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 § 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 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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US20220171162).
Re claim 8, Jang et al. teaches for example in fig. 7, an optical imaging lens, from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (410), a second lens element (420), a third lens element (430), a fourth lens element (440), a fifth lens element (450), a sixth lens element (460), a seventh lens element (470), an eight lens element (480) and a ninth lens element (490), the first lens element to the ninth lens element each having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through as well as an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (fig. 7, Table 7), wherein: the first lens element has positive refracting power (fig. 7, Table 7); an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (fig. 7, Table 7); the sixth lens element has negative refracting power (fig. 7, Table 7); an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is convex (fig. 7, Table 7); an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the ninth lens element is concave (fig. 7, Table 7); wherein lens elements included by the optical imaging lens are only the nine lens elements described above (fig. 7, Table 7), and wherein T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis, T5 is a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis, T8 is a thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis, G45 is an air gap between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (T3+G45+T8)/T5=3.038.
But, Jang et al. fails to explicitly teach (T3+G45+T8)/T5≤3.000.
However, 3.038 is less than 1.03% difference from 3.000. Furthermore, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as the number of lenses, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, this would provide the predictable result of increasing optical performance, reducing size, and/or limiting optical variations and aberrations, as taught by Jang et al. (para. 0228).
Re claim 9, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis, T2 is a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis, T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, T6 is a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (T2+T3+T4+T6)/T1≤2.600 (Table 7).
Re claim 10, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, V2 is an Abbe number of the second lens element, V3 is an Abbe number of the third lens element, V4 is an Abbe number of the fourth lens element, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: V2+V3+V4≤120.000 (Table 7).
Re claim 11, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, AAG is a sum of eight air gaps from the first lens element to the ninth lens element along the optical axis, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis, G89 is an air gap between the eighth lens element and the ninth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: AAG/(T1+G89)≤2.100 (Table 7).
Re claim 12, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, AAG is a sum of eight air gaps from the first lens element to the ninth lens element along the optical axis, BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the ninth lens element to an image plane along the optical axis, EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: EFL/(AAG+BFL)≥1.200 (Table 7).
Re claim 13, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, ALT is a sum of thicknesses of the nine lens elements from the first lens element to the ninth lens element along the optical axis, G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: ALT/(G12+T3)≥9.000 (Table 7).
Re claim 14, supra claim 8. Furthermore, Jang et al. further teaches for example in fig. 7, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis, T2 is a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis, T7 is a thickness of the seventh lens element along the optical axis, G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (T1+G12+T2)/T7≤3.100 (Table 7).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species Ib in the reply filed on 4-28-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified groups do not meet the criteria for distinctness. This is not found persuasive because the species are patentably distinct because each species requires a different combination of structural optical characteristics, including different lens surface configurations and refracting powers for different lenses, that produces different optical configurations. Moreover, the dependent claims reinforce the distinction because each set of respective dependent claims has its own group of conditional relationships. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. There is a serious search and examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search, specifically employing different search queries and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8-21-26
Prosecution Insights