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
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi US 2019/0227265 (1St Embodiment).
Regarding claim 12, Shi teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (Fig. 1: 10), sequentially comprising the followings from an object side to an image side along an optical axis: a first lens having a positive focal power (Table 1: and Fig. 1: and para 0014: depicts L1 having a positive refractive power), wherein an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (as shown in Table 2: R1 has a positive curvature radius which implies convex object-side surface and R2 has a positive curvature radius which implied concave image-side surface);
a second lens having a focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L2 has negative power);
a third lens having a focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L3 has negative power);
a fourth lens having a focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L4 has positive power);
a fifth lens having a focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L5 has positive power);
a sixth lens having a positive focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L6 has positive power); and
a seventh lens having a negative focal power (Table 1 and para 0014: L7 has negative power),
wherein an object-side surface thereof is a concave surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (as shown in Table 2: R13 has a negative curvature radius which implies concave object-side surface and R14 has a positive curvature radius which implied concave image-side surface); and
an Abbe number V1 of the first lens and an Abbe number V2 of the second lens meet:
78<V1+V2<88 (Table 2: V1 = 56.10 and V2 = 22.44, thus V1 + V2 = 78.54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik et al. US 2019/0369366 (25th Embodiment).
Regarding claim 1, an optical imaging lens assembly (at least Fig. 49: imaging lens system 25), sequentially comprising the followings from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (see Fig. 49: lenses sequentially arranged from object side to an image side):
a first lens having a positive focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f1 = 3.6197), wherein an object-side surface thereof is a convex surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (Table 49 depicts first lens with a convex object-side and a concave image-side surface);
a second lens having a focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f2 = -10.4284);
a third lens having a focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f3 = 39.8209);
a fourth lens having a focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f4 = -38.7622);
a fifth lens having a focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f5 = 4.3417);
a sixth lens having a positive focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f6 = 10.303); and
a seventh lens having a negative focal power (Table 58 Example 25: f7 = -2.323), wherein an object-side surface thereof is a concave surface, and an image-side surface thereof is a concave surface (Table 49 depicts seventh lens with a concave object-side and a concave image-side surface); and
DT11 is a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens, DT12 is a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the first lens, and ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly, DT11, DT12 and ImgH meet: 2.4<(DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5<2.7 (From Table 49: DT11 = 1.1 and DT2 = 1.04, and From Table 57 Example 25: IMG HT = 3.728, thus (1.1+1.04)/3.728*5 = 2.87.
With respect to the claimed (DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5, Baik teaches that the claimed value is 2.87, which falls just above applicant’s claimed upper limit of 2.7.
Examiner contends that Baik value 2.87 for (DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5 is sufficiently close to 2.7 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 2.87 and the upper limit of 2.7 is insubstantial, representing only a 0.059% difference, while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the claimed value from 2.87 is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of (DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of nd_LGmF1, obtained from Baik’s disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 2.4<(DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5<2.7 to render it obvious because the difference between 2.87 and the upper limit of 2.7 is insubstantial, a value of 2.87 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the upper range for (DT11+DT12)/ImgHx5, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the upper limit 2.7 of the claimed range and/or that the upper limit of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein ImgH meets: ImgH = 3.728 mm. Baik discloses the claimed invention except for ImgH is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the Abbe number to 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).
Regarding claim 3, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a refractive index N1 of the first lens and a refractive index N2 of the second lens meet:
N1+N2>3.3 (From Table 49: 1.546+1.667 = 3.213). Baik discloses the claimed invention except for the range is 3.213 instead of 3.3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the N1+N2, 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 4, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly on the optical axis and ImgH meet: TTL/ImgH<1.25 (From Table 57: TTL = 5.24 and IMG HT = 3.728, thus TTL/ImgH = 1.4. Baik discloses the claimed invention except for the range is 1.4 instead of 1.25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the TTL/ImgH, 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 5, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein an Abbe number V1 of the first lens and an Abbe number V2 of the second lens meet:
78<V1+V2<88 (From Table 49: V1 = 56.114 and V2=20.353, thus V1+V2 = 76.467). Baik discloses the claimed invention except for V1+V2 is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the Abbe number to 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).
Regarding claim 8, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein the effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens, a curvature radius R13 of the object-side surface of the seventh lens, and a curvature radius R14 of the image-side surface of the seventh lens meet: 0.2<f7/(R13−R14)<0.6 (Table 58 = -2.323 and R13 = -6.1494, and R14 = 1.6367, f7/(R13−R14) = 0.298).
Regarding claim 9, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly meets:
82°<F0V<88° (Table 57 Example 25: FOV = 80.465). Baik discloses the claimed invention except for FOV is within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the FOV to 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).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuo US 2020/0012078.
Regarding claim 10, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a distance T45 between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis, a distance T56 between the fifth lens and the sixth lens on the optical axis, a distance T67 between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT6 of the sixth lens on the optical axis, and a center thickness CT7 of the seventh lens on the optical axis meet 0.8<(T45+T56+T67)/(CT5+CT6+CT7)<1.2 (From Table 49: (T45+T56+T67)/(CT5+CT6+CT7) = 0.44).
Baik discloses the claimed invention except for 0.8<(T45+T56+T67)/(CT5+CT6+CT7)<1.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the spacing between the lenses and thickness of the lens, because such modification is favorable for balancing the field and the volume, 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 any event, Kuo teaches that adjusting the lens thickness and the space between the lenses is favorable for balancing the field of view and the volume (see para 0050-0051). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed range by adjusting the adjacent spacing between the lens and thickness of the lens as taught by Kuo in order to provide a favorable for balancing the field of view and the volume as describe in para 0050-0051 of Kuo.
Regarding claim 11, Baik teaches the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the lenses is made of plastic. However, Baik does not explicitly disclose that the lens is fabricated from glass material. Baik and Kuo related as optical element supports. Kuo discloses a lens fabricated from glass material (the lens is made of glass see para 0075). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lens of Baik to be fabricated from glass, as taught by Kuo, in order to utilize a stable material wherein the selection is based upon thermal and manufacturing considerations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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 6, the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly, an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens, and an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens meet:
0.5<f/(f1+f6+f7)<1.0.
Regarding claim 7, the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a curvature radius R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens, a curvature radius R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, and a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens meet:
0.3<(R1+R2)/(R3+R4)<0.8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872