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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 8/21/2025.
Amendment to claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20, filed 8/21/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 with respect to claims 1, 11, and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the stated claims so that the range of (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) values is smaller than those previously claimed. Applicant also apparently makes a preemptive case against obviousness for the amendment – emphasizing that the lower bound of the newly amended range differs from that of Chen used in the previous rejection “by a factor of approximately 1.44”, and claiming that “This is a substantial difference that would not be readily derivable through routine optimization or simple modification”. While Examiner does not rely on such optimization arguments in the updated rejections below (now incorporating Zhang), for completeness and clarity of record, Examiner nonetheless disputes Applicant’s assertion for the following reason:
Merely pointing to a relative factor between claimed values and those disclosed in the prior art does not constitute a complete or proper argument against obviousness. In fact, merely asserting the relative factor is analogous to relying on percent error as some definitive measure of “closeness” between two values – but this becomes entirely arbitrary and carries no particular significance if one fails to consider any relevant technical context. Indeed, even introductory laboratory students are commonly cautioned against overinterpreting percent error when analyzing and drawing conclusions from their experimental data. As such, one would not expect these arbitrary numerical differences to limit a practitioner exercising basic technical judgment.
For the relevant technical context, Applicant may consider that optical glasses and plastics for lenses will typically have Abbe numbers ranging between roughly 20 and 90 – i.e. a spread equal to ~350
=
90
-
20
20
% the lower bound. If one wished to be particularly thorough, they may perhaps construct a more rigorous argument where such a wide tolerance is applied more directly to ascertain some provisional yet explicit range of obvious (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) values, as these are mere ratios of sums of Abbe numbers. This is unnecessary, however, as the apparently wide range of standard values already appears to support the notion that the claimed ranges would be achievable through routine through optimization – at least for one having ordinary skill, Chen’s disclosure, and access to an ordinary handbook of optical materials.
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 1-11, 13-19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210157092 A1, hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Gross (NPL entitled Handbook of Optical Systems) and Zhang et al (WO 2023169441 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, Chen discloses (see ¶s 181-193, Tables 7-8, and FIG. 7 detailing Chen’s 4th Embodiment) an imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) comprising eight lens elements (410, 420, … , 480), the eight lens elements (410, 420, … , 480) being, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a first lens element (410), a second lens element (420), a third lens element (430), a fourth lens element (440), a fifth lens element (450), a sixth lens element (460), a seventh lens element (470) and an eighth lens element (480), and each of the eight lens elements having an object-side surface (411, 421, … , 481) facing toward the object side and an image-side surface (412, 422, … , 482) facing toward the image side; wherein:
(see ¶ 182) the first lens element (410) has positive refractive power, the object-side surface (411) of the first lens element (410) is convex in a paraxial region thereof,
(¶ 183) the object-side surface (421) of the second lens element (420) is convex in a paraxial region thereof,
(see ¶ 186) the fifth lens element (450) has positive refractive power,
(see ¶ 187) the sixth lens element (460) has negative refractive power, the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is concave in a paraxial region thereof,
(see ¶ 188) the seventh lens element (470) has positive refractive power, the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is convex in a paraxial region thereof,
(see ¶ 189) the eighth lens element (480) has negative refractive power, and
at least one of the object-side surface and the image-side surface of at least one lens element of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof (see ¶s 182-189 regarding critical points in off-axis regions of different lens elements);
wherein:
an Abbe number of the first lens element (410) is V1 (= 56.1), an Abbe number of the second lens element (420) is V2 (= 19.5), an Abbe number of the third lens element (430) is V3 (= 19.5), an Abbe number of the fourth lens element (440) is V4 (= 20.0), an Abbe number of the fifth lens element (450) is V5 (= 56.0),
a curvature radius of the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is R12 (= 2.785), a curvature radius of the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is R13 (= 1.665),
a focal length of the first lens element (410) is f1 (= 6.58), a focal length of the fifth lens element (450) is f5 (= 9.96), a focal length of the sixth lens element (460) is f6 (= -14.15), a focal length of the eighth lens element (480) is f8 (= -3.91),
a central thickness of the first lens element (410) is CT1 (= 0.788), a central thickness of the fifth lens element (450) is CT5 (1.129), an axial distance between the first lens element (410) and the second lens element (420) is T12 (= 0.050), an axial distance between the fourth lens element (440) and the fifth lens element (450) is T45 (= 0.101-0.058 = 0.043),
(see Table 7 with Abbe numbers, curvature radii, thicknesses, and focal lengths of Lens 1-8, corresponding to first-eighth lens elements 410-480)and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.60 < R12/R13 (= 2.785/1.665 = 1.673) < 3.3;
0.20 < f5/f1 (= 9.96/6.58 = 1.51) < 4.0;
0.10 < f6/f8 (= 14.15/3.91 = 3.62) < 4.5.
25.0 < CT1/T12+CT5/T45 (= 0.788/0.050 + 1.129/0.043 = 42.016).
Chen, in the (4th) embodiment cited above, does not disclose:
the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (rather, per ¶ 182 and Table 7, the image-side surface 412 of first lens element 410 in Chen’s 4th embodiment is weakly convex – i.e. almost flat – with curvature radius R2 = -441.899).
4.78 < (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) < 9.0;
Chen and Gross are related as being directed towards lens system optics.
Gross discloses that the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof. (See page 378 section 33.1.4; Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.)
Chen and Zhang are related as being directed towards eight-lens systems.
Zhang discloses 4.78 < (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) (= (81.6+55.9+55.9)/(20.4+19.2) = 4.88) < 9.0 (see Table 11)
It would have been therefore obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the image side of Chen’s first lens element with a concave shape, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chen with Zhang’s lens materials and associated Abbe coefficients, in order to influence the chromatic aberrations and improve image quality (Zhang ¶ 19).
Further regarding claims 1 and 19, Chen discloses:
(see ¶ 183) the image-side surface (422) of the second lens element (420) is concave in a paraxial region thereof;
Further regarding claim 11, Zhang further discloses:
4.78 < (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) (= (81.6+55.9+55.9)/(20.4+19.2) = 4.88 ) < 8.5(as established above regarding claims 1, 11, and 19; see Table 11)
Further regarding claims 1 and 11, Chen discloses (see Table 7):
a focal length of the seventh lens element (470) is f7 (= 3.35),
-1.7 < f7/f8 (= 3.35/-3.91 = -0.86) < -0.20.
Further regarding claim 19, Chen discloses (see Table 7):
an axial distance between the fifth lens element (450) and the sixth lens element (460) is T56 (= 0.212), an axial distance between the sixth lens element (460) and the seventh lens element (470) is T67 (= 0.119),
0.95 < T56/T67 (= 0.212/0.119 = 1.782).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the focal length of the first lens element (410) is f1 (= 6.58), the focal length of the fifth lens element (450) is f5 (= 9.96) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.40 < f5/f1(= 9.96/6.58 = 1.51) < 3.5.
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the focal length of the seventh lens element (470) is f7 (= 3.35), the focal length of the eighth lens element (480) is f8 (= -3.91) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
-1.5 < f7/f8 (= 3.35/-3.91 = -0.86) < -0.40.
Regarding claim 4, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the central thickness of the first lens element (410) is CT1 (= 0.788), the central thickness of the fifth lens element (450) is CT5 (1.129), the axial distance between the first lens element (410) and the second lens element (420) is T12 (= 0.050), the axial distance between the fourth lens element (440) and the fifth lens element (450) is T45 (= 0.101-0.058 = 0.043) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
29.0 < CT1/T12+CT5/T45 (= 0.788/0.050 + 1.129/0.043 = 42.016) < 150.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface (421) of the second lens element (420) is R3 (= 2.639), a curvature radius of the image-side surface (422) of the second lens element (420) is R4 (= 2.057), a focal length of the second lens element (420) is f2 (= -17.28) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0 ≤ (R3+R4)/|f2| (= (2.639-2.057)/17.28 = 0.2718 ) < 0.90.
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein an f-number of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is Fno (= 1.41), half of a maximum field of view of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is HFOV (= 39.7 deg) (see Table 7), and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.90 < Fno (= 1.41) < 2.0; and
3.5 < 1/|1-tan(HFOV)| (= 1/|1-tan(39.7°)| = 5.89).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses (see annotated FIG. 7 below) wherein the image-side surface (442) of the fourth lens element (440) is concave in a paraxial region thereof (see also ¶ 185), a vertical distance between a convex critical point on the image-side surface (442) of the fourth lens element (440) and an optical axis is Yc42 (= 1.64…), a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface (442) of the fourth lens element (440) is Y42 (≃ 1.8), and at least one convex critical point on the image-side surface (442) of the fourth lens element (440) in an off-axis region satisfies the following condition:
0.25 < Yc42/Y42 (≃ 1.64/1.8 ≃ 0.91).
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 7 of Chen is annotated to highlight vertical distances of critical points (Yc__) and maximum effective radii (Y__). Critical points may be calculated using the aspheric coefficients in Table 8. Maximum effective radii may be determined according to scale-based measurements of the lens elements in FIG. 7, with TL=7.3 setting the scale – as Examiner has found that, by comparing with Table 7, FIG. 7 is indeed drawn to scale.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
617
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Chen therefore discloses a Yc42/Y42 value that is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with the claimed range in which Yc42/Y42 < 0.80. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for the upper end (Yc42/Y42 = 0.80) of this range.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Chen by adjusting the surface shape (or aspheric coefficients) of the fourth lens element’s image-side, in order to improve aberration correction and image quality (Chen ¶ 90) – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Modified Chen further discloses (see annotated FIG. 7 above) wherein the image-side surface (482) of the eighth lens element (480) is concave in a paraxial region thereof (see also ¶ 189), a vertical distance between a convex critical point on the image-side surface (482) of the eighth lens element (480) and an optical axis is Yc82 (= 1.30…), a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface (482) of the eighth lens element (480) is Y82 (≃ 3.7), and at least one convex critical point on the image-side surface (482) of the eighth lens element (480) in an off-axis region satisfies the following condition:
0.15 < Yc82/Y82 (≃ 1.30/3.7≃ 0.35) < 0.55.
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen discloses an image capturing unit, comprising:
the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system, included in lens unit 11) of claim 1; and
an image sensor (499/13) disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen discloses an electronic device (20), comprising:
the image capturing unit (10) of claim 9. (See FIGs. 22-23; ¶s 275-280.)
Regarding claim 13, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the curvature radius of the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is R12 (= 2.785), the curvature radius of the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is R13 (= 1.665) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.96 < R12/R13 (= 2.785/1.665 = 1.673) < 2.6.
Regarding claim 14, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the focal length of the sixth lens element (460) is f6 (= -14.15), the focal length of the eighth lens element (480) is f8 (= -3.91) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.50 < f6/f8 (= 14.15/3.91 = 3.62) < 4.0.
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a focal length of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is f (= 5.16), the curvature radius of the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is R12 (= 2.785), the curvature radius of the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is R13 (= 1.665) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
3.4 < f/R12+f/R13 (= 5.16/2.785 + 5.16/1.665 = 4.95) < 7.0.
Regarding claim 16, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a focal length of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is f, an axial distance between the object-side surface (411) of the first lens element (410) and an image surface (495) is TL, an entrance pupil diameter of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is EPD (= f/Fno in standard optics, where Fno is the f-number), a maximum image height of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is lmgH (see ¶s 68-70 and 78-79 for Chen’s defining of f, Fno, TL, and ImgH), and the following condition is satisfied:
1.2 < (f×TL)/(EPD×ImgH) < 2.2.
(In ¶s 68-70 and 78-79, Chen discloses that conditions 1.0 < Fno < 2.2 and 1.0 < TL/ImgH < 2.0 may both be satisfied. Chen therefore discloses values of (f×TL)/(EPD×lmgH) = Fno×(TL/ImgH) ranging from (1.0×1.0) = 1 to (2.2×2.0) = 4.4. This encompasses the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 17, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface (411) of the first lens element (410) is R1 (= 3.616), a curvature radius of the image-side surface (412) of the first lens element (410) is R2 (= -441.899), a focal length of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is f (= 5.16), a focal length of the second lens element (420) is f2 (= 17.28), a focal length of the third lens element (430) is f3 (= 29.47), a focal length of the fourth lens element (440) is f4 (= 8.44) (see Table 7), and the following conditions are satisfied:
1.5 < R2/R1 < 4.5 (see ¶ 72; Chen discloses that -0.6 < R1/R2 < 0.8; since the object-side surface 411 of first lens element 410 is convex, corresponding to positive R1 = 3.616 in Table 7, this means that R2/R1 of the image-side may span from -1.67 to -∞ (for -0.6 < R1/R2 < 0-), as well as from +∞ to 1.25 (for 0+ < R1/R2 < 0.8) – this encompasses the claimed range); and
|f/f2|+|f/f3|+|f/f4| (= 5.16/17.28 + 5.16/29.47 + 5.16/8.44 = 1.09) < 1.2.
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Modified Chen further discloses (see annotated FIG. 7 above) wherein a vertical distance between a convex critical point on the image-side surface (472) of the seventh lens element (470) and an optical axis is Yc72 (= 1.50…), a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface (472) of the seventh lens element (470) is Y72 (≃ 2.9), and at least one convex critical point on the image-side surface (472) of the seventh lens element (470) in an off-axis region satisfies the following condition:
0.35 < Yc72/Y72 (≃ 1.50/2.9 ≃ 0.52) < 0.80.
Regarding claim 21, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the curvature radius of the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is R12 (= 2.785), the curvature radius of the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is R13 (= 1.665), the axial distance between the fifth lens element (450) and the sixth lens element (460) is T56 (= 0.212), the axial distance between the sixth lens element (460) and the seventh lens element (470) is T67 (= 0.119) (see Table 7), and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.78 < R12/R13 (= 2.785/1.665 = 1.672) < 3.0; and
1.4 < T56/T67 (= 0.212/0.119 = 1.78) < 60.
