DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (USPG Pub No. 2021/0055528), hereinafter “Wei”.
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a wide-angle lens assembly (400) (see Fig. 16, Paragraph 79) comprising: a first lens (L2) with negative refractive power (Paragraph 62), which includes a concave surface (S3) facing an object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a second lens (L3) which is a meniscus lens with positive refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a third lens (L4) which is a meniscus lens with positive refractive power and comprises a concave surface (S7) facing the object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a fourth lens (L5) with refractive power; a fifth lens (L6) with refractive power and comprises a convex surface (S11) facing the object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a sixth lens (L7) with refractive power; and a seventh lens (L8) with positive refractive power (Paragraph 64); wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, and the seventh lens (L2-L8) are arranged in order from the object side to an image side along an optical axis (see Fig. 16); wherein the fifth lens (L6) and the sixth lens (L7) are cemented (see Fig. 16, Table 7).
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses wherein: the fifth lens (L6) is with positive refractive power (Paragraph 79); and the sixth lens (L7) is with negative refractive power (Paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses wherein: the fifth lens (L6) is a biconvex lens and further comprises a convex surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); and the sixth lens (L7) is a biconcave lens and comprises a concave surface facing the object side and another concave surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7).
Regarding claim 6, Wei discloses wherein: the first lens (L2) further comprises a concave surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); and the second lens (L3) comprises a concave surface facing the object side and a convex surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7).
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses wherein: the third lens (L4) comprises a convex surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); and the seventh lens (L8) is a biconvex lens and comprises a convex surface facing the object side and another convex surface facing the image side (see Fig. 16, Table 7).
Regarding claim 10, Wei discloses wherein the fourth lens (L5) is with positive refractive power and comprises a convex surface facing the image side (Paragraph 63, Table 7).
Regarding claim 13, Wei discloses wherein the fourth lens (L5) further comprises a concave surface facing the object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7).
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9, 14, Wei discloses wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies at least one of the following conditions: 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; -4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm; -10.1 mm ≤ (R31×R32)/(R31+R32) ≤ -4.8 mm; wherein TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, R21 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the second lens, R22 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the second lens, R31 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the third lens, R32 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the third lens (Table 7 satisfies “-4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (USPG Pub No. 2021/0055528) in view of Iijima (USPG Pub No. 2020/0371320).
Regarding claim 11, Wei discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fourth lens further comprises a convex surface facing the object side. In the same field of endeavor, Iijima discloses wherein the fourth lens further comprises a convex surface facing the object side (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei with wherein the fourth lens further comprises a convex surface facing the object side of Iijima for the purpose of favorably correcting various aberrations (Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 12, Wei further discloses wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies at least one of the following conditions: 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; -4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm; -10.1 mm ≤ (R31×R32)/(R31+R32) ≤ -4.8 mm; wherein TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, R21 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the second lens, R22 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the second lens, R31 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the third lens, R32 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the third lens (Table 7 satisfies “-4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm”).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (USPG Pub No. 2021/0055528) in view of Gao et al. (CN 108919465 A), hereinafter “Gao”.
Regarding claim 15, Wei discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a stop disposed between the first lens and the second lens. In the same field of endeavor, Gao discloses further comprising a stop disposed between the first lens and the second lens (Table 4 – Paragraph 113 of original document). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei with further comprising a stop disposed between the first lens and the second lens of Gao for the purpose of improving imaging quality (Pg. 9, Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 18, Wei discloses a wide-angle lens assembly (400) (see Fig. 16, Paragraph 79) comprising: a first lens (L2) with negative refractive power (Paragraph 62), which includes a concave surface (S3) facing an object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a second lens (L3) which is a meniscus lens with positive refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a third lens (L4) which is a meniscus lens with positive refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a fourth lens (L5) with refractive power and comprises a convex surface facing the image side (Paragraph 63, Table 7); a fifth lens (L6) with refractive power and comprises a convex surface (S11) facing the object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a sixth lens (L7) with refractive power; and a seventh lens (L8) with positive refractive power (Paragraph 64). Wei discloses the claimed invention except for a stop; wherein the first lens, the stop, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, and the seventh lens are arranged in order from the object side to an image side along an optical axis. In the same field of endeavor, Gao discloses further comprising a stop (STO) (Table 4 – Paragraph 113); wherein the first lens, the stop, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, and the seventh lens are arranged in order from the object side to an image side along an optical axis (Table 4 – Paragraph 113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei with a stop; wherein the first lens, the stop, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, and the seventh lens are arranged in order from the object side to an image side along an optical axis of Gao for the purpose of improving imaging quality (Pg. 9, Paragraph 4).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (USPG Pub No. 2021/0055528) in view of Gao (CN 108919465 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0018215), hereinafter “Chang”.
Regarding claim 16, Wei and Gao disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies the following condition: 6.2 ≤ L1D/DSL2 ≤ 10.5; wherein L1D is an outer diameter of the first lens and DSL2 is an air-interval from the stop to the object side surface of the second lens along the optical axes. In the same field of endeavor, Chang discloses wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies the following condition: L1D/DSL2; wherein L1D is an outer diameter of the first lens and DSL2 is an air-interval from the stop to the object side surface of the second lens along the optical axes (Table 1, Paragraphs 18, 163). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei and Gao with wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies the following condition: L1D/DSL2; wherein L1D is an outer diameter of the first lens and DSL2 is an air-interval from the stop to the object side surface of the second lens along the optical axes of Chang for the purpose of affectively increasing the amount of light admitted and elevate the image quality (Paragraph 5). Wei, Gao and Chang disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify satisfies the following condition: 6.2 ≤ L1D/DSL2 ≤ 10.5. 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 (CCPA 1955). Also, such a modification would have involved a change in the size of the lens assembly. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei, Gao and Chang with satisfies the following condition: 6.2 ≤ L1D/DSL2 ≤ 10.5 for the purpose of minimizing the image capturing system (Paragraph 2 of Chang).
Regarding claim 17, Wei further discloses wherein the wide-angle lens assembly satisfies at least one of the following conditions: 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; -4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm; -10.1 mm ≤ (R31×R32)/(R31+R32) ≤ -4.8 mm; wherein TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, R21 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the second lens, R22 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the second lens, R31 is a radius of curvature of an object side surface of the third lens, R32 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the third lens (Table 7 satisfies “-4.5 mm ≤ (R21×R22)/(R21+R22) ≤ -2.8 mm”).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (USPG Pub No. 2021/0055528) in view of Xu (CN 106597642 A).
Regarding claim 19, Wei discloses a wide-angle lens assembly (400) (see Fig. 16, Paragraph 79) comprising: a first lens (L2) with negative refractive power (Paragraph 62), which includes a concave surface (S3) facing an object side (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a second lens (L3) which is a meniscus lens with refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a third lens (L4) which is a meniscus lens with positive refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a fourth lens (L5) with refractive power; a fifth lens (L6) with refractive power (see Fig. 16, Table 7); a sixth lens (L7) with refractive power; and a seventh lens (L8) with positive refractive power (Paragraph 64); wherein the first lens, the second lens, the third lens, the fourth lens, the fifth lens, the sixth lens, and the seventh lens (L2-L8) are arranged in order from the object side to an image side along an optical axis (see Fig. 16); wherein the fifth lens (L6) and the sixth lens (L7) are cemented (see Fig. 16, Table 7). Wei discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lens assembly satisfies at least one of following conditions: 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; wherein f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, and HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly. In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the lens assembly satisfies at least one of following conditions: 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; wherein f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, and HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly (Paragraph 39 – “1.42 < |f7/f| < 2.29” overlaps with “1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens assembly of Wei with wherein the lens assembly satisfies at least one of following conditions: 5 ≤ f3/f ≤ 12; 1.8 ≤ f7/f ≤ 2.4; 7.8 ≤ TTL/HIH ≤ 8.6; wherein f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, f7 is an effective focal length of the seventh lens, f is an effective focal length of the wide-angle assembly, TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image plane along the optical axis, and HIH is a half image height of the wide-angle lens assembly of Xu for the purpose of providing a lens assembly that corrects and balances various aberrations in order to provide high definition imaging while maintaining compactness (Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Wei further discloses wherein: the second lens (L3) is with positive refractive power and comprises a concave surface facing an object side and a convex surface facing an image side (Paragraph 62, see Fig. 16, Table 7); and the fourth lens (L5) is with positive refractive power and comprises a convex surface facing the image side (Paragraph 63, Table 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/24/2026
Prosecution Insights