DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlakhko et al. (US Pub. 20230341657) in view of Song et al. (CN 217360436 U with reference made to US Pub. 20230400662 as a translation).
As per claim 1, Vlakhko teaches (in figure 1) an optical imaging lens assembly, comprising seven lenses, wherein the seven lenses comprise, in sequence from an object side to an image side, a first lens having negative refractive power (first lens L1, paragraph 27), a second lens having positive refractive power (second lens L2, paragraph 27), a third lens having positive refractive power (third lens L3, paragraph 27), a fourth lens having positive refractive power (fourth lens L4, paragraph 27), a fifth lens having negative refractive power (fifth lens L5, paragraph 27), a sixth lens having positive refractive power (sixth lens L6, paragraph 27) and a seventh lens having negative refractive power (seventh lens L7, paragraph 27), and an air gap is provided between every two adjacent lenses of the first lens to the seventh lens (see table 1 located after paragraph 71); a curvature radius R8 of the image-side surface of the fourth lens (-2.598, see table 1) and a curvature radius R9 of an object-side surface of the fifth lens (-1.679, see table 1) satisfy: 1<R8/R9<4 (equal to approximately 1.55); a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens (equal to .244, see table 1), an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens (approximately 3.55, calculated from table 1) and an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens (approximately -9.53, calculated from table 1).
Vlakhko does not teach a lens barrel, a plurality of spacers wherein the seven lenses and the plurality of spacers are arranged in the lens barrel, that the plurality of spacers at least comprise a fourth spacer and a fifth spacer, the fourth spacer is located between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the fourth lens, and the fifth spacer is located between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the fifth lens; a distance EP45 between an image-side surface of the fourth spacer and an object-side surface of the fifth spacer on an optical axis and a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens satisfy: 1<EP45/CT5<4; and an inner diameter d4s of the object-side surface of the fourth spacer, an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens and an effective focal length f5 of the fifth lens satisfy: 0<d4s/(f4-f5)<0.5.
However, Song teaches (in figures 1 and 13) providing a lens barrel (see figure and paragraphs 49-50) and a plurality of spacers (first to seventh spacing elements P1 to P7) between each of the lens elements (first to seventh lenses E1 to E7) wherein the seven lenses and the plurality of spacers are arranged in the lens barrel, the plurality of spacers include a fourth spacer (P4) located between the fourth lens (E4) and the fifth lens (E5) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the fourth lens (see figure 13), and the fifth spacer (P5) is located between the fifth lens (E5) and the sixth lens (E6) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the fifth lens (see figure 13).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the values of EP45/CT5 and d4s/(f4-f5) are result effective variables in that they are directly dependent on a distance EP45 between an image-side surface of the fourth spacer and an object-side surface of the fifth spacer and inner diameter d4s of the object-side surface of the fourth spacer and Song teaches that the spacings between spacing members are a result effective variables in that it is set in order to control the air spacing distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and improve the segment difference structure (paragraph 59) and that the inner diameter of spacing members are a result effective variable in that it determines the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the lens barrel and spacing members of Song the device of Vlakhko in order to protect the lenses from damage and to set the distance EP45 between an image-side surface of the fourth spacer and an object-side surface of the fifth spacer such that 1<EP45/CT5<4 in order to control the air spacing distance between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and improve the segment difference structure and set the inner diameter d4s of the object-side surface of the fourth spacer such that 0<d4s/(f4-f5)<0.5 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality and assembly stability.
As per claim 2, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a first spacer (P1 from Song) and a second spacer (P2 from Song), the first spacer is located between the first lens (first lens L1 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E1 in Song) and the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the first lens (see figure 13 of Song), the second spacer is located between the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an inner diameter d1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and an effective focal length f2 of the second lens (approximately 7.45 calculated from table 1).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 2<f2/(d1s-d2s)<10.
However, It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of f2/(d1s-d2s) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on an inner diameter d1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameter of spacing members are a result effective variable in that it determines the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the inner diameter d1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer such that 2<f2/(d1s-d2s)<10 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality and assembly stability.
As per claim 3, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches the plurality of spacers further comprise a first spacer (P1 from Song), the first spacer is located between the first lens (first lens L1 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E1 in Song) and the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the first lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacer, an outer diameter D1m of the image-side surface of the first spacer, and a distance T12 between the image-side surface of the first lens and an object-side surface of the second lens on the optical axis (equal to .289 see table 1).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 2<(D1m-d1m)/T12<6
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of (D1m-d1m)/T12is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on an inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacer and an outer diameter D1m of the image-side surface of the first spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameter of spacing members are a result effective variable in that it determines the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60) and that the outer diameters of the spacing members are result effective variables in that it determines the processability yield amount (paragraph 57) .
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the inner diameter d1m of an image-side surface of the first spacer and the outer diameter D1m of the image-side surface of the first spacer such that 2<(D1m-d1m)/T12<6 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality and assembly stability and increase processability and yield.
As per claim 4, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a second spacer (P2 from Song), the second spacer is located between the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer, an inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacer, a curvature radius R4 (equal to 2.36 see table 1) of the image-side surface of the second lens and a curvature radius R5 (equal to 3.439 see table 1) of an object-side surface of the third lens.