Regarding claim 22, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the focal length of the sixth lens element (460) is f6 (= -14.15), the focal length of the eighth lens element (480) is f8 (= -3.91) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.50 < f6/f8 (= 14.15/3.91 = 3.62) < 4.0.
Regarding claim 23, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a central thickness of the second lens element (420) is CT2 (= 0.280), a central thickness of the third lens element (430) is CT3 (= 0.290), a central thickness of the fourth lens element (440) is CT4 (= 0.300), an axial distance between the second lens element (420) and the third lens element (430) is T23 (= 0.366+0.249 = 0.615), an axial distance between the third lens element (430) and the fourth lens element (440) is T34 (= 0.050) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
0.80 < (CT2+CT3+CT4)/(T23+ T34) (= (0.280+0.290+0.300)/(0.615+0.05) = 1.31) < 1.7.
Regarding claim 24, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a central thickness of the seventh lens element (470) is CT7 (= 0.518), a central thickness of the eighth lens element (480) is CT8 (= 0.430), an axial distance between the seventh lens element (470) and the eighth lens element (480) is T78 (= 0.768), an axial distance between the object-side surface (411) of the first lens element (410) and an image surface (495) is TL, a maximum image height of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is lmgH (see Table 7; see also ¶s 78-79 for Chen’s defining of TL and ImgH), and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.65 < (CT7+CT8)/T78 (= (0.518+0.430)/0.768 = 1.23) < 2.2; and
0.80 < TL/lmgH < 1.5 (in ¶s 78-79, Chen discloses that 1.0 < TL/ImgH < 2.0, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 25, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a focal length of the imaging lens assembly (photographing optical system) is f (= 5.16), a curvature radius of the image-side surface (482) of the eighth lens element (480) is R16 (= 2.573) (see Table 7), and the following condition is satisfied:
1.8 < f/R16 (= 5.16/2.573 = 2.00) < 4.0.
Regarding claim 26, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses (see annotated FIG. 7 above) wherein a vertical distance between a convex critical point on the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) and an optical axis is Yc62 (= 0.90…), a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) is Y62 (≃ 2.4), and at least one convex critical point on the image-side surface (462) of the sixth lens element (460) in an off-axis region satisfies the following condition:
0.15 < Yc62/Y62 (≃ 0.9/2.4 ≃ 0.38) < 0.55.
Regarding claim 27, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein a vertical distance between a concave critical point on the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) and an optical axis is Yc71 (= 1.44…), a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) is Y71 (≃ 2.5), and at least one concave critical point on the object-side surface (471) of the seventh lens element (470) in an off-axis region satisfies the following condition:
0.35 < Yc71/Y71 (≃ 1.44/2.5 ≃ 0.58) < 0.75.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gross and Zhang, as respectively applied to claims 11 and 19 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Zhang further discloses wherein the Abbe number of the first lens element (L1, 11) is V1 (= 81.6), the Abbe number of the second lens element (L2, 12) is V2 (= 20.4), the Abbe number of the third lens element (L3, 13) is V3 (= 55.9), the Abbe number of the fourth lens element (L4, 14) is V4 (= 19.2), the Abbe number of the fifth lens element (L5, 15) is V5 (= 55.9) (see Table 11), and the following condition is satisfied:
(V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) (= (81.6+55.9+55.9)/(20.4+19.2) = 4.88) < 8.0.
Modified Chen thus discloses a (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) value that is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with, the claimed range where 4.97 < (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) < 8.0. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for this range’s lower bound.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the lens system of Chen in view of Gross and Zhang and satisfy the claimed (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) ranges, again in an effort to influence the chromatic aberrations and improve image quality – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chen discloses the imaging lens assembly of claim 19.
Modified Chen further discloses wherein the focal length of the first lens element (410) is f1 (= 6.58), the focal length of the fifth lens element (450) is f5 (= 9.96) (see Table 7), and the following conditions are satisfied:
0.40 < f5/f1 (= 9.96/6.58 = 1.51) < 3.5.
Zhang further discloses wherein the Abbe number of the first lens element (L1, 11) is V1 (= 81.6), the Abbe number of the second lens element (L2, 12) is V2 (= 20.4), the Abbe number of the third lens element (L3, 13) is V3 (= 55.9), the Abbe number of the fourth lens element (L4, 14) is V4 (= 19.2), the Abbe number of the fifth lens element (L5, 15) is V5 (= 55.9) (see Table 11), and the following conditions are satisfied:
(V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) (= (81.6+55.9+55.9)/(20.4+19.2) = 4.88) < 8.5.
Modified Chen thus discloses a (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) value that is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with, the claimed range where 4.97 < (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) < 8.5. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for this range’s lower bound.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the lens system of Chen in view of Gross and Zhang and satisfy the claimed (V1+V3+V5)/(V2+V4) ranges, again in an effort to influence the chromatic aberrations and improve image quality – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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 at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872