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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mirror surface” in claims 1 and 17 is used by the claim to mean “the refractive surface of a lens” while the accepted meaning is “a reflective”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The examiner will note that this seems to be a common machine translation when translating Chinese patent documents. For the purposes of compact prosecution the present application will be examined as though mirror surface refers to a refractive surface of a lens.
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 1, 3, 6, 8, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114428386 A (Tang et al.).
Regarding claim 1:
Tang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (See abstract), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens group having a positive refractive power (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E1] has a positive power) and comprising a first lens (Fig. 1 [E1]);
and a second lens group having a positive refractive power (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E2] – [E8] have a positive combined focal length of 11.57)
and sequentially comprising from the first lens to the image side along the optical axis:
a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens and an eighth lens (Fig. 1 [E2]-[E8]),
wherein the second lens has a positive refractive power (Table 1, the second lens has a positive focal length of 9.42);
an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E6] is a convex-concave lens (both surfaces have a positive radius));
the seventh lens has a positive refractive power (Table 1, The seventh lens has a positive focal length of 10.13);
the eighth lens has a negative refractive power (Table 1, The eighth lens has a negative focal length of -6.60);
ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region of a photosensitive element on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly, TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface on the optical axis,
and ImgH and TTL satisfy:
5mm<lmgHxlmgH/TTL<10mm (Para. (0095) gives ImgH=8.00mm and TTL =9.8mm, so ImagHxImgH/TTL = 6.53mm(Calculated));
and at least one mirror surface from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image-side surface of the eighth lens is an aspheric surface (See para (0098), The lens surfaces are aspheric).
Regarding claim 3:
Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1,
wherein TTL/ImgH<1.3 (Para. (0095) gives ImgH=8.00mm and TTL =9.8mm, so TTL/ImagH = 1.225(Calculated)).
Regarding claim 6:
Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1,
wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens satisfy:
0<f3/(f5+f6)<1.5 (Table 1, f3/(f5+f6) = 0.981 (Calculated)).
Regarding claim 8:
Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1,
wherein an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens, an effective focal length f8 of the eighth lens, a curvature radius R13 of an object-side surface of the seventh lens and a curvature radius R16 of an image-side surface of the eighth lens satisfy:
1.2<(f7-f8)/(R13+R16)<1 .8 (Table 1, (f7-f8)/(R13+R16) = 1.770 (Calculated)).
Regarding claim 13:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein an edge thickness ET8 of the eighth lens, an edge thickness ET5 of the fifth lens, an edge thickness ET6 of the sixth lens and an edge thickness ET7 of the seventh lens satisfy:
0.8<ET8/(ET5+ET6+ET7)<1 .5 (While values are not directly given for the edge thicknesses inspection (See annotated image below) of Fig. 1 shows that ET8/(ET5+ET6+ET7) < 1.5).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16:
Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the object-side surface of the first lens and an image-side surface of the first lens is aspheric surfaces (Para (0099) shows aspheric coefficients for the surfaces for lens 1 [S1] and [S2]).
Regarding claim 17:
Tang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly,
sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis:
a first lens group having a positive refractive power (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E1] has a positive power) and comprising a first lens (Fig. 1 [E1]);
and a second lens group having a positive refractive power (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E2] – [E8] have a positive combined focal length of 11.57)
and sequentially comprising from the first lens to the image side along the optical axis:
a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens and an eighth lens (Fig. 1 [E2]-[E8]),
wherein the second lens has a positive refractive power (Table 1, the second lens has a positive focal length of 9.42);
an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [E6] is a convex-concave lens (both surfaces have a positive radius));
the seventh lens has a positive refractive power (Table 1, The seventh lens has a positive focal length of 10.13);
the eighth lens has a negative refractive power (Table 1, The eighth lens has a negative focal length of -6.60);
ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region of a photosensitive element on an imaging surface of the optical imaging lens assembly, TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface on the optical axis, and ImgH and TTL satisfy:
TTL/ImgH <1.3 (Para. (0095) gives ImgH=8.00mm and TTL =9.8mm, so TTL/ImagH = 1.225(Calculated));
and at least one mirror surface from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image-side surface of the eighth lens is an aspheric surface (See para (0098), The lens surfaces are aspheric).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a provisional statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
an effective focal length FG2 of the second lens group and an effective focal length FG1 of the first lens group satisfy: 2.7 < FG2/FG1 < 4.2 (For example in Table 1, FG2/FG1 = 0.346 (Calculated)).
