DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a filing of 4/21/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US20210223545).
Regarding claim 1, Mi teaches an imaging lens comprising:
a first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1, first lens group G1, lenses 21, 22, 23) and a second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G2, lenses 24, 25, 26+27), wherein the first lens group and the second lens group respectively comprise three lenses with refractive power (see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0090]-[0091], data of table 7, 8, the first lens group three lenses lens 21, 22, 23 with refractive power and second lens group lenses comprise three lenses 24, 25, and 26+27 with refractive power, paragraph [0004],The sixth lens 26 and the seventh lens 27 form a cemented doublet lens);
the lenses of the first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1, lenses 21, 22, 23) comprise two aspheric lenses (Mi, fig. 13, lens 22, lens 23, paragraph [0004], The second lens 22 is an aspheric lens. The third lens 23 is an aspheric lens) and a glass lens (Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0005], the first lens 21 is made of glass), and an outermost lens surface of the first lens group facing an object side is a spherical surface (see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0091], data of table 8, surface S1 is spherical surface of lens 21);
the lenses of the second lens group (Mi, fig. 13, lenses 24, 26 and 26+27) comprise an aspheric lens (paragraph [0004], The fourth lens 24 is an aspheric lens) and a glass lens (Mi,, fig. 13, paragraph [0005], the fourth lens 24 is made of glass), and the second lens group comprises a cemented surface (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, surface S13, paragraph [0004],The sixth lens 26 and the seventh lens 27 form a cemented doublet lens; thus, the surface S13 is a cemented surface);
an aperture stop of the imaging lens (Mi, fig. 13, diaphragm 28) disposed between the first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1) and the second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G2); wherein the imaging lens meets the following conditions: 0.15 <EFL/LT<0.25 (value is approximately 0.19; see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0091], data of table 8, EFL/LT = f/ LT= 2.8/14.59) and 0.5<D1/LT<1.5 (value is approximately 0.58; see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the scale of D1/LT = 2.78/4.73 is approximately 0.58; It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).);
wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the imaging lens (Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0007] f is a focal length of an optical system of the optical lens; paragraph [0091], data of table 8, f= 2.8), LT is a distance on an optical axis (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the optical axis; paragraph [0004]The optical lens includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens and a seventh lens, which are sequentially arranged from an object side to an image side along an optical axis; see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, table 8, paragraph [0091] data of table 8, LT = 14.59) between outermost two lens surfaces (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, outermost of surfaces S1 and S14) of the first lens group and the second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, and Mi, fig. 13, table 8, the LT), and D1 is a diameter of an outermost surface of an outermost lens of the first lens group facing the object side (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, D1 is a diameter of an outermost surface S1 of an outermost lens of the first lens group facing the object side).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
726
990
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Mi discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Mi further teaches wherein the refractive power of the second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, lens group G2 and Mi, fig. 13, table 8) is positive (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, lens group G2 and Mi, fig. 13, table 8, the focal length of G2 is approximately 4.86 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein a distance between a concave surface (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, surface S12) and a convex surface (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, surface S11) closest to each other of the imaging lens is less than 0.3 mm (0.17 mm; Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0091], table 8, distance between S11 and S12 = 0.17mm).
Regarding claim 6, Mi discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Mi further teaches wherein a number of lenses (Mi, fig. 13, lenses 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) with refractive power in the imaging lens is substantially seven (see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0090], data of table 7, the total number of focal length, f1~f7 is seven).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US20210223545), and further in view of Wei et al. (US20210333510).
Regarding claim 2, Mi discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the imaging lens meets the following conditions: 8 mm≦D1≦11 mm (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13 and fig. 13, table 8, referring to the scale in the image, the DT is approximately 8.5 mm); 9 mm ≦LT≦<15 mm (14.59; Mi, fig. 13, LT =14.59 mm, described in claim 1);
but Mi does not explicitly teach wherein 1.6 mm <EFL<2.1 mm (2.8).
However, Wei teaches the analogous an imaging lens (Wei, fig.11, paragraph [0073], refer to FIG. 11, FIG. 11 is a structural diagram of an ultra-wide-angle lens 300 according to this embodiment, from the object side to the imaging surface S16, the ultra-wide-angle lens 300 sequentially includes a first group Q1, a second group Q2, a stop ST, a third group Q3, a fourth group Q4 and a filter G1), and further teaches wherein 1.6 mm <EFL<2.1 mm (1.89; Wei, fig. 11, paragraph [0091], data of table 5, EFL = f= 1.89, Table 5 includes the system focal length f, the third embodiment, EFL= f= 1.89 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens of Mi with the conditional expression as taught by Wei for the purpose to obtain a wide-angle range and develop a high-performance optical lens that can be cooperated with unmanned driving (Wei, paragraph [0003]).(---further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller,105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US20210223545), and further in view of Yeh (US20180059362).
Regarding claim 3, Mi discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Mi further teaches wherein the imaging lens meets the following conditions:
4 mm≦ DL≦ 8 mm (DL value is approximately 5.4; referring to the scale in the image, Mi, fig. 13, and Mi, fig. 13, table 8, the DT is approximately 5.36 mm);
1 <D1/DL<2 (D1/DL value is approximately 1.57; D1/DL=8.5/5.4, see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, described above, and claim 1); wherein DL is a diameter of an outermost surface of a lens (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, DL is a diameter of an outermost surface S14 of the lens 27) closest to an image side in the imaging lens (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0006] “a surface of one side of the lens closest to the image surface is an image side surface”).
But Mi does not explicitly teach wherein 0.4 <DL/LT<0.8 (is capable of 0.37).
However, Yeh teaches the analogous an imaging lens (Yeh, fig.1, paragraph [0026], Referring to FIG. 1, FIG. 1 is a lens layout and optical path diagram of a lens assembly 1 in accordance with a first embodiment of the invention. The lens assembly 1, in sequence from an object side to an image side IMA1 along an optical axis OA1, comprises a first lens L11 which is a meniscus lens with negative refractive power and includes a convex surface facing the object side S11; a second lens L12 having negative refractive power and including a concave surface facing the object side S13; a third lens L13 having positive refractive power and including a convex surface facing the image side S15; a fourth lens L14 having positive refractive power; a fifth lens L15 having positive refractive power; a sixth lens L16 having negative refractive power, and a seventh lens L17 having refractive power), and further teaches wherein
0.4 <DL/LT<0.8 (DL/LT value is approximately 0.46; see annotated image, Yeh, fig.1, referring to the scale in the image, Yeh, fig.1, the DL/LT = 1.78/3.98 is approximately 0.45; It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).), wherein DL is a diameter of an outermost surface of a lens (see annotated image, Yeh, fig.1, lens L17) closest to an image side in the imaging lens (see annotated image, Yeh, fig.1, the DL), LT is a distance on an optical axis between outermost two lens surfaces (Yeh, fig.1, surface S11 and S113) of the imaging lens (see annotated image, Yeh, fig.1, the LT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens of Mi with the conditional expression as taught by Yeh for the purpose to meet the miniaturization and large aperture (Yeh, paragraph [0002]).(---further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller,105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
PNG
media_image3.png
835
1259
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Mi teaches an imaging lens comprising:
a first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1, first lens group G1, lenses 21, 22, 23) and a second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G2, lenses 24, 25, 26+27), wherein the first lens group and the second lens group respectively comprise three lenses with refractive power (see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0090]-[0091], data of table 7, 8, the first lens group three lenses lens 21, 22, 23 with refractive power and second lens group lenses comprise three lenses 24, 25, and 26+27 with refractive power, paragraph [0004],The sixth lens 26 and the seventh lens 27 form a cemented doublet lens);
the lenses of the first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1, lenses 21, 22, 23) comprise two aspheric lenses (Mi, ,fig. 13, lens 22, lens 23, paragraph [0004], The second lens 22 is an aspheric lens. The third lens 23 is an aspheric lens) and a glass lens (Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0005], the first lens 21 is made of glass), and an outermost lens surface of the first lens group facing an object side is a spherical surface (see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0091], data of table 8, surface S1 is spherical surface of lens 21);
the lenses of the second lens group (Mi, fig. 13, lenses 24, 26 and 26+27) comprise an aspheric lens (paragraph [0004], The fourth lens 24 is an aspheric lens) and a glass lens (Mi,, fig. 13, paragraph [0005], the fourth lens 24 is made of glass), and the second lens group comprises a cemented surface (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, surface S13, paragraph [0004],The sixth lens 26 and the seventh lens 27 form a cemented doublet lens, thus, the surface S13 is a cemented surface);
