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 1,4-9,12,14,16-17 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 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. 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) 1,5,8,16 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20200326510).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches (Fig. 1, Table 1) An optical imaging lens, comprising 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 sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through, wherein:
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is concave (r=-3.5);
a periphery region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave (122 in Fig. 1);
an abbe number of the first lens element is greater than an abbe number of the second lens element (56.6>28.2);
a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is greater than a distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis (0.892>0.213);
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the six lens elements described above; and
a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T6, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a distance from the image-side surface of the third lens element to the object-side surface of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G34, a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno, a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, the distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by G23, a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by T3, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
(T6+G12+G34)*Fno/T1≦6.000 (0.789x2.35/0.717); and (G23+T3+G34+T4)/(G12+T2)≦2.800 (1.458/0.703).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, and EFL, T1 and G12 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/(T1+G12)≦2.600 (2.1/1.077).
Regarding claim 8, Chen further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by T3, a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the object-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G45, and EFL, T3 and G45 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/(T3+G45)≦2.200 (2.1/1.429).
Regarding claim 16, mutatis mutandis, Chen teaches in Fig. 4A&Table 7 all the limitations as stated in claim 1 rejection above, and further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, and EFL and T5 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/T5≦2.200 (1.82/0.854=2.13).
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) 1,4,7,9,12,14,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20160223796).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (Fig. 1, Table 1) An optical imaging lens, comprising 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 sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through, wherein:
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is concave (r=-1.5);
an abbe number of the first lens element is greater than an abbe number of the second lens element (56.1>23.5);
a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is greater than a distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis (0.468>0.157);
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the six lens elements described above; and
a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T6, a distance from the image-side surface of the first lens element to the object-side surface of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by G12, a distance from the image-side surface of the third lens element to the object-side surface of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G34, a f-number of the optical imaging lens is represented by Fno, a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, the distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by G23, a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by T3, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the inequalities:
(T6+G12+G34)*Fno/T1≦6.000 (0.41x2.4/0.3); and (G23+T3+G34+T4)/(G12+T2)≦2.800 (0.66/0.37).
Lee does not explicitly teach a periphery region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having a periphery region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving production by allowing some manufacturing error (Fig. 1 shows the periphery region is nearly flat and a slightly concave shape will not significantly alter the image quality) and/or having desired image size by selecting/cropping the central part of the full image (which will effectively reduce the periphery region and more likely to be concave as seen in Fig. 1).
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Lee by having a periphery region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is concave for the purposes of improving production and/or having desired image size.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the object-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G45, and EFL, T1 and G45 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/(T1+G45)≦5.000 (1.65/0.4888).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a half field of view angle of the optical imaging lens is represented by HFOV, an image height of an image produced by the optical imaging lens on an image plane is represented by ImgH, and HFOV and ImgH satisfy the inequality:
HFOV/ImgH≧20.000°/mm (65.735/1.95).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to the object-side surface of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G56, and EFL, T1 and G56 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/(T1+G56)≦4.100 (1.65/0.4265).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Lee teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an image height of an image produced by the optical imaging lens on an image plane is represented by ImgH, a sum of the thicknesses of all six lens elements along the optical axis is represented by ALT, and ImgH, Fno and ALT satisfy the inequality:
ImgH*Fno/ALT≦1.900 (1.95x2.4/2.13).
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having ImgH*Fno/ALT≦1.900 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having desired image size by selecting/cropping the central part of the full image.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of Lee by having ImgH*Fno/ALT≦1.900 for the purposes of having desired image size by selecting/cropping the central part of the full image.
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a half field of view angle of the optical imaging lens is represented by HFOV, a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image plane along the optical axis is represented by TTL, and HFOV and TTL satisfy the inequality:
HFOV/TTL≧9.000°/mm (~ 65/4).
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a half field of view angle of the optical imaging lens is represented by HFOV, a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by TL, and HFOV and TL satisfy the inequality:
HFOV/TL≧11.000°/mm (~ 65/3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 6, mutatis mutandis, Chen teaches in Fig. 7A&Table 13 all the limitations as stated in claim 1 rejection above, but does not explicitly teach The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens is represented by EFL, and EFL, T2 and G23 satisfy the inequality:
EFL/(T2+G23)≦2.600 (1.85/0.704=2.628).
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having EFL/(T2+G23)≦2.600 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving production by allowing some manufacturing errors.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Chen by having EFL/(T2+G23)≦2.600 for the purposes of improving production.
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