Regarding claim 4:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and FOV and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy:
6.0mm < f x tan(FOV/2) < 7.0mm (For an example see Para. (0095) which gives FOV/2=42.8° and f=7.92mm, f x tan(FOV/2) = 7.33mm (Calculated)).
Regarding claim 5:
While Tang discloses The optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, a curvature radius R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens satisfy:
1.0 < f1/(R1+R2) < 1.5 (See for example table 1, f1 = 33.55mm, R1 = 3.4461mm, R2 = 3.7817mm, f1/(R1 + R2) = 4.6418).
Regarding claim 7:
While Tang disclose the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens, a curvature radius R6 of an image-side surface of the third 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 satisfy:
1.0 < (R5+R6)/(R3+ R4) < 1.5 (See for example table 1, R3 = 4.2541mm, R4 = 22.444mm, R5=7.1165mm, R6=4.2463mm, (R5+R6)/(R3+R4) = 0.4256).
Regarding Claim 9:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein a center thickness CT7 of the seventh lens on the optical axis, a center thickness CT8 of the eighth lens on the optical axis, and a spacing distance T78 between the seventh lens and the eighth lens on the optical axis satisfy:
1.2 < (CT7+CT8)/T78 < 1.8 (See for example Table 1, CT7 = 0.9218mm, CT8=0.5746mm, T78 = 1.9544mm, (CT7 + CT8)/T78 = 0.7657).
Regarding claim 10:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein f34 is a combined focal length of the third lens and the fourth lens, f567 is a combined focal length of the fifth lens, the sixth lens and the seventh lens, and f34 and 1567 satisfy:
4.1<f34/f567<7.6 (See for example Table 1, f34 = -19.239 (Calculated), f567 = 10.088 (Calculated), f34/f567 = -1.9071).
Regarding claim 11:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein SAG61 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the sixth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the object-side surface of the sixth lens on the optical axis, SAG62 is a distance from an intersection point of the image-side surface of the sixth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the sixth lens on the optical axis, SAG51 is a 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 on the optical axis, SAG52 is a distance from an intersection point of an image-side surface of the fifth lens and the optical axis to an effective radius vertex of the image-side surface of the fifth lens on the optical axis, and SAG61, SAG62, SAG51 and SAG52 satisfy:
0.7<(SAG61 +SAG62)/(SAG51 +SAG52)<1.6 (See for example Fig. 1, By inspection SAG52 appears much larger then SAG61 + SAG62 so (SAG61 +SAG62)/(SAG51 +SAG52) < 0.7).
Regarding claim 12:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein a center thickness CT4 of the fourth lens on the optical axis, a spacing distance T45 between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis and an edge thickness ET4 of the fourth lens satisfy:
1.0<CT4/(T45+ET4)<1.6 (Exact values are not given however see Fig. 1, By inspection (See image below) of [E4] CT4 < ET4 so CT4/(T45+ET4) < 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang does not disclose:
wherein the first lens is made of glass (Tang does not explicitly teach the material of the first lens and the examiner could not identify a glass material that matched its properties).
Regarding claim 15:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein an Abbe number of the first lens satisfies:
58<V1<70 (See for example Table 1, V1 is 48.8).
Regarding claim 18:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 17, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein an effective focal length FG2 of the second lens group and an effective focal length FG1 of the first lens group satisfy: 2.7<FG2/FG1<4.2 (For example in Table 1, FG2/FG1 = 0.346 (Calculated)).
Regarding Claim 19:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 17, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging lens assembly, and FOV and a total effective focal length f of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy:
6.0mm < fxtan(FOV/2) < 7.0mm (For an example see Para. (0095) which gives FOV/2=42.8° and f=7.92mm, f x tan(FOV/2) = 7.33mm (Calculated)).
Regarding claim 20:
While Tang discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 17, Tang fails to disclose:
wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, a curvature radius R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens and a curvature radius R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens satisfy: 1 .0<f1/(R1+R2)<1.5 (See for example table 1, f1 = 33.55mm, R1 = 3.4461mm, R2 = 3.7817mm, f1/(R1 + R2) = 4.6418).
Additionally other references fail to teach or disclose either independent claims 1 or 17. For example see US 20210132336 A1 (CHEN et al.) which fails to teach the claim limitation:
a second lens group having a positive refractive power (See for example table 3 which shows a similar invention to claim 17 however the power of the second lens group is negative (Calculated))
Other similar relevant prior art is referenced below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230221527 A1 (Jhang et al.), US 20200249439 A1 (Song et al.), US 20210018728 A1 (Li et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-6pm.
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, Wyatt Stoffa can be reached on (571)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872