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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited reference teaches the limitation as presented in claims 1 and 11. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches a plurality of light diminishing structures regularly disposed along the polygonal contour (433-434), wherein the light diminishing structures are configured to undulate at least one portion of each of the sidelines so that the at least one portion of each of the sidelines is a non-straight line (there are at least 2 sidelines of each of the first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines). 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 imaging lens as taught by Chang et al. in order to decrease a possibility of generating a stray light and maintain the better image quality. The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, “the fact that the applicant uses that method for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference.” In re Lintner, 173 USQP 560.
In addition, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) teaches wherein a number of the sidelines is N, a length of each of the sidelines is TL, a straight segment length of each of the sidelines is D, and the following conditions are satisfied: 4≤N≤18 (first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines); and 0.05<D/TL<0.95 (s2 = 0.29 mm and there are 5 inner sides s2 in each quadrant; therefore 0.05 < 0.29/(5*0.29) < 0.95; see at least paragraph 0051; table 1 and figure 4C). 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 imaging lens as taught by Hsu et al. in order to achieve compact imaging lens modules with high resolution and high image quality.
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 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 1, 3-9, 11-11, 14-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2018/0196171) in view of Chang et al. (US 2021/0364725).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses an imaging lens assembly, comprising:
a lens element (1200) configured to define an optical axis (figure 4A), and the optical axis passing through the lens element; and
a light blocking element (140), comprising: a light through hole (figure 4A), the optical axis passing through the light through hole, the light through hole formed by connecting a plurality of sidelines (figure 4C) to define a polygonal contour.
Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding a plurality of light diminishing structures regularly disposed along the polygonal contour, wherein the light diminishing structures are configured to undulate at least one portion of each of the sidelines so that the at least one portion of each of the sidelines is a non-straight line; wherein a number of the sidelines is N, a length of each of the sidelines is TL, a straight segment length of each of the sidelines is D, and the following conditions are satisfied: 4≤N≤18; and 0.05<D/TL<0.95.
Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches a plurality of light diminishing structures regularly disposed along the polygonal contour (433-434), wherein the light diminishing structures are configured to undulate at least one portion of each of the sidelines so that the at least one portion of each of the sidelines is a non-straight line (there are at least 2 sidelines of each of the first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines). 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 imaging lens as taught by Chang et al. in order to decrease a possibility of generating a stray light and maintain the better image quality.
In addition, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) teaches wherein a number of the sidelines is N, a length of each of the sidelines is TL, a straight segment length of each of the sidelines is D, and the following conditions are satisfied: 4≤N≤18 (first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines); and 0.05<D/TL<0.95 (s2 = 0.29 mm and there are 5 inner sides s2 in each quadrant; therefore 0.05 < 0.29/(5*0.29) < 0.95; see at least paragraph 0051; table 1 and figure 4C). 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 imaging lens as taught by Hsu et al. in order to achieve compact imaging lens modules with high resolution and high image quality.
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 3, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the polygonal contour is a regular polygon.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the number of the sidelines is N, and the following condition is satisfied: 5≤N≤12 (there are at least 2 sidelines of each of the first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines).
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 5, Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches wherein each of the light diminishing structures comprises at least three nodes, and the nodes satisfy any one of the following two definitions: each of two sides of each of the light diminishing structures is one of the at least three nodes; and a horizontal baseline is defined by a virtual of the two sides of each of the light diminishing structures, when an edge of the light blocking element is above and the light through hole is below, a point where a contour slope of each of the light diminishing structures changes from negative to positive is one of the at least three nodes; wherein two of the at least three nodes adjacent to each other form a connection line, two of the connection lines adjacent to each other form a deflection angle, the deflection angle is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 degrees≤θ≤20 degrees (see annotated drawing 1).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches the claimed invention except for wherein each of the connection lines is parallel to each of the sidelines, a length of each of the connection lines is W, a vertical distance from a midpoint of each of the connection lines to the edge of the light blocking element is H, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.04≤H/W≤0.7. 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 following condition satisfied: 0.04≤H/W≤0.7, 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 7, Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches the claimed invention except for wherein a vertical distance from the midpoint of each of the connection lines to the edge of the light blocking element is H, and the following condition is satisfied: 5 μm≤H≤120 μm. 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 following condition satisfied: 5 μm≤H≤120 μm, 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 8, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the light through hole of the light blocking element is configured to define an f-number of the imaging lens assembly (see at least paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the f-number of the imaging lens assembly is FNO, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.65≤FNO≤1.8 (the imaging lens module has an f-number less than 2.4; see at least paragraph 0042).
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 11, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses an imaging lens assembly, comprising:
a lens element (1200) configured to define an optical axis (figure 4A), and the optical axis passing through the lens element; and
a light blocking element (140), comprising:
a light through hole (figure 4A), the optical axis passing through the light through hole, the light through hole formed by connecting a plurality of sidelines (figure 4C) to define a polygonal contour.
Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding a plurality of light diminishing structures regularly disposed along the polygonal contour, wherein the light diminishing structures are configured to undulate at least one portion of each of the sidelines so that the whole of each of the sidelines is a non-straight line; wherein a number of the sidelines is N, a length of each of the sidelines is TL, a straight segment length of each of the sidelines is D, and the following conditions are satisfied: 4≤N≤18.
Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches a plurality of light diminishing structures regularly disposed along the polygonal contour (433-434), wherein the light diminishing structures are configured to undulate at least one portion of each of the sidelines so that the whole of each of the sidelines is a non-straight line (there are at least 2 sidelines of each of the first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines). 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 imaging lens as taught by Chang et al. in order to decrease a possibility of generating a stray light and maintain the better image quality.
In addition, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) teaches wherein a number of the sidelines is N, a length of each of the sidelines is TL, a straight segment length of each of the sidelines is D, and the following conditions are satisfied: 4≤N≤18 (first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines; see at least paragraph 0051; table 1 and figure 4C); wherein each of the light diminishing structures comprises at least three nodes, and the nodes satisfy any one of the following two definitions: each of two sides of each of the light diminishing structures is one of the at least three nodes; and a horizontal baseline is defined by a virtual of the two sides of each of the light diminishing structures, when an edge of the light blocking element is above and the light through hole is below, a point where a contour slope of each of the light diminishing structures changes from negative to positive is one of the at least three nodes; (see annotated drawing 1); wherein a number of the sidelines is N, ; wherein two of the at least three nodes adjacent to each other form a connection line, two of the connection lines adjacent to each other form a deflection angle, the deflection angle is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 degrees≤θ≤20 degrees (see annotated drawing 1). 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 imaging lens as taught by Hsu et al. in order to achieve compact imaging lens modules with high resolution and high image quality.
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 14, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the polygonal contour is a regular polygon.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the number of the sidelines is N, and the following condition is satisfied: 5≤N≤12 (there are at least 2 sidelines of each of the first to fourth quadrants divided by the horizontal and vertical lines).
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 16, Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches the claimed invention except for wherein each of the connection lines is parallel to each of the sidelines, a length of each of the connection lines is W, a vertical distance from a midpoint of each of the connection lines to the edge of the light blocking element is H, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.04≤H/W≤0.7. 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 following condition satisfied: 0.04≤H/W≤0.7, 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 17, Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches the claimed invention except for wherein a vertical distance from the midpoint of each of the connection lines to the edge of the light blocking element is H, and the following condition is satisfied: 5 μm≤H≤120 μm. 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 following condition satisfied: 5 μm≤H≤120 μm, 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 18, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the light through hole of the light blocking element is configured to define an f-number of the imaging lens assembly (see at least paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 19, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses wherein the f-number of the imaging lens assembly is FNO, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.65≤FNO≤1.8 (the imaging lens module has an f-number less than 2.4; see at least paragraph 0042).
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 21, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses an electronic device, comprising: the imaging lens assembly of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Hsu et al. (figures 4A-4C) discloses an electronic device, comprising: the imaging lens assembly of claim 11.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. in view of Chang et al.; further in view of Ouyang (US 2021/0033846).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding wherein a thickness of the light blocking element along the optical axis is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 2 μm≤T≤88 μm. Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches wherein a thickness of the light blocking element along the optical axis is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 2 μm≤T≤88 μm. 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 imaging lens as taught by Chang et al. in order to decrease a possibility of generating a stray light and maintain the better image quality.
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 13, Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding wherein a thickness of the light blocking element along the optical axis is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 2 μm≤T≤88 μm. Chang et al. (figure 4C) teaches wherein a thickness of the light blocking element along the optical axis is T, and the following condition is satisfied: 2 μm≤T≤88 μm. 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 imaging lens as taught by Chang et al. in order to decrease a possibility of generating a stray light and maintain the better image quality.
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. in view of Chang et al.; further in view of Ouyang (US 2021/0033846).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding an anti-reflection layer disposed on an outer surface of the light blocking element. Ouyang (figures 3B and 3C) teaches an anti-reflection layer disposed on an outer surface of the light blocking element (32; see at least paragraph 0031). 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 imaging lens as taught by Ouyang in order to maximize light transmission, improve image clarity, and reduce distracting glare.
Regarding claim 20, Hsu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Hsu et al. is silent regarding an anti-reflection layer disposed on an outer surface of the light blocking element. Ouyang (figures 3B and 3C) teaches an anti-reflection layer disposed on an outer surface of the light blocking element (32; see at least paragraph 0031). 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 imaging lens as taught by Ouyang in order to maximize light transmission, improve image clarity, and reduce distracting glare.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 571-272-9791. 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