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 E (figure 15; claims 14-17 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 07/02/2009 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 figures 1, 5, 9-10 and claims 1-13 and 18 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 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 7,894,142).
Regarding claim 1, Tang et al. (figures 2A and 6A) discloses a lens assembly comprising:
a first lens which is with positive refractive power and comprises a convex surface facing an object side (210; see at least abstract);
a second lens which is with positive refractive power and comprises a convex surface facing an image side (220; see at least abstract); and
a third lens which is with refractive power and comprises a concave surface facing the image side (230);
wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are arranged in order from the object side to the image side along an optical axis.
Tang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lens assembly satisfies at least one of following conditions: 1.2<f/√R11 <1.5; 1.7 mm2 < fxTTL < 2.8 mm2; 1.2 mm < (fxf2)/TTL < 3.5 mm; 4< R12/BFL <5; 10 mm < (f2xf2)/(TTL/2) < 24 mm; wherein f is an effective focal length of the lens assembly, f2 is an effective focal length of the second lens, TTL is an interval from an object side surface of the first lens to an image plane along the optical axis, BFL is an interval from an image side surface of the third lens to the image plane along the optical axis, R11 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens, and R12 is a radius of curvature of an image side surface of the first lens. Tang et al. teaches f/√R11 = 1.10//√1.101 = 1.1 (figures 2A and 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.2<f/√R11 <1.5, 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 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, Tang et al. (figures 2A and 6A) discloses wherein: the first lens is a meniscus lens and further comprises a concave surface facing the image side; and the second lens is a meniscus lens and further comprises a concave surface facing the object side (210 and 220).
Regarding claim 16, Tang et al. (figures 2A and 6A) discloses wherein the third lens is a meniscus lens and further comprises a convex surface facing the object side (230).
Regarding claim 17, Tang et al. (figures 2A and 6A) discloses wherein the third lens is with positive refractive power (see at least abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Tang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lens assembly satisfies at least one of following conditions: 0.4 mm-2< 1/(fxfl) < 0.6 mm2; 9< R12/CT1 ≤17; -4 < (R21+R22)/CT2 ≤7 mm; f3/(Vd2/Vd3)|< 23 mm; 0.01 < CT3/f3|< 0.05; 12 < (fl/CT1)+(f2/CT2) < 30; 6≤ (fl+f2)/(CT1+CT2) < 13; 1.2 < f/(CT1+CT2+CT3) < 1.9; 6 mm < R31-(fl+f3)|<22 mm; 3< (TTL+f)/R11 <4.5; wherein f is the effective focal length of the lens assembly, f1 is the effective focal length of the first lens, f2 is the effective focal length of the second lens, f3 is an effective focal length of the third lens, R11 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the first lens, R12 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the first lens, R21 is a radius of curvature of the object side surface of the second lens, R22 is a radius of curvature of the image side surface of the second lens, R31 is the radius of curvature of an object side surface of the third lens, TTL is an interval from the object side surface of the first lens to an image plane along the optical axis, Vd2 is an Abbe number of the second lens, Vd3 is an Abbe number of the third lens, CT1 is the interval from the object side surface of the first lens to the image side surface of the first lens along the optical axis, CT2 is the interval from the object side surface of the second lens to the image side surface of the second lens along the optical axis, and CT3 is an interval from an object side surface of the third lens to an image side surface of the third lens along the optical axis. Tang et al. teaches R12/CT1 = 4.3768/0.493 = 8.9 (figures 2A and 6A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 9< R12/CT1 ≤17, 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 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 7,894,142) in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems: Volume 3, Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems", pages 376-379, 2007.
Regarding claim 8, Tang et al. (figures 2A and 6A) discloses wherein the first lens, the second lens, and the third lens are aspheric lenses and made of plastic material (see at least column 9, lines 10-40). However, Tang et al. is silent regarding comprising a stop disposed between the object side and the first lens. Chen (figure 1) teaches comprising a stop disposed between the object side and the first lens (see at least Zero Power Operations, pages 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an aperture stop as taught by Gross et al. in order to regulate light entry, control depth of field, define image brightness and resolution, prevent vignetting, and standardize performance metrics.
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