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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Chen et al. does not disclose the image-side surface of the second lens being a convex surface and the conditions as presented in claim 21-40. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses an optical lens assembly as claimed including a second lens (L2), having a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the second lens being a concave surface, and an image-side surface of the second lens being a convex surface (S4; figures 13 and 21). In addition, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses 7.0352<TTL/F<9 (6.48; table 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical lens assembly, the total effective focal length F of the optical lens assembly and the image height H corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly satisfy: (FOV×F)/H≤70, 7.0352<TTL/F<9, 0<T67/TTL<0.2; and (FOVxF)/H<70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 addition, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes claim 40 depends on either claim 21 or claim 36. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109445068).
Regarding claim 21, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses an optical lens assembly, comprising, sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side:
a first lens (L1), having a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the first lens being a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the first lens being a concave surface (see at least page 8, the last 5 paragraphs);
a second lens (L2), having a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the second lens being a concave surface, and an image-side surface of the second lens being a convex surface;
a third lens (L3), having a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the third lens being a convex surface;
a fourth lens (L7), having a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the fourth lens being a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the fourth lens being a convex surface;
a fifth lens (L4 or L5), having a refractive power;
a sixth lens (L5 or L4), having a refractive power; and
a seventh lens (L6), having a refractive power,
wherein one of the fifth lens and the sixth lens has a positive refractive power, an other one of the fifth lens and the sixth lens has a negative refractive power, and the fifth lens and the sixth lens are cemented to form a cemented lens (Q3).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical lens assembly, the total effective focal length F of the optical lens assembly and the image height H corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly satisfy: (FOV×F)/H≤70 and 7.0352<TTL/F<9.
Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses 7.0352<TTL/F<9 (6.48; table 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical lens assembly, the total effective focal length F of the optical lens assembly and the image height H corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly satisfy: (FOV×F)/H≤70 and 7.0352<TTL/F<9, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein an image-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface or a concave surface.
Regarding claim 23, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein the fifth lens (L4 or L5) has a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface or a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface; or the fifth lens has a positive refractive power, the object-side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface, and the image-side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface.
Regarding claim 24, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein the sixth lens (L4 or L5) has a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface; or the sixth lens has a negative refractive power, the object-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface, and the image-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface.
Regarding claim 25, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein the seventh lens (L6) has a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the seventh lens is a convex surface at an area near the optical axis, and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface or a convex surface at the area near the optical axis; or the seventh lens has a negative refractive power, the object-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface at the area near the optical axis, and the image-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface or a convex surface at the area near the optical axis; and the object-side surface of the seventh lens and the image-side surface of the seventh lens at least have one inflection point.
Regarding claim 26, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein at least two of the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens and the seventh lens have an aspheric surface.
Regarding claim 27, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies: TTL/F<9: or TTL/H/FOV0.1. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies: 7.0352<TTL/F<8.5 (4 ≤ TTL/f ≤ 8; see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 28, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:D/H/FOV<0.025: or (FOVxF)/H<65,wherein D is a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the first lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:D/H/FOV<0.025 (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 29, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0.
PNG
media_image1.png
15
21
media_image1.png
Greyscale
|F+/F- 3; or|F7/Fl>1.5,wherein F+ is an effective focal length of a lens having a positive refractive power in the cemented lens, F- is an effective focal length of a lens having a negative refractive power in the cemented lens, and F7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0.
PNG
media_image1.png
15
21
media_image1.png
Greyscale
|F+/F- 3 (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 30, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0<T67/TTL<0.2, wherein T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0<T67/TTL<0.2 (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 31, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0.05<d3/TTL<0.3, wherein d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:0.05<d3/TTL<0.3 (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 32, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:|R3-R4-d3|>1.5 mm; or 0.5<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<3,wherein R3 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens, d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, D3 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, SAG3 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis, D4 is a semi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, and SAG4 is a distance from an intersection point of the image- side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:|R3-R4-d3|>1.5 mm (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
further satisfies:Vd+/Nd+>40,wherein Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, and Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches wherein the optical lens assembly
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
further satisfies:Vd+/Nd+>40,wherein Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, and Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens (see at least claim 11 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 34, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding 0.|F+/F-I<2.1311; or 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|F7/Fl
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 40 Vd+/Nd+66.1798; or 0<T67/TTL<0.1; or 0.05<d3/TTL<0.1879; or
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 0.5<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846, D is a maximal aperture of the object- side surface of the first lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, F+ is an effective focal length of a lens having a positive refractive power in the cemented lens, F- is an effective focal length of a lens having a negative refractive power in the cemented lens, F7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens, D3 is a semi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly,SAG3 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis, D4 is a semi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, andSAG4 is a distance from an intersection point of the image-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches 0.|F+/F-I<2.1311; or 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|F7/Fl
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 40 Vd+/Nd+66.1798; or 0<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.05<d3/TTL<0.1879; or
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 0.5<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846 (see at least claim 10 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 35, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FOVxF)/H<62.7291; or 1.0053<|F+/F-|<2.1311; or 2.0884<|F7/FI
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 54.5056<Vd+/Nd+<66.1798; or 0.0103<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.1273d3/TTL0.1879; or 1.9731
PNG
media_image5.png
10
11
media_image5.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 1.2685<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846, D is a maximal aperture of the object- side surface of the first lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, F+ is an effective focal length of a lens having a positive refractive power in the cemented lens, F- is an effective focal length of a lens having a negative refractive power in the cemented lens, F7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surfaceof the second lens, D3 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly,SAG3 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis, D4 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, andSAG4 is a distance from an intersection point of the image-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches regarding
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FOVxF)/H<62.7291; or 1.0053<|F+/F-|<2.1311; or 2.0884<|F7/FI
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 54.5056<Vd+/Nd+<66.1798; or 0.0103<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.1273d3/TTL0.1879; or 1.9731
PNG
media_image5.png
10
11
media_image5.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 1.2685<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846 (see at least claim 10 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 36, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses an optical lens assembly, comprising, sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side:
a first lens (L1), having a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the first lens being a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the first lens being a concave surface (see at least page 8, the last 5 paragraphs);
a second lens L2), having a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the second lens being a concave surface, and an image-side surface of the second lens being a convex surface;
a third lens (L3), having a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the third lens being a convex surface;
a fourth lens (L7), having a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the fourth lens being a convex surface, and an image-side surface of the fourth lens being a convex surface;
a fifth lens (L4 or L5), having a refractive power;
a sixth lens (L5 or L4), having a refractive power; and
a seventh lens (L6), having a refractive power.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 36 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the optical lens assembly satisfies:0<T67/TTL<0.2; and(FOVxF)/H<70,wherein T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane of the optical lens assembly on the optical axis, FOV is a maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, F is a total effective focal length of the optical lens assembly, and H is an image height corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical lens assembly, the total effective focal length F of the optical lens assembly and the image height H corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly satisfy: 0<T67/TTL<0.2 and (FOV×F)/H≤70, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 37, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses wherein one of the fifth lens and the sixth lens has a positive refractive power, an other one of the fifth lens and the sixth lens has a negative refractive power, and the fifth lens and the sixth lens are cemented to form a cemented lens (Q3).
Regarding claim 38, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 36 above. However, Chen et al. is silent regarding 7.0352<TTL/F<9; or 0.0207<TTL/H/FOV0.1; or 0.0095<D/H/FOV<0.025; or 57.71 (FOVxF)/H<70; or 0.|F+/F-I<2.1311; or 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|F7/Fl
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 40 Vd+/Nd+66.1798; or 0<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.05<d3/TTL<0.1879; or
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 0.5<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846, D is a maximal aperture of the object- side surface of the first lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, F+ is an effective focal length of a lens having a positive refractive power in the cemented lens, F- is an effective focal length of a lens having a negative refractive power in the cemented lens, F7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens, D3 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly,SAG3 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis, D4 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, andSAG4 is a distance from an intersection point of the image-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches 7.0352<TTL/F<9; or 0.0207<TTL/H/FOV0.1; or 0.0095<D/H/FOV<0.025; or 57.71 (FOVxF)/H<70; or 0.|F+/F-I<2.1311; or 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|F7/Fl
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 40 Vd+/Nd+66.1798; or 0<T67/TTL<0.1; or 0.05<d3/TTL<0.1879; or
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1.
PNG
media_image3.png
14
21
media_image3.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 0.5<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846 (see at least claim 10 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 39, Chen et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 36 above. However, Chen et al. is silent wherein the optical lens assembly further satisfies:7.0352<TTL/F<7.9113; or 0.0207<TTL/H/FOV<0.0247; or 0.0095<D/H/FOV<0.0107; or 57.71
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FOVxF)/H<62.7291; or 1.0053<|F+/F-|<2.1311; or 2.0884<|F7/FI
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 54.5056<Vd+/Nd+<66.1798; or 0.0103<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.1273d3/TTL0.1879; or 1.9731
PNG
media_image5.png
10
11
media_image5.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 1.2685<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846, D is a maximal aperture of the object- side surface of the first lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, F+ is an effective focal length of a lens having a positive refractive power in the cemented lens, F- is an effective focal length of a lens having a negative refractive power in the cemented lens, F7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, Nd+ is a refractive index of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, Vd+ is an abbe number of the lens having the positive refractive power in the cemented lens, T67 is a spacing distance between the sixth lens and the seventh lens on the optical axis, d3 is a center thickness of the second lens on the optical axis, R3 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the second lens, R4 is a radius of curvature of the image-side surfaceof the second lens, D3 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly,SAG3 is a distance from an intersection point of the object-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis, D4 is asemi-diameter of a maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens corresponding to the maximal field-of-view of the optical lens assembly, andSAG4 is a distance from an intersection point of the image-side surface of the second lens and the optical axis to the maximal aperture of the image-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis. Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) teaches regarding 7.0352<TTL/F<7.9113; or 0.0207<TTL/H/FOV<0.0247; or 0.0095<D/H/FOV<0.0107; or 57.71
PNG
media_image2.png
14
21
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(FOVxF)/H<62.7291; or 1.0053<|F+/F-|<2.1311; or 2.0884<|F7/FI
PNG
media_image4.png
14
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
4.7577; or 54.5056<Vd+/Nd+<66.1798; or 0.0103<T67/TTL<0.05; or 0.1273d3/TTL0.1879; or 1.9731
PNG
media_image5.png
10
11
media_image5.png
Greyscale
|R3-R4-d3|<4.8242; or 1.2685<arctan(SAG3/D3)/arctan(SAG4/D4)<2.2846 (see at least claim 10 and table 13). 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 distance as taught by Chen et al. in order to improve the resolution of the lens. Therefore, the lens has excellent imaging quality under different temperature environments. In addition, 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (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.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 40, Chen et al. (figures 13 and 21) discloses an electronic device comprising the optical lens assembly according to claim 21 or claim 16, and an imaging element used to convert an optical image formed by the optical lens assembly into electrical signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights