DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Note: The singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.).
Regarding Claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 cites “a lens group, composed of six lenses having refractive powers” (line 2), that is, the lens group includes only six lens elements, which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 1 also recites “a lens group, …, comprising, sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side, a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens and a sixth lens that have refractive powers;” (line 2-4), that is, the lens group includes at least six lens elements (--may more than six), which is a broad statement of the range/limitation. And The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP 2015072403, English translation attached) in a view of Gao et al (US 20240176107).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawasaki teaches an optical camera lens assembly (abstract; figs. 1-2, 11, 13 and 21), comprising:
a lens group, composed of six lenses having refractive powers, and comprising, sequentially along an optical axis from an object side to an image side, a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens and a sixth lens that have refractive powers (fig. 1, L1 - L6; fig. 13, L1 - L6);
a plurality of separating pieces lens (fig. 2, L1-L6, FSs between lenses), comprising:
a first separating piece, positioned on an image side of the first lens and partially in contact with an image-side surface of the first lens;
a second separating piece, positioned on an image side of the second lens and partially in contact with an image-side surface of the second lens;
a third separating piece, positioned on an image side of the third lens and partially in contact with an image-side surface of the third lens;
a fourth separating piece, positioned on an image side of the fourth lens and partially in contact with an image-side surface of the fourth lens; and
a fifth separating piece, positioned on an image side of the fifth lens and partially in contact with an image-side surface of the fifth lens (fig. 2, L1-L6, FSs between lenses); and
a lens barrel, used to accommodate the lens group and the plurality of separating pieces (fig. 1, 54; fig. 2, 54),
wherein the optical camera lens assembly satisfies:
0<d5s/f5<1.0 and
0<d5s/f6<1.0,
wherein f5 is an effective focal length of the fifth lens, f6 is an effective focal length of the sixth lens, and d5s is an inner diameter of the object-side surface of the fifth separating piece (fig. 13, L5, L6; ¶[0121], Table 15, given d5s = 3.557; f5 = 9.9549, f6 = 15.1947; so d5s/f5 = 0.357, d5s/f6 = 0.234).
But Kawasaki does not specifically disclose that wherein the optical camera lens assembly satisfies: 10<(EP45+CP5)/T56<40.0, wherein EP45 is a spacing distance from an image-side surface of the fourth separating piece to an object-side surface of the fifth separating piece in a direction of the optical axis, CP5 is a maximal thickness of the fifth separating piece along the direction of the optical axis, T56 is an air spacing between the fifth lens and the sixth lens on the optical axis.
However, Gao teaches an optical imaging lens assembly (abstract; figs. 1-10),
wherein the optical camera lens assembly satisfies:
10<(EP45+CP5)/T56<40.0,
(¶[0064], Table 1, given T56 = 0.030; ¶[0067], Table 2, given EP45 = 0.637, CP5 = 0.529; so (EP45+CP5)/T56 = 38.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging lens assembly of Kawasaki by the optical imaging lens assembly of Gao for a purpose of reducing the phenomenon of stray light and improving the image quality of the product (¶[0053], line 10-19).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
-5.0<f4/(EP34+CT4)< -2.0,
wherein f4 is an effective focal length of the fourth lens, EP34 is a spacing distance from an image-side surface of the third separating piece to an object-side surface of the fourth separating piece in the direction of the optical axis, and CT4 is a center thickness of the fourth lens on the optical axis.
(¶[0064], Table 1, given CT4 = 0.2580, f4 = -5.31; ¶[0067], Table 2 given, EP34 = 0.736; so f4/(EP34+CT4) = -5.34, as disclosed in Gao; --the value is very close to claimed range limit. Since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 5, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
0<d4s/|(f4+f5)|<1.0, and
(¶[0064], Table 1, given f4 = -5.31, f5 = 1.48; ¶[0067], Table 2 given, d4s = 2.846; so d4s/|(f4+f5)| = 0.74, as disclosed in Gao);
1.62<(N4+N5)/2<1.80;
wherein N4 is a refractive index of the fourth lens, N5 is a refractive index of the fifth lens, d4s is an inner diameter of an object-side surface of the fourth separating piece, and f4 is an effective focal length of the fourth lens,
(¶[0064], Table 1, given N4 = 1.68, N5 = 1.55; so (N4+N5)/2 = 1.615, as disclosed in Gao; --the value is very close to claimed range limit. Since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
3.0<L/(CT5+T56+CT6)<4.0,
wherein L is a spacing distance from an object-side end of the lens barrel to an image-side end of the lens barrel in the direction of the optical axis, CT5 is a center thickness of the fifth lens on the optical axis, and CT6 is a center thickness of the sixth lens on the optical axis.
(¶[0064], Table 1, given CT5 = 1.300, T56 = 0.030, CT6 = 0.470; ¶[0067], Table 2 given, L = 5.250; so L/(CT5+T56+CT6) = 2.92, as disclosed in Gao; --the value is very close to claimed range limit. Since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
-10.0 <R9/R12< -1.0 and
(¶[0112], Table 10, given R9 = 2.8251, R12 = -1.1548; so R9/R12 = - 2.45, as disclosed in Kawasaki);
4.0< f56/(EP45+T56)<10.0,
(¶[0064], Table 1, given T56 = 0.030; f5 = 1.48, f6 = -1.95; so f56 can be estimated as f56 = 6.14; ¶[0067], Table 2 given, EP45 = 0.637; so f56/(EP45+T56) = 9.20, as disclosed in Gao);
wherein R9 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fifth lens, R12 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens, and f56 is a combined focal length of the fifth lens and the sixth lens.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
-2.0 <d0s/R1< -0.5,
wherein R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, and d0s is an inner diameter of an object-side end of the lens barrel.
(¶[0064], Table 1, given R1 = -6.2320; ¶[0067], Table 2 given d0s = 6.091; so d0s/R1 = - 0.977, as disclosed in Gao);
Regarding Claim 10, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, satisfying:
110.0°<FOV<120.0° and
0.3<d0s/d0m<0.7,
wherein FOV is a maximal field-of-view of the optical camera lens assembly, d0s is an inner diameter of an object-side end of the lens barrel, and d0m is an inner diameter of an image-side end of the lens barrel,
(¶[0075], half of a maximum field-of-view Semi-FOY of the optical imaging lens assembly is 61.8°, --- FOV = 123.6°; ¶[0094], Table 11 given d0s = 5.778; d0m = 7.215, so d0s/d0m = 0.80, as disclosed in Gao; --- the values are very close to claimed range limits. Since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 11, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein a maximal diameter of any lens in the first lens to the fourth lens is smaller than a maximal diameter of the fifth lens (fig. 1, L5 and L1-L4, as disclosed in Kawasaki).
Regarding Claim 12, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein surfaces of at least one of the first lens or the sixth lens have at least one inflection point (fig. 13, L4, L6, as disclosed in Kawasaki; fig. 1A, E5, E6, as disclosed in Gao).
Regarding Claim 16, Kawasaki – Gao combination teaches that the optical camera lens assembly according to claim 1, wherein
the object-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface, and the image-side surface of the first lens is a convex surface (fig. 5B, E1, --having concave in center of object-side surface, and convex surfaces on peripheral areas of image-side surface, as disclosed in Gao);
the second lens has a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the second lens is a convex surface, and the image-side surface of the second lens is a concave surface (fig. 1A, E2; ¶[0064], Table 1, given f2 = 9.20, as disclosed in Gao);
the third lens has a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface, and the image-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface (fig. 1A, E3; ¶[0064], Table 1, given f3 = 2.76, as disclosed in Gao);
the fourth lens has a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the fourth lens is a concave surface, and the image-side surface of the fourth lens is a convex surface (fig. 1A, E4; ¶[0064], Table 1, given f4 = -5.31, as disclosed in Gao);
the fifth lens has a positive refractive power, the object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface, and the image-side surface of the fifth lens is a convex surface (fig. 1A, E5; ¶[0064], Table 1, given f5 = 1.48, as disclosed in Gao); and
the sixth lens has a positive refractive power, an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface, and the image-side surface of the sixth lens is a concave surface (fig. 13, L6, ----having convex in center of object-side surface, and concave surfaces on peripheral areas of image-side surface; ¶[0121], Table 15, given f6 = 15.1947, as disclosed in Kawasaki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7 and 13-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a 112 rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in case the 112 rejection is overcome by a proper amendment.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claims 2-3, 7 and 13-15, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical camera lens assembly further comprising:
wherein satisfying: 0<f2/f<ll0 and -1.0<EP12/f2-EP12/R4<0;
wherein satisfying: - 1.0<f3/f4< 0 and 1.5<d3s/f3-D3s/f4<2.5;
wherein satisfying: 5mm<D5s/lR8/R9l<10.0mm
wherein 0 < (DT11-Yc11)/d1s < 0.6;
wherein satisfies: 2.0<d5s/Yc62<3.0; and
wherein satisfies: 0<(d5bm+d5cm)/f6<2.0.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272 2434.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights