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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2018/0052303), hereinafter “Tang”.
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an imaging lens assembly comprising six lens elements (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the six lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens element (110), a second lens element (120), a third lens element (130), a fourth lens element (140), a fifth lens element (150) and a sixth lens element (160) (see Fig. 1, Table 1); wherein a total number of lens elements of the imaging lens assembly is six (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the first lens element has positive refractive power (Table 1), the fourth lens element has negative refractive power (Table 1), the fifth lens element has an image-side surface being concave in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), and at least one lens element has an Abbe number smaller than 20.0 (Table 1); wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens element is V4, a focal length of the imaging lens assembly is f, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following conditions are satisfied: 10.0 < V4 < 35.0; and -0.65 < f/R12 < 4.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Tang discloses further comprising an aperture stop disposed between an imaged object and the third lens element, wherein the fourth lens element has an image-side surface being concave in a paraxial region thereof (Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, the curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: R10/R12 < 1.8 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tang discloses wherein half of a maximum field of view of the imaging lens assembly is HFOV, and the following condition is satisfied: 5.0 degrees < HFOV < 23.0 degrees (Table 11).
Regarding claim 6, Tang discloses wherein a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens element is R1, the curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following conditions are satisfied: 1.8 < (CT1+T34)/T45 33.0 (Table 1); and -1.50 < (R1-R12)/(R1+R12) < 2.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tang discloses wherein a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, and the following condition is satisfied: 5.8 ≤ (CT1+T34)/T45 33.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the third lens element and a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the fifth lens element have different signs (Table 1); wherein an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, and the following condition is satisfied: 0 < T45/T34 < 5.5 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the third lens element has a same sign as a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the fourth lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tang discloses wherein an absolute value of a focal length of the sixth lens element is larger than an absolute value of a focal length of the fifth lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Tang discloses an image capturing unit (see Figs. 11A-12C), comprising: the imaging lens assembly of claim 1 (see Fig. 1); a driving device disposed on the imaging lens assembly (Paragraph 63); and an image sensor (190) disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens assembly (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 14, Tang discloses an electronic device, comprising: the image capturing unit of claim 13 (see Figs. 11A-12C).
Regarding claim 15, Tang discloses an imaging lens assembly comprising six lens elements (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the six lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens element (110), a second lens element (120), a third lens element (130), a fourth lens element (140), a fifth lens element (150) and a sixth lens element (160) (see Fig. 1, Table 1); wherein a total number of lens elements of the imaging lens assembly is six (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the first lens element has positive refractive power (Table 1), the fourth lens element has negative refractive power (Table 1), the fifth lens element has an image-side surface being concave in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), a focal length of the third lens element has a same sign as a focal length of the fifth lens element (Table 1), and at least one lens element has an Abbe number smaller than 20.0 (Table 1); wherein a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, a maximum value among refractive indices of all lens elements is Nmax, and the following conditions are satisfied: 1.8 < (CT1+T34)/T45 < 33.0; and 1.50 < Nmax < 1.75 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, Tang discloses wherein the fourth lens element has an image-side surface being concave in a paraxial region thereof (Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: -1.8 < R10/R12 < 1.3 (Table 5).
Regarding claim 19, Tang discloses wherein half of a maximum field of view of the imaging lens assembly is HFOV, the axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is T45, a central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, a central thickness of the fifth lens element is CT5, and the following conditions are satisfied: 5.0 degrees < HFOV < 23.0 degrees (Table 11); and 0 < T45/(CT4+CT5) < 2.4 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 20, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of an
object-side surface of the third lens element has a same sign as a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the third lens element (Table 1); wherein a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens element is R1, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: -1.70 < (R1-R12)/(R1+R12) < 5.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 21, Tang discloses wherein a focal length of the imaging lens assembly is f, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following condition is satisfied: -0.65 < f/R12 < 4.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 22, Tang discloses wherein a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the third lens element has a same sign as a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the fourth lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 23, Tang discloses wherein an absolute value of a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the sixth lens element is larger than an absolute value of a curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens element (Table 3).
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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tang (USPG Pub No. 2018/0052303) in view of Chen et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0219802), hereinafter “Chen”.
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Tang discloses wherein the first lens element has an object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof (Table 1), and at least one lens element has an Abbe number equal to or smaller than 19.5 (Table 1). Tang discloses the claimed invention except for the second lens element has an object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses the second lens element has an object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof (Table 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 provide the lens assembly of Tang with the second lens element has an object-side surface being convex in a paraxial region thereof of Chen for the purpose of providing a compact imaging lens assembly satisfying the requirements of wide field of view and high image resolution (Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 9, Tang discloses wherein a focal length of the third lens element has a same sign as a focal length of the fifth lens element (Table 1). Tang discloses the claimed invention except for and an absolute value of a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens element is larger than an absolute value of a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element. In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses and an absolute value of a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens element is larger than an absolute value of a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element (Table 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 provide the lens assembly of Tang with and an absolute value of a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens element is larger than an absolute value of a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element of Chen for the purpose of providing a compact imaging lens assembly satisfying the requirements of wide field of view and high image resolution (Paragraph 6).
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tang (USPG Pub No. 2018/0052303) in view of Dai et al. (USPG Pub No. 2018/0335549), hereinafter “Dai”.
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Tang discloses wherein the third lens element has negative refractive power, and the fifth lens element has negative refractive power (Table 1). Tang discloses the claimed invention except for the second lens element has positive refractive power. In the same field of endeavor, Dai discloses the second lens element has positive refractive power (Table 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 provide the lens assembly of Tang with the second lens element has positive refractive power of Dai for the purpose of providing an imaging lens assembly with improved imaging quality while maintaining compactness (Paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 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 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights