DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 9-14), filed 08/11/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Ma does not disclose that larger-smaller-larger arrangement. Although paragraph [0031] of Ma generally states that the lens module may include additional lens elements, it does not disclose where any additional lens element would be positioned relative to lens elements 200 and 300, the outer diameter of such an additional lens element, or a spacer configured to position the smaller first lens element between the second and third lens elements and maintain the two claimed distances” (pgs. 9-14 of Remarks). Applicant further asserts that “The annotation of Ma’s figure in the Office Action does not substitute for an actual disclosure of those structural relationships in Ma.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claim language does not require that “a smaller-diameter glass first lens element is positioned between two larger-diameter plastic lens elements” as alleged by Applicant. Indeed, claims 1, 9 and 14 appear to be completely silent with respect to the positions of the lenses themselves. Rather, the present claim language recites that a spacer element is configured for positioning the first lens element between the second lens element and the third lens element and configured to maintain a distance between the first lens element and the second lens element and maintain another distance between the first lens element and the third lens element, which Ma’s disclosure clearly satisfies (see para [0010] of Ma: top wall 120 abuts against the lens group to restrict the lens group from moving along image side to object side direction; see FIG. 1 of Ma showing spacer element 110+111+120 configured to position the three lenses, and maintain a distance between the first L1 and second lens L2 and a distance between the first and third lens). Applicant is respectfully reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145 Section VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the outer diameter features of the lenses, the Examiner notes that the Drawings of Ma in combination with Ma’s disclosure referencing the specific features of outer diameters render claim limitations obvious when the Drawings clearly show the structure which is claimed (see MPEP § 2125, citing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)), as in the present case. Specifically, Ma’s FIG. 1 clearly shows the structures of all three lenses along with the outer diameters of the respective lenses satisfying the claimed condition: D200<D300 and D300<DL3, where 200 corresponds to the first lens, 300 corresponds to the second lens and L3 corresponds to the structure of the third lens as explicitly depicted in FIG. 1 of Ma (annotated and reproduced below for clarity). Furthermore, Ma discusses a comparison of outer diameters of lenses in the lens module embodiment in ¶0011, 0021, 0023, 0030-31 & claim 9 of Ma, thereby ensuring a correspondence between these features as discussed in Ma’s disclosure with Ma’s Drawings (¶0021, 0023, 0030: “an inner diameter of the supporting portion 400 is greater than the outer diameter of the second clamping portion 304”…“the outer diameter of the supporting portion 400 is greater than an outer diameter of the first lens 200”…”an inner diameter of the light shielding portion 500 is less than or equal to the outer diameter of the second optical portion 310”; the Examiner notes that because Ma discloses the outer diameter of 400 is greater than that of first lens 200 (discussed supra), and further discloses in ¶0011 that the supporting surface 420 of 400 abuts the 301 surface of second lens 300, the lens 300’s outer diameter necessarily extends radially such that its outer diameter exceeds that of lens 200, as explicitly shown below in FIG. 1 of Ma. Taken together, this disclosure teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that the second lens possesses a larger outer diameter than the first lens). After Ma discusses the comparison of outer diameters between the first and second lenses, Ma states in ¶0031: “the lens module may also include additional lenses connected in the above manner” (i.e., the neighboring lenses of the second and third lens)”. Thus, the Examiner has shown with evidentiary findings that the description of the article pictured (provided in Ma’s disclosure) can be relied on, in combination with Ma’s drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the existence of the third lens, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Ma explicitly discloses in ¶0011 a first lens 200, a second lens 300. Ma further states in ¶0031: “the lens module 10 may also include more lenses (i.e., more than the two lenses discussed in the disclosure), and two neighboring lenses can be connected in the above manner”. Applicant is respectfully reminded that ‘When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2125.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “The alleged second and third lens elements (L2, L3) contact or are limited by the barrel structure (100) in a radial direction, rather than being connected to opposite sides of one connecting part (CP) in a direction parallel to the optical axis.” Applicant further asserts that “the surfaces labeled as the supporting part (SP) and retaining surface (RS) contact adjacent portions of the first lens element (L1, 200) as seen in FIG. 2 of Ma below, not opposite surfaces of that lens as required by claim 1.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Ma discloses a connecting structure that is comprised within the spacer element as claimed (see FIG. 1 showing connecting part 112 comprised within spacer element 110+111+120), wherein the second lens element and the third lens element are respectively connected to opposite sides of the connecting part in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing opposite sides of connecting part “CP” connected to second lens “L2” and third lens “L3” in a direction parallel to optical axis “OA”). In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “connecting part” and “opposite sides” in light of the instant specification, Ma’s connecting part 112 satisfies the functional limitations as claimed. Applicant is respectfully reminded that “If an Office action has issued where the plain meaning of the claim terms was used, applicant may point out that the term has been given a special definition. Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” See MPEP § 2173.01 Section I. Since Applicant has not provided any such indication in the Remarks filed 08/11/2026, The Examiner maintains that Ma discloses the aforementioned limitations directed to the opposite sides of the connecting part as presently claimed. The Examiner also notes that “features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). Thus, the examiner has explained that the prior art connecting part structure possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, the present claim language utilizes the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, thereby allowing additional, unrecited elements in the imaging lens system as within the scope of the claims. See MPEP § 2111.03 Section I. In other words, Ma’s connecting part possessing additional opposite sides that are connected to the second and third lens elements, respectively, in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis “OA” (i.e., a radial direction as stated by Applicant) does not teach away from the present claim language directed to the connecting part as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
685
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant appears to make arguments that “The space labeled AG in Ma also is not an air gap located between the alleged retaining element (RE) and the first lens element (L1) adjacent to the retaining surface (RS) in the claimed manner.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that ¶0021 of Ma discusses air gaps located within the embodiment of the imaging lens module, disclosing that the air gaps are shown in the form of empty space depicted in the Drawings for the purpose of expansion under deformation (¶0021: the internal side surface 440 is spaced apart from the second connecting surface 322…when the supporting portion 400 is deformed under force, the supporting portion 400 can expand towards a space (i.e., air gap) between the internal side surface 440 and the second connecting surface 322). Therefore, FIG. 1 can be relied upon to similarly show that the depicted empty spaces between the retaining element and the first lens element and adjacent to the retaining surface, corresponds to the air gap as claimed.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “The fact that glass and plastic were each known lens element materials does not provide a reason to select the specific plastic-glass-plastic (PGP) order required by claim 1, to place the glass lens element between the two plastic lens elements, and simultaneously to adopt the claimed larger-smaller-larger diameter relationship and supporting structure in Ma.” Applicant further asserts that “A general material-selection rationale does not address the structural consequences of that particular selection.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s narrow selection of certain portions of the Huang reference’s disclosure to argue a lack of obviousness. Applicant is respectfully reminded that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See MPEP § 2123 Section I. Huang actually discloses in ¶0005: “the second lens is a plastic lens”. Huang further states that the first and third lenses may be glass or plastic (¶0089, 0086), the combination of which satisfies the requirements of the present claim language. Thus, Huang’s teachings render the claim limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging lens system of Ma in view of Huang to satisfy the claimed condition, because such glass and plastic lenses are known and would be selected to meet material optical requirements and because of the improvement of the moulding way, easy to manufacture an aspherical lens surface, thereby resulting in the optical lens group being more conducive to miniaturization and optical quality, as taught in paragraphs ¶0086, 0089 of Huang (see also Non-Final Office Action on 05/21/2026). Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the beneficial results of the material-dependent features of the lenses, the Examiner further notes it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP § 2144 Section IV citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains that the teachings and disclosure of Huang render obvious the lens material limitations as recited in the claims.
Applicant appears to make arguments that “Masuzawa is relied upon principally for an O-ring 12B or other retaining structure that does not contact the second lens 14. Even assuming that limited teaching, Masuzawa still does not disclose or suggest the claimed PGP and larger-smaller-larger arrangement, the spacer’s dual-distance function, the two-sided axial connection, or the opposing-surface support of the internal first lens.” Applicant further asserts “The stated reason that a known retaining element could be received in a lens barrel for holding explains, at most, why one might use Masuzawa’s retaining element for its ordinary holding function. It does not explain why a skilled person would reconfigure Ma into the entire arrangement [as claimed]”. However, the Examiner notes that Masuzawa was not relied upon for teachings related to the lens diameters, lens materials and/or the spacer features, but rather for combining the teachings of Ma with the teachings of Masuzawa specifically directed to the claimed surface features of the axial connection structure. In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated previously, Ma discloses: wherein the connecting part (FIG. 1: inner wall 111) has an axial connection structure connected to the second lens element (see annotated box containing a structure part of 111 below in FIG. 1 that is connected to L2), and the axial connection structure comprises: an inclined surface, configured to coaxially align the first lens element with the second lens element; and an planar surface, configured to maintain the distance between the first lens element and the second lens element (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced earlier, showing annular inclined surface “IS” connected to L2 and coaxially aligning L1 and L2, and planar surface “PS” maintaining distance between L1 and L2; paras [0010], [0013]: surface of second lens connected to wall portion restricts the first lens 200 and the second lens 300 from moving along the radial direction, and wall portion also restricts the lens group from moving along a direction from the image side to the object side). Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: annular surface (the Examiner notes that Ma’s imaging lens system satisfies the claimed features comprised within the axial connection structure as detailed above, but Ma does not explicitly disclose the annular feature of the inclined and planar surfaces). Masuzawa is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-2 & para [0006]: A lens unit; para [0044]: first lens 12, second lens 14; paras [0052-53], [0066]: lens barrel 18 fitted to a lens holding ring 20 [spacer] comprising holding and interval defining portions [connecting and supporting parts]; para [0046]: O-ring 12B [retaining element]). Masuzawa teaches: wherein the connecting part has an axial connection structure connected to the second lens element (paras [0070], [0077]: second lens 14 is fitted to the lens holding ring 20 while being received by inner peripheral surface 24A and positioned by surface 24B [axial connection structure] of the lens holding ring 20; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced earlier, showing axial connection structure within boxed area), and the axial connection structure comprises: an annular inclined surface (see FIG. 2 showing 24A portion [inclined surface] of holding ring 20 is an annular structure; see also annular inclined surface “IS” (24A) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to coaxially align the first lens element with the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0072]: surface 24 of holding ring receives second lens and is fitted to align the lenses in the insertion direction [coaxial]); and an annular planar surface (see FIG. 2 showing holding ring 20 comprising planar surface is an annular structure; see also annular planar surface “PS” (24B) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to maintain the distance between the first lens element and the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0077-78]: positioning surface 24B of holding ring is in contact with second lens portion 16, positioned to create an interval between first and second lens). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s connection structure in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition, as such an annular shape is selected to reduce insertion force and resistance required during assembly of the lens module, thereby “improving the assemblability” of the lenses, as taught in paragraphs [0071-75] of Masuzawa. Therefore, the Examiner has clearly articulated multiple reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, the rationales being: (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (2) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in the same field since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and (3) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Applicant has not persuasively disputed the Examiner’s evidentiary findings regarding the Ma and Masuzawa references which support a conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 by utilization of valid rationales, as detailed previously and below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the physical reconfiguration of Ma’s module with respect to Masuzawa’s module, Applicant is also respectfully reminded that it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). The Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding Ma’s teaching and Ma in view of Masuzawa’s teaching, both findings rendering the obviousness of the claimed surface features of the axial connection structure. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claimed axial connection structure would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as detailed previously (in Non-Final Office Action) and below.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus claims 1-12, 14-18 and 21-22 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 8, 14-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma discloses: An imaging lens system (FIGS. 1-3; para [0008]: lens module of electronic device) comprising:
A. an imaging lens assembly, comprising a first lens element (FIG. 1: 200; para [0011]: first lens 200), a second lens element (FIG. 1: 300; para [0011]: second lens 300) and a third lens element (¶0031: the lens module 10 may also include more lenses, and two neighboring lenses can be connected in the above manner; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below showing third lens L3); wherein an outer diameter of the first lens element is D1, an outer diameter of the second lens element is D2, and the following condition is satisfied: D1/D2<1 and D1/D3<1 (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing outer diameters D200<D300 and D300<DL3);
PNG
media_image1.png
689
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
B. a spacer element (FIG. 1: barrel 100 including walls 110, 111, and 120), configured for positioning the first lens element between the second lens element and the third lens element and configured to maintain a distance between the first lens element and the second lens element and maintain another distance between the first lens element and the third lens element (para [0010]: top wall 120 abuts against the lens group to restrict the lens group from moving along image side to object side direction; see FIG. 1 showing spacer element 120 configured to position the three lenses, and maintain a distance between the first and second lens and a distance between the first and third lens), and the spacer element comprising: a connecting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0013]: the second side surface 303 of the second lens 300 abuts against the inner wall 111 to restrict the second lens from moving along the radial direction of the lens), wherein the second lens element and the third lens element are respectively connected to opposite sides of the connecting part in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing opposite sides of connecting part connected to second lens L2 and third lens L3 in a direction parallel to optical axis OA); and a supporting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0010]: barrel 100 with walls 110 and 120), connected to the connecting part and extending from the connecting part towards an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly, wherein the first lens element is disposed on the supporting part (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing connecting part “SP” connected to and extending from “CP” towards optical axis “OA” and L1 disposed on it); and
PNG
media_image2.png
685
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C. a retaining element (FIGS. 1-2; para [0011]: supporting portion 400), comprising a retaining surface, wherein the retaining surface and the first lens element are abutted against each other so as to fix the first lens element to the supporting part of the spacer element (para [0011]: first supporting surface 410 abutted against first image side surface 202 of first lens 200; see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced below on left, showing retaining element “RE” with surface to fix L1 to spacer portion 100); and the retaining surface and the supporting part are respectively in physical contact with opposite surfaces of the first lens element (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below (on right side) showing retaining surface “RS” and “SP” in physical contact with opposite surfaces of first lens L1; ¶0011: first supporting surface 410 [retaining surface] abutted against first image side surface 202 of first lens 200; ¶0008: the inner wall 111 [supporting part] defines a cavity 113 in which the first lens 200 is accommodated in the cavity 113 from an object side to an image side); wherein there is an air gap between the retaining element and the first lens element, and the air gap is adjacent to the retaining surface (see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced below on left, showing air gap “AG” adjacent to surface of RE).
PNG
media_image3.png
548
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
687
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first lens element is a glass lens element, and the second lens element and the third lens element are plastic lens elements.
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07.
In the present case, Huang is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 4-7; ¶0018-19, 0087, 0092-94: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a spacer ring, and an annular fixed element), and Huang teaches: wherein the first lens element is a glass lens element, and the second lens element and the third lens element are plastic lens elements (¶0089: the first lens 410 and the second lens 420 can be glass or plastic materials, and is made of plastic material of the lens; ¶0005: the second lens is a plastic lens; ¶0086: a lens material can be glass, plastic; ¶0018, 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Ma in view of Huang to satisfy the claimed condition, because such glass and plastic lenses are known and would be selected to meet material optical requirements and because of the improvement of the moulding way, easy to manufacture an aspherical lens surface, thereby resulting in the optical lens group being more conducive to miniaturization and optical quality, as taught in paragraphs ¶0086, 0089 of Huang, and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 2, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein the retaining surface is formed as a part of a spherical surface, and the retaining surface is in physical contact with a curved surface of the first lens element (see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced above, showing a curved portion of RE surface 410 in physical contact with L1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein the retaining surface is formed as a part of a conical surface, and the retaining surface is in physical contact with a curved surface of the first lens element (see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced above, showing an angled portion of RE surface 410 in physical contact with L1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein an outer diameter of the retaining element is ϕr, the outer diameter of the second lens element is D2, and the following condition is satisfied: ϕr/D2<1 (paras [0021-23] [0030]; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing outer diameter of the retaining element “DR” < D2 of 2nd lens).
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1095
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Ma discloses: An imaging lens system (FIGS. 1-3; para [0008]: lens module of electronic device) comprising:
A. an imaging lens assembly, comprising a first lens element (FIG. 1: 200; para [0011]: first lens 200), a second lens element (FIG. 1: 300; para [0011]: second lens 300) and a third lens element (¶0031: the lens module 10 may also include more lenses, and two neighboring lenses can be connected in the above manner; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below showing third lens L3); wherein an outer diameter of the first lens element is D1, an outer diameter of the second lens element is D2, and the following condition is satisfied: D1/D2<1 and D1/D3<1 (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing outer diameters D200<D300 and D300<DL3);
PNG
media_image1.png
689
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
B. a spacer element (FIG. 1: barrel 100 including walls 110, 111, and 120), configured for positioning the first lens element between the second lens element and the third lens element and configured to maintain a distance between the first lens element and the second lens element and maintain another distance between the first lens element and the third lens element (para [0010]: top wall 120 abuts against the lens group to restrict the lens group from moving along image side to object side direction; see FIG. 1 showing spacer element 120 configured to position the three lenses, and maintain a distance between the first and second lens and a distance between the first and third lens), and the spacer element comprising: a connecting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0013]: the second side surface 303 of the second lens 300 abuts against the inner wall 111 to restrict the second lens from moving along the radial direction of the lens), wherein the connecting part and the second lens element are connected to each other, and the connecting part and the third lens element are connected to each other (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing connecting part CP and the second lens element L2 are connected to each other, and the connecting part CP and the third lens element L3 are connected to each other); and a supporting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0010]: barrel 100 with walls 110 and 120), connected to the connecting part and extending from the connecting part towards an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly, wherein the first lens element is disposed on the supporting part (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing connecting part “SP” connected to and extending from “CP” towards optical axis “OA” and L1 disposed on it); and
PNG
media_image2.png
685
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C. a retaining element (FIGS. 1-2; para [0011]: supporting portion 400), comprising a retaining surface, wherein the retaining surface and the first lens element are abutted against each other so as to fix the first lens element to the supporting part of the spacer element (para [0011]: first supporting surface 410 abutted against first image side surface 202 of first lens 200; see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced below on left, showing retaining element “RE” with surface to fix L1 to spacer portion 100);
PNG
media_image3.png
548
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 14, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein a number of lens elements of the imaging lens assembly is N, and the following condition is satisfied: 3 ≤ N ≤ 10 (FIG. 1: 200; para [0011]: first lens 200; FIG. 1: 300; para [0011]: second lens 300; ¶0031: the lens module 10 may also include more lenses, and two neighboring lenses can be connected in the above manner; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced (in claim 1 rejection) showing third lens L3).
Regarding Claim 18, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 14, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein there is an air gap between the retaining element and the first lens element, and the air gap is adjacent to the retaining surface (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 20, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 14, as above. Ma further discloses: An electronic device, comprising: the imaging lens system; and an image sensor, disposed on an image surface of the imaging lens system (¶0002, 0008: an electronic device equipped with lens modules with shooting functions such as mobile phones).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 9,904,050 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above. Ma further discloses: each of the plurality of wedged structures tapers off towards the air gap, and the plurality of wedged structures are arranged around the optical axis (para [0022]: inner side surface 440 [wedged structure] of supporting portion 400 [retaining element] is arranged obliquely relative to the optical axis; para [0024]: supporting portion 400 has an annular structure [arranged around optical axis] see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced above, showing wedged structures 440 taper off towards air gap AG and arranged around optical axis).
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the retaining element comprises a plurality of wedged structures.
However, it has been held that where a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See also St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977), rev'g 403 F. Supp. 776 (S.D. IM. 1975), cert. denied 434 U.S. 833 (1977).
In the present case, Ma discloses the retaining element comprising a wedged structure satisfying the claimed details (para [0022]: inner side surface 440 [wedged structure] of supporting portion 400 [retaining element] is arranged obliquely relative to the optical axis; para [0024]: supporting portion 400 has an annular structure [arranged around optical axis] see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced above, showing wedged structure 440 taper off towards air gap AG and arranged around optical axis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wedged structure of Ma to satisfy the claimed condition of a plurality of wedged structures, such that they can expand towards the air gap when deformed under force, for the beneficial results of preventing the lenses from moving along a direction parallel to the optical axis and affecting the imaging quality of the lens module 10 (paragraph [0021] of Ma), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Nonetheless, the Examiner further submits the reference of Lin et al. Lin is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-4, 6-7; Col’s 1-2 1: an imaging lens module with optical lens assembly including a plurality of lens elements, plastic barrel connecting/supporting parts, and an annular optical element connected thereof).
Lin teaches: wherein the retaining element (FIG. 6; Col. 8: annular optical element 300) comprises a plurality of wedged structures (FIG. 3B: top panel; Col. 8: a plurality of strip-shaped wedge structures 350 disposed on the inner annular surface 320 [retaining surface]), each of the plurality of wedged structures tapers off towards the air gap, and the plurality of wedged structures are arranged around the optical axis (see FIG. 6 showing wedged structures 350 taper off towards air gap between lens element 6104 [first lens] and annular optical element 300 [retaining element]; see FIG. 3C and Col’s 8-9: wedged structures arranged along a circumferential direction around the central axis of the annular optical element 300).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the imaging lens system of Ma in view of Lin to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a plurality of wedged structures “effectively absorb the stray light” of the retaining element, thereby “satisfying the requirements of mass production” of the retaining element and “enhancing the image quality so as to satisfy the requirements of high-end optical systems with camera functionalities”, as taught in Col’s. 4-5 & 16 of Lin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2018/0129011 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above.
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein there are a plurality of strip structures disposed between the spacer element and the retaining element, each of the plurality of strip structures extends in a direction parallel to the optical axis, and the plurality of strip structures are arranged around the optical axis.
Tsai et al. is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIG. 5A, 5E; para [0088]: optical elements 513, 515, 517, 519, and 521 are lens elements, a plastic barrel 560 [spacer], and optical element 512 [retaining element]).
Tsai teaches: wherein there are a plurality of strip structures disposed between the spacer element and the retaining element, each of the plurality of strip structures extends in a direction parallel to the optical axis, and the plurality of strip structures are arranged around the optical axis (paras [0090-92] & 5E: A plurality of stripe structures 599 are disposed on and protruded from an outer annular surface 530 of the optical element 512 [retaining element], and the parallel inner surfaces 595 of the plastic barrel 560 [spacer element] is disposed correspondingly to the stripe structure 599 [strip structure between spacer and retaining elements]; stripe structures are regularly arranged along a circumferential direction [around optical axis]; see FIG. 5A enlarged portion, showing surface 530 (from which strip structures protrude) between spacer element 560 and retaining element 512, and see FIG. 5E showing plurality of strip structures arranged around optical axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Ma in view of Tsai to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a plurality of strip structures “facilitate to reduce the manufacturing difficulty of the optical elements”, by fixing the optical elements in the plastic barrel and producing uniform application of the glue material, “such that the appearance of the imaging lens module can be neater”, as taught in paragraphs [0095-99] of Tsai.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U), and further in view of Masuzawa (US 2019/0187402 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 1, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein the connecting part (FIG. 1: inner wall 111) has an axial connection structure connected to the second lens element (see annotated box containing a structure part of 111 below in FIG. 1 that is connected to L2), and the axial connection structure comprises: an inclined surface, configured to coaxially align the first lens element with the second lens element; and an planar surface, configured to maintain the distance between the first lens element and the second lens element (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing annular inclined surface “IS” connected to L2 and coaxially aligning L1 and L2, and planar surface “PS” maintaining distance between L1 and L2; paras [0010], [0013]: surface of second lens connected to wall portion restricts the first lens 200 and the second lens 300 from moving along the radial direction, and wall portion also restricts the lens group from moving along a direction from the image side to the object side).
PNG
media_image6.png
701
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: annular surface (the Examiner notes that Ma’s imaging lens system satisfies the claimed features comprised within the axial connection structure as detailed above, but Ma does not explicitly disclose the annular feature of the inclined and planar surfaces).
However, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations or changes in shape of an element are prima facie obvious and recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section IV, citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In the present case, Ma discloses a plurality of connection structures possessing an annular shape (paras [0017], [0020], [0024]: clamping and support portions both have annular shapes), for performing the claimed functions of fixing and aligning the lens module, as well as maintaining the distance between the lenses (paras [0014-15]: support portion ensures distance between lenses are maintained and clamping portion coaxially aligns first and second lens). Furthermore, Ma teaches that the shape of the connection structure can be optimized and modified as needed (paras [0017], [0020], [0024]: shapes of clamping and support portions are annular structures that can be modified to an arc-shape circumferentially arranged around optical axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s axial connection structure to satisfy the claimed condition, since Ma teaches that the shape of the connection structures are workable and can be modified to be annular, such that the optical components in the barrel are evenly stressed, for the beneficial results of simplifying the manufacturing process and preventing deformation of lens elements (paragraphs [0017], [0020], [0024] of Ma), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Nonetheless, the Examiner further submits the reference of Masuzawa. Masuzawa is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-2 & para [0006]: A lens unit; para [0044]: first lens 12, second lens 14; paras [0052-53], [0066]: lens barrel 18 fitted to a lens holding ring 20 [spacer] comprising holding and interval defining portions [connecting and supporting parts]; para [0046]: O-ring 12B [retaining element]).
Masuzawa teaches: wherein the connecting part has an axial connection structure connected to the second lens element (paras [0070], [0077]: second lens 14 is fitted to the lens holding ring 20 while being received by inner peripheral surface 24A and positioned by surface 24B [axial connection structure] of the lens holding ring 20; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing axial connection structure within boxed area), and the axial connection structure comprises: an annular inclined surface (see FIG. 2 showing 24A portion [inclined surface] of holding ring 20 is an annular structure; see also annular inclined surface “IS” (24A) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to coaxially align the first lens element with the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0072]: surface 24 of holding ring receives second lens and is fitted to align the lenses in the insertion direction [coaxial]); and an annular planar surface (see FIG. 2 showing holding ring 20 comprising planar surface is an annular structure; see also annular planar surface “PS” (24B) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to maintain the distance between the first lens element and the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0077-78]: positioning surface 24B of holding ring is in contact with second lens portion 16, positioned to create an interval between first and second lens).
PNG
media_image7.png
455
772
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s connection structure in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition, as such an annular shape is selected to reduce insertion force and resistance required during assembly of the lens module, thereby “improving the assemblability” of the lenses, as taught in paragraphs [0071-75] of Masuzawa.
Regarding Claim 7, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 6, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein the imaging lens assembly further comprises an optical shutter disposed between the first lens element and the second lens element, and the optical shutter is closer to the optical axis than the axial connection structure (para [0029]: a light shielding portion 500, which is arranged between the first bottom surface 222 [first lens] and the second end surface 323 [second lens] and can block stray light; see FIGS. 1-2 annotated and reproduced below, showing shutter 500 located closer to optical axis OA than axial connection structure 111).
PNG
media_image8.png
710
825
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
572
877
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Masuzawa (US 2019/0187402 A1) and Huang (CN 203759336 U).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma discloses: An imaging lens system (FIGS. 1-3; para [0008]: lens module of electronic device) comprising:
A. an imaging lens assembly, comprising a first lens element (FIG. 1: 200; para [0011]: first lens 200), a second lens element (FIG. 1: 300; para [0011]: second lens 300) and a third lens element (¶0031: the lens module 10 may also include more lenses, and two neighboring lenses can be connected in the above manner; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below showing third lens L3); wherein an outer diameter of the first lens element is D1, an outer diameter of the second lens element is D2, and the following condition is satisfied: D1/D2<1 and D1/D3<1 (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing outer diameters D200<D300 and D300<DL3);
PNG
media_image1.png
689
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
B. a spacer element (FIG. 1: barrel 100 including walls 110, 111, and 120), configured for positioning the first lens element between the second lens element and the third lens element and configured to maintain a distance between the first lens element and the second lens element and maintain another distance between the first lens element and the third lens element (para [0010]: top wall 120 abuts against the lens group to restrict the lens group from moving along image side to object side direction; see FIG. 1 showing spacer element 120 configured to position the three lenses, and maintain a distance between the first and second lens and a distance between the first and third lens), and the spacer element comprising: a connecting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0013]: the second side surface 303 of the second lens 300 abuts against the inner wall 111 to restrict the second lens from moving along the radial direction of the lens), wherein the second lens element and the third lens element are respectively connected to opposite sides of the connecting part in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing opposite sides of connecting part connected to second lens L2 and third lens L3 in a direction parallel to optical axis OA); and a supporting part (FIGS. 1-3; para [0010]: barrel 100 with walls 110 and 120), connected to the connecting part and extending from the connecting part towards an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly, wherein the first lens element is disposed on the supporting part (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing connecting part “SP” connected to and extending from “CP” towards optical axis “OA” and L1 disposed on it); and
PNG
media_image2.png
685
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C. a retaining element (FIGS. 1-2; para [0011]: supporting portion 400), comprising a retaining surface, wherein the retaining surface and the first lens element are abutted against each other so as to fix the first lens element to the supporting part of the spacer element (para [0011]: first supporting surface 410 abutted against first image side surface 202 of first lens 200; see FIG. 2 annotated and reproduced below on left, showing retaining element “RE” with surface to fix L1 to spacer portion 100); and the retaining surface and the supporting part are respectively in physical contact with opposite surfaces of the first lens element (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below showing retaining surface “RS” and “SP” in physical contact with opposite surfaces of first lens L1; ¶0011: first supporting surface 410 [retaining surface] abutted against first image side surface 202 of first lens 200; ¶0008: the inner wall 111 [supporting part] defines a cavity 113 in which the first lens 200 is accommodated in the cavity 113 from an object side to an image side); wherein the retaining element is disposed between the first lens element and the second lens element (see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below showing the retaining element disposed between the first lens element L1 and the second lens element L2).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first lens element is a glass lens element, and the second lens element and the third lens element are plastic lens elements.
However, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that “selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious”. See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07.
In the present case, Huang is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 4-7; ¶0018-19, 0087, 0092-94: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a spacer ring, and an annular fixed element), and Huang teaches: wherein the first lens element is a glass lens element, and the second lens element and the third lens element are plastic lens elements (¶0089: the first lens 410 and the second lens 420 can be glass or plastic materials, and is made of plastic material of the lens; ¶0005: the second lens is a plastic lens; ¶0086: a lens material can be glass, plastic; ¶0018, 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens system of Ma in view of Huang to satisfy the claimed condition, because such glass and plastic lenses are known and would be selected to meet material optical requirements and because of the improvement of the moulding way, easy to manufacture an aspherical lens surface, thereby resulting in the optical lens group being more conducive to miniaturization and optical quality, as taught in paragraphs ¶0086, 0089 of Huang, and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: the retaining element is not in physical contact with the second lens element.
Masuzawa is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-2 & para [0006]: A lens unit; para [0044]: first lens 12, second lens 14; paras [0052-53], [0066]: lens barrel 18 fitted to a lens holding ring 20 [spacer] comprising holding and interval defining portions [connecting and supporting parts]; para [0046]: O-ring 12B [retaining element]), and Masuzawa teaches: the retaining element is not in physical contact with the second lens element (¶0046, 0065; see FIG. 1 below, showing RE disposed between first and second lens, and not in physical contact with second lens 14).
PNG
media_image10.png
466
863
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s retaining element in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining element is known and would be selected to be received in the lens barrel for holding, as taught in paragraph ¶0065 of Masuzawa.
Regarding Claim 10, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 9, as above. Masuzawa further discloses: wherein the connecting part has an axial connection structure connected to the second lens element (paras [0070], [0077]: second lens 14 is fitted to the lens holding ring 20 while being received by inner peripheral surface 24A and positioned by surface 24B [axial connection structure] of the lens holding ring 20; see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing axial connection structure within boxed area), and the axial connection structure comprises: an annular inclined surface (see FIG. 2 showing 24A portion [inclined surface] of holding ring 20 is an annular structure; see also annular inclined surface “IS” (24A) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to coaxially align the first lens element with the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0072]: surface 24 of holding ring receives second lens and is fitted to align the lenses in the insertion direction [coaxial]); and an annular planar surface (see FIG. 2 showing holding ring 20 comprising planar surface is an annular structure; see also annular planar surface “PS” (24B) annotated in FIG. 1 below), configured to maintain the distance between the first lens element and the second lens element (paras [0053-54], [0077-78]: positioning surface 24B of holding ring is in contact with second lens portion 16, positioned to create an interval between first and second lens).
PNG
media_image7.png
455
772
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s connecting part in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition, since such a connecting part is known and would be selected to improve the assemblability of the lenses and define the interval between the lenses, as taught in ¶0072, 0078, 0106 of Masuzawa.
Regarding Claim 11, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 10, as above. Ma further closes: wherein the imaging lens assembly further comprises an optical shutter disposed between the first lens element and the second lens element, and the optical shutter is closer to the optical axis than the axial connection structure (para [0029] of Ma: a light shielding portion 500 [shutter], which is arranged between the first bottom surface 222 [first lens] and the second end surface 323 [second lens] and can block stray light; see FIGS. 1-2 annotated and reproduced earlier, showing shutter 500 located closer to optical axis OA than axial connection structure 111).
Regarding Claim 12, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 9, as above. Masuzawa further discloses: wherein the spacer element is one-piece formed by injection molding process (paras [0049], [0056]: resin molding via the injection molding process to form the lens holding ring [spacer element]; see FIG. 2 showing spacer element 20 as a one-piece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s spacer element in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition, since such an injection molding process is used to produce the shape of a ring that can withstand distortion, thereby resulting in increased mechanical strength of the lens barrel, as taught in paragraphs ¶0049, 0055-56, 0060 of Masuzawa.
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding Claim 12’s limitation that the spacer element is formed by injection-molding, the Applicant is advised that “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP § 2113, Section I, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Nonetheless, the Examiner has considered the structure implied by the process steps (see details of rejection above). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Regarding Claim 13, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 9, as above. Ma further discloses: wherein an outer diameter of the retaining element is ϕr, the outer diameter of the second lens element is D2, and the following condition is satisfied: ϕr/D2<1 (paras [0021-23] [0030], see FIG. 1 annotated and reproduced below, showing outer diameter of the retaining element “DR” < D2 of 2nd lens).
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1095
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U), and further in view of Wang (US 2020/0110240 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 15, as above. Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power.
Wang is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (¶0005-06, 0007, 0033-34, 0040, 0042-45: A lens module includes a lens barrel, a first lens element, a first spacing ring and a second lens…further includes a second spacing ring…the first bearing portion is placed against the lens body, the inner circumferential surface of the lens barrel and the first spacing ring and placed between the lens body and the inner circumferential surface of the lens barrel), and Wang teaches: wherein the first lens element has positive refractive power (¶0015, 0020: the first lens element has positive refractive power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s imaging lens system in view of Wang to satisfy the claimed condition, since such a first lens is known and would be selected as part of a simplified lens assembly. Furthermore, the problem of the unqualified coaxiality of the lenses (caused by machining error) can be solved and the yield rate of the assembly of the lens module can be improved, as taught in paragraphs ¶0035 of Wang.
Claim 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0209510 A1) in view of Huang (CN 203759336 U), and further in view of Masuzawa (US 2019/0187402 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 14, as above. Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the spacer element is one-piece formed by injection molding process.
Masuzawa is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-2 & para [0006]: A lens unit; para [0044]: first lens 12, second lens 14; paras [0052-53], [0066]: lens barrel 18 fitted to a lens holding ring 20 [spacer] comprising holding and interval defining portions [connecting and supporting parts]; para [0046]: O-ring 12B [retaining element]), and Masuzawa teaches: wherein the spacer element is one-piece formed by injection molding process (paras [0049], [0056]: resin molding via the injection molding process to form the lens holding ring [spacer element]; see FIG. 2 showing spacer element 20 as a one-piece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s spacer element in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition, since such an injection molding process is used to produce the shape of a ring that can withstand distortion, thereby resulting in increased mechanical strength of the lens barrel, as taught in paragraphs ¶0049, 0055-56, 0060 of Masuzawa.
Regarding Claim 19, Ma discloses the imaging lens system according to Claim 14, as above. Ma further discloses: the retaining element is not in physical contact with the third lens element (¶0011; see FIG. 2 showing retaining element 400 is not in physical contact with the third lens element).
Ma does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the retaining element is not in physical contact with the second lens element.
Masuzawa is related to Ma with respect to an imaging lens system with a plurality of lens elements, a retaining element, and a spacer element comprising supporting and connecting parts (FIGS. 1-2 & para [0006]: A lens unit; para [0044]: first lens 12, second lens 14; paras [0052-53], [0066]: lens barrel 18 fitted to a lens holding ring 20 [spacer] comprising holding and interval defining portions [connecting and supporting parts]; para [0046]: O-ring 12B [retaining element]), and Masuzawa teaches: the retaining element is not in physical contact with the second lens element (¶0046, 0065; see FIG. 1 below, showing RE disposed between first and second lens, and not in physical contact with second lens 14).
PNG
media_image10.png
466
863
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ma’s retaining element in view of Masuzawa to satisfy the claimed condition because such a retaining element is known and would be selected to be received in the lens barrel for holding, as taught in paragraph ¶0065 of Masuzawa.
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 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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 on 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
