DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the condition of
-12.22<R3/R4<43.78
-42.35 < R3/f < 13.48
Cannot be exist in an optical lens assembly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, it is unclear and confusing how an optical lens assembly being arranged in order from an image side to an image source side (object side). According to the specification and drawings, in order to fix with the first lens and the second lens, the optical lens assembly would be in order from an image source side (object side) to an image source side.
Claims 2, 7, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, it is unclear how the condition of -12.22<R3/R4<43.78 can be exist based on condition of the first and the second lens (e.g., R4 can’t be infinity).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, it is unclear how the condition of -42.35 < R3/f < 13.48can be exist because the range governing each expression contain a value of zero and the ratio of "R3/f" cannot have a value of zero.
Appropriate correction is required
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 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh et al., US 2023/0194834 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Hsueh et al. disclose an optical lens assembly 9 comprising a stop S1 and in order from an image source side to an image side (fig. 17), comprising:
. a first lens E1 with positive refractive power, comprising an image-side surface and an image-source-side surface, wherein the image-side surface of the first lens (surface next to S1) is concave near the optical axis
. a second lens E2 with positive refractive power, comprising an image-side surface and an image-source-side surface, wherein the image-source-side surface of the second lens (surface next to S1) is convex near the optical axis
. wherein a total quantity of lenses with refractive power in the optical lens assembly is two (E1 and E2)
. a focal length of the first lens is f1 (Table 17), an entrance pupil diameter of the optical lens assembly is EPD, a maximum image source height of the optical lens assembly is IMH, and the obtain value f /(EPD x IMH) is 4.32 mm-1. , that is close to the claimed condition 4.94(mm-1)<f1/(EPD*IMH)<13.57(mm-1), as so, there is not any unexpected result or optical performance occurred between the lens module having a value of 4.32 mm-1 for the ratio of f /(EPD x IMH) and the lens module having a range of (4.94 mm-1; 13.57 mm-1) as claimed in each of present claims 1 and 15. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the lens module with feature/value related to the ratio of f /(EPD x IMH), as shown by Hsueh et al and adjust the optical characteristics of the lens element(s) constituted the lens(es) of the lens module so that the value of the ratio of f /(EPD x IMH) is satisfied the claimed range or any similar range(s) to meet a particular application. See also a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claims 2 and 16, the modification to Hsued et al. would result the range of R3/R4 from [-12.22, 0) and (0, 43.78], wherein a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the second lens is R3, a curvature radius of an image-source-side surface of the second lens is R4 (Table 1)7
Re claims 4 and 17, the modification to Hsued et al. would be satisfied the condition result 1.02 < CT2/T12 < 21.02 ([0178).
Re claims 7 and 19, wherein the R3/f is -0.54 satisfied the claimed range (Table 17).
Re claim 9, wherein a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an image source plane along the optical axis is TL, a distance from the image-source-side surface of the second lens to the image source plane along the optical axis is BFL, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.91<TL/BFL<4.60 ([0178]).
Re claim 11, wherein a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an image source plane along the optical axis is TL, a focal length of the optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.93<TL/f < 3.12 ([0178]).
Re claim 12, wherein a distance from the stop to an image source plane along the optical axis is SL, a focal length of the optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: 2.05 < SL/f < 3.27 (Table 17).
Re claim 13, wherein a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens is R1, and the following condition is satisfied: -1.73(mm-1)<1/R1<-0.89(mm-1)(Table 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 14, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, 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 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871