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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 6/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden among different groups of invention. This is not found persuasive because,
The invention groups require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention group would not likely be applicable to another.
Further the question as to whether or not inventions overlap in scope is not whether the groups share some limitations or same classification. In fact, if such were the case, no restriction between groups with a linking or generic claim would ever be proper. Clearly, such an interpretation would not be consistent with restriction practice or double patenting practice as a whole. Rather, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention, MPEP806.05.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15,17,19-20 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20210247584).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Chang teaches (Figs. 6-7, [86]) An optical imaging lens comprising:
a lens barrel (123) having a mounting portion;
a plurality of lens elements (131) sequentially disposed along an optical axis of the optical imaging lens from an object side to an image side, wherein each of the lens elements has an object-side mechanic surface facing the object side and an image-side mechanic surface facing the image side, and the object-side mechanic surfaces and the image-side mechanic surfaces are each configured to receive a bearing force; and
a light-shielding element (132), wherein the mounting portion is capable of carrying the light-shielding element, and the mounting portion has a carrying surface facing the image side,
wherein a maximum thickness of the light-shielding element in a direction parallel to the optical axis is T1, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies the following conditional expression: T1≥180 μm (~320 compared to (L11-2)/2=350 in Fig. 7),
a vertical distance from an inner edge of the object-side mechanic surface of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the image side to the optical axis is RA1, a vertical distance from an outer edge of the image-side mechanic surface of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the object side to the optical axis is RA2, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the following conditional expression: −200 μm<RA1−RA2≤450 μm (~280 compared to (L11-2)/2=350 in Fig. 7), and
the optical imaging lens satisfies the following conditional expression: 1.000≤D1/D2≤2.500 (~1.5 as seen in Fig. 7), wherein D1 (L12/2) is a vertical distance from an outer edge of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the image side to the optical axis, and D2 is a vertical distance from an outer edge of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the object side to the optical axis.
Regarding claim 17, Chang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 15, wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies the following conditional expression: 300 μm≤D1−D2 (~330 as seen in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Chang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 15, wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies the following conditional expression: 1.500≤LRmax/LRmin≤5.000 (~1.7 as seen in Fig. 7), wherein a vertical distance from an outer edge of each of the lens elements to the optical axis is an outer edge distance, LRmax is a maximum value among the outer edge distances, and LRmin is a minimum value among the outer edge distances.
Regarding claim 20, Chang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 15, wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies the following conditional expression: 1.000≤TTL/BRmax≤2.500 (~2.1 as seen in Fig. 7), wherein each of the lens elements further has an object-side optically effective surface facing the object side and allowing an imaging ray to pass through, TTL is a distance from the object-side optically effective surface of a lens element closest to the object side in the optical imaging lens to an image plane along the optical axis, and BRmax is a maximum value of a vertical distance from an outer edge of a surface of the lens barrel closest to the object side to the optical axis.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Ma (US 20200057285).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Chang teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 15, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging lens according to claim 15, wherein the image-side mechanic surface of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the object side is closer to the image side than the carrying surface of the mounting portion.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Ma teaches an image-side mechanic surface of a lens element (25 in Fig. 1) in a first order counted from a light-shielding element (the spacer below 25) toward an object side is closer to an image side than a carrying surface of the mounting portion (the step on 12 facing the spacer, i.e., a gap between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image-side mechanic surface of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the object side is closer to the image side than the carrying surface of the mounting portion as taught by Ma in the teaching of Chang for the purposes of maintaining lens distances.
Regarding claim 18, Chang teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging lens according to claim 15, wherein a minimum distance is present between the carrying surface and an optical element closest to the carrying surface in a direction parallel to the optical axis, and the minimum distance is greater than or equal to 1.000 μm and the minimum distance is less than or equal to 5.000 μm.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Ma teaches an image-side mechanic surface of a lens element (25 in Fig. 1) in a first order counted from a light-shielding element (the spacer below 25) toward an object side is closer to an image side than a carrying surface of the mounting portion (the step on 12 facing the spacer, i.e., a gap between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image-side mechanic surface of a lens element in a first order counted from the light-shielding element toward the object side is closer to the image side than the carrying surface of the mounting portion as taught by Ma in the teaching of Chang for the purposes of maintaining lens distances.
Chang in view of Ma does not explicitly teach the minimum distance is greater than or equal to 1.000 μm and the minimum distance is less than or equal to 5.000 μm, i.e., the gap between the light shielding element and the carrying surface is greater than or equal to 1.000 μm and the minimum distance is less than or equal to 5.000 μm.
However the gap is “a result-effective variable” because it confers stableness of the lens assembly and easiness of the manufacturing. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap between the light shielding element and the carrying surface is greater than or equal to 1.000 μm and the minimum distance is less than or equal to 5.000 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the gap between the light shielding element and the carrying surface is greater than or equal to 1.000 μm and the minimum distance is less than or equal to 5.000 μm for the purposes of having a stable lens assembly and easy manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights