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
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A1 and B1 (claims 1-12 and 15-25) in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because claims 13 and 14 are directed to multiple species. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-12 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2012/0243108).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses a photography optical lens assembly comprising six lens elements (210-260), the six lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element and a sixth lens element, and each of the six lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and an image-side surface facing toward the image side;
wherein the object-side surface of the fourth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof, the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof, the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof, and the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof and has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof (L4-L6; see at least paragraph 0086);
wherein a fourth smallest value among Abbe numbers of all lens elements of the photography optical lens assembly is VS4, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, a central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, an axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, and the following conditions are satisfied:
1.50 < CT1/CT2 < 7.00 (0.444 / 0.25 = 1.76);
0.00 < T23/T12 < 0.72 (0.09 / 0.136 = 0.662); and
-4.80 < R8/R12 < -0.80 (-1.192 / 1.026 = -1.162).
Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 10.0 < VS4 < 46.0. However, Tsai et al. discloses VS4 = 55.8, which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 10.0 < VS4 < 46.0, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable.
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 2, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (L1), the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (L4), the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (L6), and there is an air gap in a paraxial region between each of all adjacent lens elements of the photography optical lens assembly (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element is R1, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the first lens element is R2, an f-number of the photography optical lens assembly is Fno, and the following conditions are satisfied: -0.30 < R1/R2 < 2.00; and 1.20 < Fno < 2.50. However, Tsai et al. discloses R1 / R2 = 0.12 and Fno = 2.80 (), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -0.30 < R1/R2 < 2.00; and 1.20 < Fno < 2.50, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 4, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein the axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, the axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an Abbe number of the sixth lens element is V6, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.00 < T23/(T12+T34) < 0.20 (0.090 / (0.136 + 0.633) = 0.117; table 2-3). Tsai et al. is silent regarding 10.0 <V6<48.0. However, Tsai et al. discloses V6 = 55.8, which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have -0.30 < R1/R2 < 2.00; and 1.20 < Fno < 2.50, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein a central thickness of the fifth lens element is CT5, a central thickness of the sixth lens element is CT6, an axial distance between the image-side surface of the sixth lens element and an image surface is BL, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image surface is TL, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.30 < CT5/CT6 < 1.50 (0.344 / 0.491 = 0.7; table 2-3); and 0.05 < BL/TL < 0.35 (BFT / TTL = 0.24 (table 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element is T34, an axial distance between the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element is T56, the central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, and the following condition is satisfied: 2.00 < (T34+T56)/CT2 < 8.00 ((0.633 = 0.329) / 0.25 = 3.848; table 2-1).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is R10, a curvature radius of the object- side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.03 < R11/R10< 1.43 (1.189 / 1.664 = 0.715; table 2-1).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding an aperture stop located at an object side of the second lens element; wherein an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and an image surface is TL, a focal length of the photography optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.00 < TL/f < 1.48. However, Tsai et al. discloses TL / f = 0.863 (BFL = 0.8, TTL = 0.8 / 0.24 = 3.333, therefore TTL / f = 3.333 / 3.86 = 0.863; tables 2-1 and 2-3), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.00 < TL/f < 1.48, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 9, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein an Abbe number of the second lens element is V2, an Abbe number of the sixth lens element is V6, a composite focal length of the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is f45, a composite focal length of the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element is f56, and the following conditions are satisfied: 1.10 < V6/V2 < 3.80 (V6 / V2 = 55.8 / 23.8 2.3445; table 1); and -18.00 < f45/f56 < 1.30; f45/f56 = 2.679 / 3.5112 = 0.753; calculations from table 2-1).
Regarding claim 10, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and an image surface is TL, a maximum image height of the photography optical lens assembly is ImgH, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.80 < TL/ImgH < 1.80 (1.66; table 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein a displacement in parallel with an optical axis from an axial vertex on the object-side surface of the fifth lens element to a maximum effective radius position on the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is SAG5R1, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is Y5R1, and the following condition is satisfied: -0.30 < SAG5R1/Y5R1 < 0.10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.30 < SAG5R1/Y5R1 < 0.10, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 12, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein a distance in parallel with an optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of the object-side surface of the second lens element and a maximum effective radius position of the image-side surface of the second lens element is ET2, a distance in parallel with the optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of the object-side surface of the third lens element and a maximum effective radius position of the image-side surface of the third lens element is ET3, a maximum effective radius of the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is Y5R2, a maximum effective radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is Y6R1, and the following conditions are satisfied: 1.00 < ET2/ET3 < 2.00; and 1.00 < Y6R1/Y5R2 < 1.30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.00 < ET2/ET3 < 2.00; and 1.00 < Y6R1/Y5R2 < 1.30, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 15, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses a photography optical lens assembly comprising six lens elements (210-260), the six lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical path, a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element and a sixth lens element, and each of the six lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and an image-side surface facing toward the image side;
wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power (see at least paragraph 0086), the image-side surface of the fifth lens element (250) is concave in a paraxial region thereof and has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof, and the object-side surface of the sixth lens element (260) is convex in a paraxial region thereof and has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof;
wherein a fourth smallest value among Abbe numbers of all lens elements of the photography optical lens assembly is VS4, a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, a central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, an axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, a focal length of the photography optical lens:
1.50 < CT1/CT2 < 7.00 (0.444 / 0.25 = 1.76);
0.00 ≤ 10 x T23/CT1 < 3.00 (10 x 0.090 / 0.444 = 2.227 (table 2-1); and
0.01 <|R8|/f+|R12|/f < 3.00 (1.192 / 3.8 + 1.0257 / 3.8 = 0.5055; table 1).
Tsai et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 10.0 < VS4 < 46.0. However, Tsai et al. discloses VS4 = 55.8, which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 10.0 < VS4 < 46.0, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable.
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, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power, and the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof and has at least one critical point in an off-axis region thereof (L1 and L6).
Regarding claim 17, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, the axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, an Abbe number of the second lens element is V2, an Abbe number of the fifth lens element is V5, an Abbe number of the sixth lens element is V6, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.00 < T23/T12 < 0.72 (0.09 / 0.136 = 0.662). Tsai et al. is silent regarding 30.0 < V2+V5+V6 < 95.2. However, Tsai et al. discloses 30.0 < V2+V5+V6 < 95.2 (V2 +V5 + V6 = 23.8 + 30.2 + 55.8 = 109.8, which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 30.0 < V2+V5+V6 < 95.2, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein a central thickness of the third lens element is CT3, a central thickness of the sixth lens element is CT6, a focal length of the first lens element is fl, a focal length of the sixth lens element is f6, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.50 < CT3/CT6 < 1.80 (CT3 CT6 = 0.283 / 0.491 = 0.576; table 2-1); and 0.00 < fl/f6|< 3.10 (f1 / f6 = 3.38 / 321.46 = 010; table 1).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein a focal length of the first lens element is fl, a focal length of the second lens element is f2, a focal length of the third lens element is f3, a focal length of the fifth lens element is f5, an Abbe number of the lens element is V4, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.10 <(|f3|+|f5|)/(|f1|+|f2|) < 1.50; and 10.0 <V4<48.0. However, Tsai et al. discloses 0.10 <(|f3|+|f5|)/(|f1|+|f2|) < 1.50 ((17.72+5.89)/(6,23+3.38) = 2.42; table 1); and 10.0 <V4<48.0 (V4 = 55.8; table 1), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have : 0.10 <(|f3|+|f5|)/(|f1|+|f2|) < 1.50; and 10.0 <V4<48.0, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 20, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the sixth lens element is R11, the curvature radius of the image- side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, the focal length of the photography optical lens assembly is f, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.03 <|R11+R12|/f< 2.30 ((1.1886+1.0257)/3.86 = 0.5821; table 1).
Regarding claim 21, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the first lens element is R2, the curvature radius of the image- side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, 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, an axial distance between the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element is T56, a central thickness of the fifth lens element is CT5, and the following conditions are satisfied: 0.10 < R8/R2|+|R12/R10|< 2.30 ((1.192/14.724)+(1.026/1.664) = 0.698; table 1); and 0.50 < T56/CT5 < 4.50 (0329/0.344 = 0.956; table 1).
Regarding claim 22, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein a focal length of the first lens element is fl, a focal length of the fourth lens element is f4, and the following condition is satisfied: 1.00 < fl/f4 < 7.00. However, Tsai et al. discloses 1.00 < fl/f4 < 7.00 (3.38/5.25 = 0.644), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.00 < fl/f4 < 7.00, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 23, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses wherein the focal length of the photography optical lens assembly is f, a focal length of the first lens element is fl, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.30 < f/fl < 1.00. However, Tsai et al. discloses 0.30 < f/fl < 1.00 (3.86/3.38 = 1.16), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.30 < f/fl < 1.00, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 24, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein a displacement in parallel with an optical axis from an axial vertex on the object-side surface of the second lens element to a maximum effective radius position on the object-side surface of the second lens element is SAG2R1, a displacement in parallel with the optical axis from an axial vertex on the object-side surface of the third lens element to a maximum effective radius position on the object-side surface of the third lens element is SAG3R1, a distance in parallel with the optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of the object-side surface of the first lens element and a maximum effective radius position of the image-side surface of the first lens element is ET1, a distance in parallel with the optical axis between a maximum effective radius position of the object-side surface of the fourth lens element and a maximum effective radius position of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is ET4, and the following conditions are satisfied:0.00 <|SAG3R1/SAG2Rl< 0.85; and0.60 < ET1/ET4 < 2.10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 0.00 <|SAG3R1/SAG2Rl< 0.85; and 0.60 < ET1/ET4 < 2.10, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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 25, Tsai et al. (figure 2A) discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein the fourth smallest value among Abbe numbers of all lens elements of the photography optical lens assembly is VS4, the central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, the central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, an axial distance between the first lens element and the second lens element is T12, the axial distance between the second lens element and the third lens element is T23, the curvature radius of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is R8, the curvature radius of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is R12, the focal length of the photography optical lens assembly is f, and the following conditions are satisfied: 28.2 ≤ VS4 < 44.8; 2.24 < CT1/CT2 <4.21; 0.06 < T23/T12 < 0.21; -2.79 < R8/R12 ≤ 1.15; 0.58 <10xT23/CT1 <2.35; and 0.52 <|R8|/f+|R12|/f≤ 1.11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 28.2 ≤ VS4 < 44.8; 2.24 < CT1/CT2 <4.21; 0.06 < T23/T12 < 0.21; -2.79 < R8/R12 ≤ 1.15; 0.58 <10xT23/CT1 <2.35; and 0.52 <|R8|/f+|R12|/f≤ 1.11, 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 would recognize achieving a balance of those parameters in order to keep images sharp and prevent blurry color fringes around objects and minimize visual distortions like spherical aberration or blur to ensure sharp image clarity.
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.
Conclusion
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