an aperture stop of the imaging lens (Mi, fig. 13, diaphragm 28) disposed between the first lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G1) and the second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, G2); wherein the imaging lens meets the following conditions:
0.15 <EFL/LT<0.25 (value is approximately 0.19; see Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0091], data of table 8, EFL/LT = f/ LT= 2.8/14.59) and 0.5<D1/LT<1.5 (value is approximately 0.58; see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the scale of D1/LT = 2.34/4.03 is approximately 0.58; It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).); wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the imaging lens (Mi, fig. 13, paragraph [0007] f is a focal length of an optical system of the optical lens; paragraph [0091], data of table 8, f= 2.8), LT is a distance on an optical axis (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the optical axis; paragraph [0004]The optical lens includes a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens and a seventh lens, which are sequentially arranged from an object side to an image side along an optical axis; see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, table 8, paragraph [0091] data of table 8, LT = 14.59) between outermost two lens surfaces (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, surfaces S1 and S14) of the first lens group and the second lens group (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, and Mi, fig. 13, table 8, the LT), and D1 is a diameter of an outermost surface of an outermost lens of the first lens group facing the object side (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, D1).
Mi does not explicitly teach wherein the cemented surface is located between the aperture stop and a third lens, counting from the aperture stop side, in the second lens group,
However, Yeh teaches the analogous an imaging lens (Yeh, fig.1, paragraph [0026], Referring to FIG. 1, FIG. 1 is a lens layout and optical path diagram of a lens assembly 1 in accordance with a first embodiment of the invention. The lens assembly 1, in sequence from an object side to an image side IMA1 along an optical axis OA1, comprises a first lens L11 which is a meniscus lens with negative refractive power and includes a convex surface facing the object side S11; a second lens L12 having negative refractive power and including a concave surface facing the object side S13; a third lens L13 having positive refractive power and including a convex surface facing the image side S15; a fourth lens L14 having positive refractive power; a fifth lens L15 having positive refractive power; a sixth lens L16 having negative refractive power, and a seventh lens L17 having refractive power), and further teaches
wherein the cemented surface (Yeh, fig.1, surface s110) is located between the aperture stop (ST1) and a third lens (third lens has been referred as lens L17), counting from the aperture stop side (ST1 stop side), in the second lens group (lenses L14-L17 as the second lens group).
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 imaging lens of Mi to have with the cemented surface as taught by Yeh for the purpose to meet the miniaturization and large aperture (Yeh, paragraph [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PRE-APPEAL BRIEF REQUEST FOR REVIEW Page. 1- 5 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Mi does not state that the lens diagram is drawn to scale and does not specify the diameter of the lens, the scale measured from FIG. 13 of Mi cannot be used as evidence, so that claim 1 is not anticipated by Mi; FIG. 13 of Mi has reference numbers, so that it is not directly formed by optical design software (Zmax, CodeV and similar) that is not the diameter of the whole of a lens.In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). Furthermore, It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).).
In this case, as described in claim 1, 0.5<D1/LT<1.5 (value is approximately 0.58; see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the scale of D1/LT = 2.78/4.73 is approximately 0.58; wherein LT is a distance on an optical axis (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, the optical axis) between outermost two lens surfaces (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, outermost of surfaces S1 and S14 ) of the first lens group and the second lens group (the G1 and G2), and D1 is a diameter of an outermost surface of an outermost lens of the first lens group facing the object side (see annotated image, Mi, fig. 13, D1 is a diameter of an outermost surface S1 of an outermost lens of the first lens group facing the object side).
Although fig. 13 is labeled with numerals, it is a figure generated from the lens design data, and the scale corresponds to the same scale chart; further, the quantity is the ratio of two lengths which is scalable since it represents angular quantity which does not change with scale, and that the drawing is an actual structural view of the optical lens according to (given) embodiment defined by structural characteristics of the lens data given in paragraph [0091], data of table 8, and therefore is anticipated; Further such graphical diagrams of the lens system are result of optical design software (Zmax, CodeV and similar) and based on disclosed lens data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights