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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims 18 and 19 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1, applicant argues that Ma in view of Son does not disclose or suggest the configurations of the correlative design between optical parameters (such as R2, R3, f2, f1, FOV) and structural parameters of spacing elements (such as d1m, d2s, d2m). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that (1) defining -7.12 ≤ [f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m < 0 specifies the minimum clear aperture required for the light beam at the position of the first spacing element, to prevent the first spacing element from blocking the light beam, that (2) defining 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0 and 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0 achieves adjustment of the illuminance to avoid insufficient or excessive exposure and ensures the first spacing element does not block the light and the light beam propagation is controllable, and that (3) defining 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0 enhances the connection rigidity and assembly stability of the system. Applicant argues that these are specific, non-trivial technical problems and are not general optimization goals. Regarding (1) and (2), both of these arguments pertain to choosing an optimal aperture size in order to filter out unwanted/stray light without blocking too much of the light beam, which is an optimization goal. Regarding (3), this argument pertains to determining the optimal size of the spacing elements to ensure structural stability, which is an optimization goal. Although neither of these tasks are trivial to achieve, it would still be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to have a proper aperture size and structural stability in the system and to accomplish this by changing the aperture sizes relative to the optical system being used.
Regarding these limitations, one would have been motivated to satisfy 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0 and 0 < d4s/f4 < 5.0 for the purpose of having the proper aperture size to achieve the intended optical properties and filter out unwanted light, because wanting a proper aperture size is obvious. Therefore, these limitations would have been obvious regardless of the rationale provided in the instant application. "The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below)." See MPEP 2144(IV).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 20210318519 A1) in view of Son et al. (US 20190391365 A1), hereinafter Son.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ma discloses an optical imaging lens assembly, comprising:
an imaging lens group (Embodiment 1 (E1): Fig. 1, Tables 1, 13; and Embodiment 2 (E2): Fig. 5, Tables 5, 13), composed of a first lens (L1; Figs. 1, 5), a second lens (L2; Figs. 1, 5), a third lens (L3; Figs. 1, 5), a fourth lens (L4; Figs. 1, 5) and a fifth lens (L5; Figs. 1, 5) that are sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (Figs. 1, 5); wherein a number of lenses having refractive powers included in the imaging lens group is five (Figs. 1, 5), and wherein a center thickness of the fourth lens (L4) on the optical axis is greater than 0.4mm (E1: CT4 = 0.947mm, Table 1; E2: CT4 = 0.986mm, Table 5).
Ma does not disclose:
a first spacing element, placed on an image side of the first lens and is in contact with an image-side surface of the first lens;
a second spacing element, placed on an image side of the second lens and is in contact with an image-side surface of the second lens;
a fourth spacing element, placed on an image side of the fourth lens and is in contact with an image-side surface of the fourth lens; and
a lens barrel, forming an accommodation space in which the imaging lens group, the first spacing element, the second spacing element, and the fourth spacing element are accommodated, wherein the lens barrel comprises an object-end surface close to the object side, an image-end surface close to the image side, an inner wall and an outer wall,
wherein an outer diameter D0s of the object-end surface of the lens barrel, an inner diameter d0s of the object-end surface of the lens barrel, a radius of curvature R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens and a radius of curvature R2 of an image-side surface of the first lens satisfy: |(R1 + R2)/(D0s - d0s)| < 30.0,
wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens and an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacing element satisfy: 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0,
wherein an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens and an inner diameter d4s of an object-side surface of the fourth spacing element satisfy: 0 < d4s/f4 < 5.0,
wherein an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of a first spacing element, an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and a maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: -7.12 ≤ [f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m < 0, and
wherein the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a radius of curvature R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, the inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacing element and an inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacing element satisfy: 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0.
However, Son teaches a similar imaging lens group (100; Fig. 21), comprising a first lens (1000; Fig. 21), a second lens (2000; Fig. 21), a third lens (3000; Fig. 21), a fourth lens (4000; Fig. 21), and a fifth lens (5000; Fig. 21). Son further teaches a first spacing element (SP1; Fig. 21; ¶0165), placed on an image side of the first lens (1000) and is in contact with an image-side surface of the first lens (1000) (Fig. 21; ¶0165), a second spacing element (SP2; Fig. 21; ¶0165), placed on an image side of the second lens (2000) and is in contact with an image-side surface of the second lens (2000) (Fig. 21; ¶0165), fourth spacing element (SP4; Fig. 21; ¶0165), placed on an image side of the fourth lens (4000) and is in contact with an image-side surface of the fourth lens (4000) (Fig. 21; ¶0165); and a lens barrel (200; Fig. 21; ¶0165), forming an accommodation space in which the imaging lens group (100), the first spacing element (SP1), the second spacing element (SP2), and the fourth spacing element (SP4) are accommodated (Fig. 21), wherein the lens barrel (200) comprises an object-end surface close to the object side, an image-end surface close to the image side, an inner wall and an outer wall (Fig. 21; ¶0165).
Further, Ma in view of Son teaches an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of a first spacing element, an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: -7.12 ≤ [f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m < 0 (approximating d1m as the entrance pupil diameter ENPD of Ma: [E1: f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m ≈ -6.74, Tables 1, 13, ¶0121; E2: f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m ≈ -6.76, Tables 5, 13, ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the lens barrel and spacing element of Son for the purpose of housing the lenses and maintaining a predetermined distance between two adjacent lenses (¶0069 of Son).
Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose an outer diameter D0s of the object-end surface of the lens barrel, an inner diameter d0s of the object-end surface of the lens barrel, a radius of curvature R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens and a radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens satisfy: |(R1 + R2)/(D0s - d0s)| < 30.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a fourth spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy |(R1 + R2)/(D0s - d0s)| < 30.0 for the purpose of fitting the first lens in the lens barrel, and for the lens barrel to provide proper structural support while also fitting into the device the imaging system is being used in. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy |(R1 + R2)/(D0s - d0s)| < 30.0 for the purpose of fitting the first lens in the lens barrel, and for the lens barrel to provide proper structural support while also fitting into the device the imaging system is being used in.
Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose an effective focal length f2 of the second lens and an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacing element satisfy: 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0, and an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens and an inner diameter d4s of an object-side surface of the fourth spacing element satisfy: 0 < d4s/f4 < 5.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, a second spacing element, and a fourth spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0 and 0 < d4s/f4 < 5.0 for the purpose of having the proper aperture size to achieve the intended optical properties and filter out unwanted light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy 0 < d2s/f2 < 5.0 and 0 < d4s/f4 < 5.0 for the purpose of having the proper aperture size to achieve the intended optical properties and filter out unwanted light.
Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly discloses the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a radius of curvature R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of a first spacing element and an inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of a second spacing element satisfy: 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, a first spacing element, and a second spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0 for the purpose of having the lenses spaced appropriately based on their curvatures and for the purpose of having the proper aperture size to achieve the intended optical properties and filter out unwanted light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy 0 < (R2+R3)/(d1m+d2m) < 5.0 for the purpose of having the lenses spaced appropriately based on their curvatures and for the purpose of having the proper aperture size to achieve the intended optical properties and filter out unwanted light.
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element, as set forth above.
Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose the radius of curvature R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens and an outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of a first spacing element satisfy: -3.0 < R1/D1s < -0.5.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a first spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy -3.0 < R1/D1s < -0.5 for the purpose of properly fitting the first lens and the first spacing element into the lens barrel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy -3.0 < R1/D1s < -0.5 for the purpose of properly fitting the first lens and first spacing element into the lens barrel.
Neither, Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose a radius of curvature R7 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens and an outer diameter D4s of an object-side surface of the fourth spacing element satisfy: -3.0 < R7/D4s < -0.5.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a fourth spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy -3.0 < R7/D4s < -0.5 for the purpose of properly fitting the fourth lens and the fourth spacing element into the lens barrel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy -3.0 < R7/D4s < -0.5 for the purpose of properly fitting the first lens and first spacing element into the lens barrel.
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ma further discloses a center thickness of the second lens (L2) on the optical axis is greater than 0.4mm (E1: CT2 = 0.599mm, Table 1; E2: CT2 = 0.794mm, Table 5).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the lens barrel, as set forth above. Ma further discloses the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies: 100.0° < FOV < 120.0° (E1: FOV = 119.4°, ¶0121; E2: FOV = 119.0°, ¶0128). Ma does not disclose a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0.
However, Ma (Embodiment 2 only) in view of Son teaches a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0 (approximating L as the distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the image-side surface of the fifth lens of Ma because the lens barrel would implicitly be a similar length: E2: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] ≈ -1.5; Tables 5, 13; ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the lens barrel of Son for the purpose of housing the lenses.
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ma (Embodiment 1 only) further discloses the radius of curvature R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens (L1), the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens (L1), a radius of curvature R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens (L2), a radius of curvature R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens (L2), a radius of curvature R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens (L3) and a radius of curvature R6 of the image-side surface of the third lens (L3) satisfy: |R1| > |R2|, R3 > R4, R5 > R6 and R3 < R5 (E1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element and the second spacing element, as set forth above. Ma further discloses there is an air spacing between any two adjacent lenses in the first lens (L1) to the fifth lens (L5) on the optical axis. Ma does not disclose an air spacing between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis is greater than a spacing distance between the image-side surface of the first spacing element and an object-side surface of the second spacing element along a direction of the optical axis.
Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose an air spacing between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis is greater than a spacing distance between an image-side surface of a first spacing element and the object-side surface of the second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis.
However, there are only three possibilities as to the air spacing between the first and second lens compared to the spacing distance between the image-side surface of the first spacing element and the object-side surface of the second spacing element – that the air spacing between the first and second lens is greater than, less than, or equal to the spacing distance between the image-side surface of the first spacing element and the object-side surface of the second spacing element. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, 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 air spacing between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis be greater than a spacing distance between an image-side surface of a first spacing element and the object-side surface of a second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis since there are only three possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp for the purpose of achieving the intended optical properties of the imaging system.
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element, as set forth above. Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly discloses the radius of curvature R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens, the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a distance EP01 from the object-end surface of the lens barrel to an object-side surface of a first spacing element along the direction of the optical axis, a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis and an air spacing T12 between the first lens and the second lens on the optical axis satisfy: 0 < (R1+R2)/EP01-(R1-R2)/(CT1+T12) < 10.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a first spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy 0 < (R1+R2)/EP01-(R1-R2)/(CT1+T12) < 10.0 for the purpose of optimizing the curvatures of lenses and the sizes and spacing of the lenses while taking into account how far the lens barrel sticks out past the first lens. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy 0 < (R1+R2)/EP01-(R1-R2)/(CT1+T12) < 10.0 for the purpose of optimizing the curvatures of lenses and the sizes and spacing of the lenses while taking into account how far the lens barrel sticks out past the first lens.
Regarding claim 8, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element, as set forth above. Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly discloses an effective focal length f1 of the first lens, an outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of a first spacing element and an inner diameter d1s of the object-side surface of the first spacing element satisfy: -5.0 < f1/(D1s-d1s)+f1/(D1s+d1s) < 0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a first spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy -5.0 < f1/(D1s-d1s)+f1/(D1s+d1s) < 0 for the purpose of keeping the barrel diameter to a minimum while maintaining appropriate focal length and aperture size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy -5.0 < f1/(D1s-d1s)+f1/(D1s+d1s) < 0 for the purpose of keeping the barrel diameter to a minimum while maintaining appropriate focal length and aperture size.
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0.
However, Ma (Embodiment 2 only) in view of Son teaches a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: -1.69 ≤ L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0 (approximating L as the distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the image-side surface of the fifth lens of Ma because the lens barrel would implicitly be a similar length: E2: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] ≈ -1.5; Tables 5, 13; ¶0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the lens barrel of Son for the purpose of housing the lenses.
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element and the second spacing element, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose the effective focal length f1 of the first lens, the effective focal length f2 of the second lens, a spacing distance EP12 between the image-side surface of the first spacing element and an object-side surface of the second spacing element along a direction of the optical axis, a maximal thickness CP1 of the first spacing element along the direction of the optical axis and a maximal thickness CP2 of the second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis satisfy: -20.0 < f1/(EP12+CP1) - f2/(EP12+CP2) < -2.0.
However, Ma in view of Son teaches the effective focal length f1 of the first lens, an effective focal length f2 of the second lens, a spacing distance EP12 between the image-side surface of a first spacing element and an object-side surface of a second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis, a maximal thickness CP1 of the first spacing element along the direction of the optical axis and a maximal thickness CP2 of the second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis satisfy: -20.0 < f1/(EP12+CP1) - f2/(EP12+CP2) < -2.0 (inherent for proper operation given structure and function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the spacing elements of Son for the purpose of maintaining a predetermined distance between two adjacent lenses (¶0069 of Son).
Regarding claim 12, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the second spacing element, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose a refractive index N2 of the second lens, a refractive index N3 of the third lens, a maximal thickness CP2 of the second spacing element along a direction of the optical axis, a maximal thickness CP3 of a third spacing element along the direction of the optical axis and a spacing distance EP23 between an image-side surface of the second spacing element and an object-side surface of the third spacing element along the direction of the optical axis satisfy: 3.0 < (N2+N3)/(EP23-CP2-CP3) < 20.0, wherein the third spacing element is placed on an image side of the third lens and is in contact with an image-side surface of the third lens.
However, Son teaches a third spacing element (SP3; Fig. 21; ¶0165) is placed on an image side of the third lens (3000) and is in contact with an image-side surface of the third lens (3000) (Fig. 21; ¶0165).
Further, Ma in view of Son teaches a refractive index N2 of the second lens, a refractive index N3 of the third lens, a maximal thickness CP2 of a second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis, a maximal thickness CP3 of a third spacing element along the direction of the optical axis and a spacing distance EP23 between the image-side surface of the second spacing element and an object-side surface of the third spacing element along the direction of the optical axis satisfy: 3.0 < (N2+N3)/(EP23-CP2-CP3) < 20.0 (inherent for proper operation given structure and function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the spacing elements of Son for the purpose of maintaining a predetermined distance between two adjacent lenses (¶0069 of Son).
Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the first spacing element and the second spacing element, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose an outer diameter D2s of an object-side surface of the second spacing element, an inner diameter d2s of the object-side surface of the second spacing element, a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis and a spacing distance EP12 between the image-side surface of the first spacing element and an object-side surface of the second spacing element along a direction of the optical axis satisfy: 2.0 < (D2s+d2s)/(CT2+EP12) < 9.0.
However, Ma in view of Son teaches an outer diameter D2s of an object-side surface of a second spacing element, an inner diameter d2s of the object-side surface of the second spacing element, a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis and a spacing distance EP12 between the image-side surface of a first spacing element and an object-side surface of the second spacing element along the direction of the optical axis satisfy: 2.0 < (D2s+d2s)/(CT2+EP12) < 9.0 (inherent for proper operation given structure and function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the spacing elements of Son for the purpose of maintaining a predetermined distance between two adjacent lenses (¶0069 of Son).
Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the second spacing element, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose an outer diameter D2m of an image-side surface of a second spacing element, an outer diameter D3s of an object-side surface of a third spacing element, a radius of curvature R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens and a radius of curvature R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens satisfy: 0 < (D2m+D3s)/(R4+R5) < 10.0, wherein the third spacing element is placed on an image side of the third lens and is in contact with an image-side surface of the third lens.
However, Son teaches a third spacing element (SP3; Fig. 21; ¶0165) is placed on an image side of the third lens (3000) and is in contact with an image-side surface of the third lens (3000) (Fig. 21; ¶0165).
Further, Ma in view of Son teaches an outer diameter D2m of the image-side surface of a second spacing element, an outer diameter D3s of an object-side surface of a third spacing element, a radius of curvature R4 of the image-side surface of the second lens and a radius of curvature R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens satisfy: 0 < (D2m+D3s)/(R4+R5) < 10.0 (implicit for proper operation given structure and function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the spacing elements of Son for the purpose of maintaining a predetermined distance between two adjacent lenses (¶0069 of Son).
Regarding claim 15, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose an outer diameter D1m of the image-side surface of a first spacing element, the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens and the radius of curvature R3 of the object-side surface of the second lens satisfy: 1.0 < D1m/R2 + D1m/R3 < 3.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a first spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy 1.0 < D1m/R2 + D1m/R3 < 3.0 for the purpose of properly fitting the first lens and the first spacing element into the lens barrel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy 1.0 < D1m/R2 + D1m/R3 < 3.0 for the purpose of properly fitting the first lens and first spacing element into the lens barrel.
Regarding claim 16, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ma does not disclose a front-end portion of the lens barrel close to the object side further comprises an aperture plane forming an inclination angle with the optical axis, the aperture plane is in connection with the object-end surface of the lens barrel, and an angle between the aperture plane and the object-end surface of the lens barrel is in a range of 100° to 130°.
However, Son teaches a front-end portion of the lens barrel (200) close to the object side further comprises an aperture plane forming an inclination angle with the optical axis (Fig. 21), the aperture plane is in connection with the object-end surface of the lens barrel (200) (Fig. 21), and an angle between the aperture plane and the object-end surface of the lens barrel (200) is in a range of 100° to 130° (implicit from Fig. 21 and for proper operation given structure and function, to provide sufficient shading without vignetting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ma to incorporate the lens barrel of Son for the purpose of housing the lenses.
Regarding claim 17, Ma in view of Son discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, including the fourth spacing element, as set forth above. Neither Ma nor Son, either singly or in combination, explicitly disclose an outer diameter D4s of the object-side surface of the fourth spacing element, an inner diameter d4s of the object-side surface of the fourth spacing element, a radius of curvature R8 of the image-side surface of the fourth lens, a radius of curvature R9 of an object-side surface of the fifth lens and a radius of curvature R10 of an image-side surface of the fifth lens satisfy: 1.0 < (D4s+d4s)/(R9+R10-R8) < 5.0.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Ma in view of Son has a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a lens barrel, and a fourth spacing element, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to make the imaging system satisfy 1.0 < (D4s+d4s)/(R9+R10-R8) < 5.0 for the purpose of having a mechanically strong lens with a proper aperture size when compared to the properties of the lens as a whole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the imaging system to satisfy 1.0 < (D4s+d4s)/(R9+R10-R8) < 5.0 for the purpose of having a mechanically strong lens with a proper aperture size when compared to the properties of the lens as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the features/limitations of applicant's independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 would be proper.
Regarding independent claim 18, the closest prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the optical imaging lens assembly as claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an optical imaging lens assembly specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, an imaging lens group, composed of a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially arranges, wherein a number of lenses having refractive powers included in the imaging lens group is five; wherein a center thickness of the fourth lens on the optical axis is greater than 0.4mm, wherein an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacing element, an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and a maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: -7.12 ≤ [f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m < 0, wherein a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: 100.0° < FOV < 120.0° and L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0, and wherein the radius of curvature R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens, the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a radius of curvature R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, a radius of curvature R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens, a radius of curvature R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a radius of curvature R6 of the image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: |R1| > |R2|, R3 > R4, R5 > R6 and R3 < R5. Specifically, the examiner agrees with the arguments set forth in the remarks of 03/18/2026.
Regarding independent claim 19, the closest prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the optical imaging lens assembly as claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of an optical imaging lens assembly specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, an imaging lens group, composed of a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, and a fifth lens sequentially arranges, wherein a number of lenses having refractive powers included in the imaging lens group is five; wherein a center thickness of the fourth lens on the optical axis is greater than 0.4mm, wherein an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacing element, an effective focal length f1 of the first lens and a maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: -7.12 ≤ [f1×tan(FOV/2)]/d1m < 0, wherein the radius of curvature R1 of the object-side surface of the first lens, the radius of curvature R2 of the image-side surface of the first lens, a radius of curvature R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens, a radius of curvature R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens, a radius of curvature R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens and a radius of curvature R6 of the image-side surface of the third lens satisfy: |R1| > |R2|, R3 > R4, R5 > R6 and R3 < R5, and wherein a height L of the lens barrel along a direction of the optical axis, an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens and the maximal field-of-view FOV of the optical imaging lens assembly satisfy: L/[f5×tan(FOV/2)] < -1.0. Specifically, the examiner agrees with the arguments set forth in the remarks of 03/18/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 25th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights