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 .
Status
The filing on 07/05/2026 amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 8. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin.
Regarding claim 1, Yin teaches an imaging lens assembly (Fig. 2, 5, and 6), having an optical axis (L), comprising: a plurality of optical elements (2), the optical axis (L) passing through the optical elements (2); and an accommodating assembly (1, 3) surrounding the optical axis (L) and containing the optical elements (2), the accommodating assembly (1, 3) comprising: a conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) having an opening, the optical axis (L) passing through the opening, the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) comprising: an out-side portion (31) defining an outer periphery of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) and surrounding the opening; and a conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) forming the opening and connected to the out-side portion (31), wherein the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) comprises a conical structure (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) tapered from the out-side portion (31) toward the opening along the optical axis (L); and a lens barrel (1), comprising: an object-side wall (wall facing left) having an object-side through hole and facing towards an object side (left) of the imaging lens assembly; an image-side wall (wall facing right) having an image-side through hole and facing towards an image side of the imaging lens assembly; an inner-side wall surrounding and facing towards the optical axis (L), the inner-side wall connecting the object-side wall (wall facing left) and the image-side wall (wall facing right); and an outer-side wall farther away from the optical axis (L) than the inner-side wall to the optical axis (L) and connecting the object-side wall (wall facing left) and the image-side wall (wall facing right); wherein the accommodating assembly (1, 3) defines an inner space extending from the image-side through hole of the lens barrel (1) to an end of the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) closest to the object side (left) along a direction parallel to the optical axis (L) and surrounded by the inner-side wall; wherein the optical elements (2) comprise at least three optical elements (21, 22, 23, 24, 25) disposed in the inner space; wherein the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) is physically contacted with at least one of the lens barrel (1) and the at least three optical elements (2; Fig. 2, 5, and 6); wherein a diameter of the end of the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) closest to the object side (left) is OD, a maximum outer diameter of the accommodating assembly (1, 3) is MD, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.05≤OD/MD<1.00 (Fig. 2, 5, and 6, p. 6).
Yin does not teach the opening is a minimum opening of the accommodating assembly (1, 3), a diameter of the opening is AD, a focal length of the imaging lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.7 ≤ f/AD ≤ 3.5.
Changing the size/length of diameter of the opening and the focal length does not affect the principle of operation or functionality of the device in anyway; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, changing the size/length of diameter of the opening and the focal length amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; hence it is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Yin further teaches an angle between the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) and the optical axis (L) is θ, and the following condition is satisfied: 2 degrees≤θ≤90 degrees (p. 7, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Yin further teaches the opening being disposed on the end of the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) closest to the object side (left) (Fig. 2, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Yin further teaches the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) further comprises an object-side structure (322 in Fig. 2, 321 if Fig. 5) disposed on the end of the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) closest to the object side (left) and perpendicular to the optical axis (L), and one end of the object-side structure (322 in Fig. 2, 321 if Fig. 5) far away from the optical axis (L) is connected to an object side (left) of the conical structure (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Yin further teaches the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) further comprises an opposite conical structure (inner conical surface of 322 in Fig. 2) expanded from the opening toward one end of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) closest to the object side (left).
Regarding claim 6, Yin further teaches the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) further comprises at least one double-curved surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yin does not teach a length of the accommodating assembly (1, 3) along the direction parallel to the optical axis (L) is AL, a length of the lens barrel (1) along the direction parallel to the optical axis (L) is BL, and the following condition is satisfied: 0% ≤ (AL−BL)/AL×100% ≤ 30%.
Changing the size or length of the accommodating assembly and lens barrel does not affect the principle of operation or functionality of the device in anyway; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, changing the size or length of the accommodating assembly and lens barrel amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; hence it is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Yin further teaches the lens barrel (1) further comprises: a first joint surface (at 11/12) disposed on an object side (left) of the lens barrel (1) and disposed opposite to the out-side portion (31) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3); wherein the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) and the lens barrel (1) are physically contacted to each other, and the out-side portion (31) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) is fixed to the first joint surface (at 11/12).
Regarding claim 10, Yin further teaches the lens barrel (1) further comprises: a first conical surface (Fig. 2 and 5) disposed on the object side (left) of the lens barrel (1) and disposed opposite to the conical structure (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3); wherein the first conical surface and the conical structure (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) are physically contacted to each other, and the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) is aligned with the lens barrel (1; Fig. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Yin further teaches the lens barrel (1) further comprises: a first undercut surface (at 12 of Fig. 2; 11 of Fig. 5) surrounding the optical axis (L), and extended and shrunken along a direction from one end of the first joint surface (at 11/12) far from the optical axis (L) farther away from the first joint surface (at 11/12).
Regarding claim 12, Yin does not teach the first undercut surface (at 12 of Fig. 2; 11 of Fig. 5) is integrally made with the lens barrel (1); wherein a maximum diameter of the first undercut surface (at 12 of Fig. 2; 11 of Fig. 5) along a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (L) is MU, a minimum diameter of the first undercut surface (at 12 of Fig. 2; 11 of Fig. 5) along the direction perpendicular to the optical axis (L) is SU, and the following condition is satisfied: 0% < (MU-SU)/MUx100% < 12%.
Changing the size/length of maximum diameter of the first undercut surface and minimum diameter of the first undercut surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical axis does not affect the principle of operation or functionality of the device in anyway; hence it is prima facie obvious. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Furthermore, changing the size/length of maximum diameter of the first undercut surface and minimum diameter of the first undercut surface along the direction perpendicular to the optical axis amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; hence it is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Yin further teaches one of the at least three optical elements (21, 22, 23, 24, 25) comprises: a second joint surface (horizontal to 11 in Fig. 2) disposed relatively to the out-side portion (31) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3); wherein the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) and the one of the at least three optical elements (21) are physically contacted with each other (Fig. 2), and the out-side portion (31) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) is fixed on the second joint surface (horizontal to 11 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yin further teaches the one of the at least three optical elements (21) further comprises: a second conical surface (surface of 21 touching 31) disposed relatively to the conical structure (321 in Fig. 2) of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3); wherein the conical portion (321 in Fig. 2, 322 in Fig. 5) and the second conical surface (surface of 21 touching 31) are physically contacted with each other, and the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) is aligned with the lens barrel (1).
Regarding claim 19, Yin further teaches an imaging apparatus, comprising: the imaging lens assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 20, Yin further teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one of the imaging apparatus of claim 19; and an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the at least one of the imaging apparatus (Fig. 3 and 4).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin in view of Wang (US 20190230262 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yin does not explicitly teach at least one coil disposed on the outer-side wall of the lens barrel (1) and symmetrically disposed along the optical axis (L).
Wang teaches at least one coil (1-A1230) disposed on the outer-side wall of the lens barrel (1-A1210) and symmetrically disposed along the optical axis (Fig. 2; [0342]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yin with Wang; because it provides autofocusing capability to the lens assembly to improve the usability of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Yin does not explicitly teach at least one magnetic element disposed on the outer-side wall of the lens barrel (1) and symmetrically disposed along the optical axis (L).
Wang teaches at least one magnetic element (1-A1240) disposed on the outer-side wall of the lens barrel (1-A1210) and symmetrically disposed along the optical axis (Fig. 2; [0342]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yin with Wang; because it provides autofocusing capability to the lens assembly to improve the usability of the device.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin Yin in view of Terai (US 20190049737 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yin does not explicitly teach the conical-shaped light blocking sheet (3) being made of metal or plastic material.
Terai teaches the light blocking sheet being made of metal or plastic material ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yin with Terai; because it uses known material to eliminate undue experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejections of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, applicant/s argue,
As disclosed in Paragraph [0023] of Yin, the light shield of Yin is configured to reduce the size of the light-transmitting aperture so as to increase the screen ratio of the electronic device. However, in the imaging lens assembly of the amended claim 1 of the present application, through the configuration of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet, the imaging lens assembly can have a small object-size, large aperture corresponding to large size and high pixel of image sensor to satisfy requirements of modern consumer. Hence, the aims of invention between the present application and Yin are different from each other.
Further, as described in paragraph [0070] of the present application, the opening of the conical-shaped light blocking sheet is the minimum opening of the accommodating assembly, that is, the largest aperture that the accommodating assembly can contain, and it is not limited to the f-number of the imaging lens assembly. Accordingly, when the feature “.07 ≤ f/AD ≤ 3.5” of the amended claim 1 of the present application is satisfied, the imaging lens assembly still can adjust the aperture location and the size by the light blocking function of the optical elements, and the large aperture characteristic of the imaging lens assembly can be obtained. (Remarks; p. 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The issue here is not whether .07 ≤ f/AD ≤ 3.5 allows a large aperture. The issue here is whether “.07 ≤ f/AD ≤ 3.5” is obvious. It is a matter of known and establish facts that the sizes of the lens elements and the light shield are factors among many factors in determining the size of the aperture. Furthermore, the effects of the larger or smaller light shield on the acceptable aperture size are well known. Changing the size/length of diameter of the opening and the focal length amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; hence it is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights