTL = 0.741/3.963 = 0.18, Table 7).
TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment BFL/TTL = 0.18 instead of BFL/TTL<0.12.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have BFL/TTL = 0.18 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough (~<0.12) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it has 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: a curvature radius R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens and a curvature radius R8 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens satisfy 0.7<R7/R8<1.2 (i.e., R7/R8 = -8/-17.64 =~ 0.5).
TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment R7/R8 = ~ 0.5 instead of 0.7<R7/R8<1.2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have R7/R8 = ~ 0.5 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough (~0.7) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it has 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.
Regarding claim 6, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: T34 is a distance between the third lens and the fourth lens on the optical axis, TD is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image-side surface of the fifth lens on the optical axis, and T34 and TD satisfy 0.2<T34/TD<0.3 (i.e., T34/TD= 0.447/3.22=~0.15).
TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment T34/TD =~ 0.15 instead of 0.2<T34/TD<0.3.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have T34/TD =~ 0.15 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough (~0.2) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it has 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.
Regarding claim 7, TANG teaches in 4th Embodiment: T12 is a distance between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis, T23 is a distance between the second lens and the third lens on the optical axis, and T12 and T23 satisfy 1.5<T12/T23<3.6 (i.e., T12/T23=11.883/4.694 = 2.53).
Regarding claim 16, TANG teaches TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface on the optical axis, EPD is an Entrance Pupil Diameter of the optical imaging lens assembly, and TTL and EPD satisfy TTL/EPD<2 (i.e., Td/EPD = 1.70, TTL/f = 1.15, where Td=3.22, TTL=3.96, since the Td & TTL value are close that both would yield a value of TTL/EPD ~ <2 as calculated from Table 7 the parameters 4th Embodiment, para. [0111]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten either in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or included into the independent base claim(s).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding a curvature radius R4 of the image-side surface of the second lens and a curvature radius R5 of the object-side surface of the third lens satisfy 3<(R4+R5)/(R4-R5) <6.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding SAG41 is an 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 SAG41 and a center thickness CT4 of the fourth lens on the optical axis satisfy ?0.25<SAG41/CT4<0.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding an edge thickness ET4 of the fourth lens and an edge thickness ET5 of the fifth lens satisfy 1<ET4/ET5<1.5.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding SAG51 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of an object-side surface of the fifth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the fifth lens, T45 is a distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis, and SAG51 and T45 satisfy ?1.3<SAG51/T45<?0.8.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding SAG31 is an on-axis distance from an intersection point of the 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, and SAG31 and a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis satisfy 0.3<SAG31/CT3<0.7.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding an effective focal length f3 of the third lens and an effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy 0.5<f3/f<1.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding DT52 is an effective radius of an image-side surface of the fifth lens, ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface, and DT52 and ImgH satisfy 0.8<DT52/ImgH<1.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding DT12 is an effective radius of an image-side surface of the first lens, DT41 is an effective radius of an object-side surface of the fourth lens, and DT12 and DT41 satisfy 1<DT12/DT41<1.5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LIAO et al. (US PUB 20160170176); Yan (US PUB 20190243105); Tsai et al. (US 10101563); Wei et al. (US 11899172) teaches five-piece optical lens system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
November 21, 2024