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that -0.5<d2s/R4-d2m/R5<1.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of d2s/R4-d2m/R5 is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and an inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variable in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and the inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacer such that -0.5<d2s/R4-d2m/R5<1 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 5, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a third spacer (P3 from Song), the third spacer is located between the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and the fourth lens (fourth lens L4 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E4 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the third lens, and an inner diameter d3s of an object-side surface of the third spacer, an outer diameter D3m of an image-side surface of the third spacer, an effective focal length f3 (7.29, calculated from table 1) of the third lens and an effective focal length f4 (3.55, calculated from table 1) of the fourth lens.
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that : -5<(D3m-d3s)/(f4-f3)<15.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of D3m-d3s)/(f4-f3) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on an inner diameter d3s of an object-side surface of the third spacer, an outer diameter D3m of an image-side surface of the third spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60) and that the outer diameters of the spacing members are result effective variables in that they determine the processability and yield amount (paragraph 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d3s and D3m such that -5<(D3m-d3s)/(f4-f3)<15 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality and increase processability and yield.
As per claim 6, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a second spacer (P2 from Song), the second spacer is located between the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the second lens, and an inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacer, an effective diameter DT31 of a central light-transmitting region of an object-side surface of the third lens and an effective diameter DT22 of a central light-transmitting region of the image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 1 in Vlakhko and figure 13 in Song).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that -18<d2m/(DT22-DT31)<8.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of d2m/(DT22-DT31) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on inner diameter d2m of an image-side surface of the second spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d2m such that --18<d2m/(DT22-DT31)<8 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 7, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a first spacer (P1 from Song) and a second spacer (P2 from Song), the first spacer is located between the first lens (first lens L1 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E1 in Song) and the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the first lens (see figure 13 of Song), the second spacer is located between the second lens and the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an outer diameter D2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer, an effective diameter DT12 of a central light-transmitting region of the image-side surface of the first lens and an effective diameter DT22 of a central light-transmitting region of the image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 1 in Vlakhko and figure 13 in Song).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 0<|D2s-D1s|/(DT12-DT22)<0.1
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of |D2s-D1s|/(DT12-DT22) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on the outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer and the outer diameter D2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and Song teaches that the outer diameters of the spacing members are result effective variables in that they determine the processability and yield amount (paragraph 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set D1s and D2s such that -0<|D2s-D1s|/(DT12-DT22)<0.1in order to increase processability and yield.
As per claim 8, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that an inner diameter d5s of the object-side surface of the fifth spacer, an inner diameter d4m of the image-side surface of the fourth spacer, a curvature radius R9 (-1.679, see table 1 in Vlakhko) of the object-side surface of the fifth lens and a curvature radius R10 (-2.411, see table 1 in Vlakhko) of the image-side surface of the fifth lens.
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 0<d5s/R10-d4m/R9<1.5.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of d5s/R10-d4m/R9 is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on inner diameter d4m of the image-side surface of the fourth spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d4m such that 0<d5s/R10-d4m/R9<1.5in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 9, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a first spacer (P1 from Song), a second spacer (P2 from Song) and a third spacer (P3 from Song), the first spacer is located between the first lens (first lens L1 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E1 in Song) and the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the first lens (see figure 13 of Song), the second spacer is located between the second lens and the third lens (third lens L3 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E3 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the second lens (see figure 13 of Song), the third spacer is located between the third lens and the fourth lens (fourth lens L4 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E4 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the third lens (see figure 13 of Song), and the second spacer of the plurality of spacers has a minimum inner diameter; and an inner diameter d1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and an inner diameter d3s of an object-side surface of the third spacer.
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 0<(d1s-d2s)/(d3s-d2s)<3.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of (d1s-d2s)/(d3s-d2s) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on the inner diameter d1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, the inner diameter d2s of an object-side surface of the second spacer and the inner diameter d3s of an object-side surface of the third spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d1s, d2s, and d3s such that -0<(d1s-d2s)/(d3s-d2s)<3 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 10, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that an inner diameter d5s of the object-side surface of the fifth spacer (P5 from Song), an inner diameter d5m of an image-side surface of the fifth spacer, an effective diameter DT52 of a central light-transmitting region of the image-side surface of the fifth lens and an effective diameter DT61 of a central light-transmitting region of an object-side surface of the sixth lens (see figure 1 in Vlakhko and figure 13 in Song).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 0<d5s/DT52-d5m/DT61<0.5.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of d5s/DT52-d5m/DT61 is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on the inner diameter d5s of the object-side surface of the fifth spacer and the inner diameter d5m of an image-side surface of the fifth spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d5s and d5m such that -0<d5s/DT52-d5m/DT61<0.5 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 11, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a sixth spacer (P6 from Song), the sixth spacer is located between the sixth lens (sixth lens L6 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E6 in Song) and the seventh lens (seventh lens L7 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E7 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an inner diameter d6s of an object-side surface of the sixth spacer, a center thickness CT6 of the sixth lens and a center thickness CT7 of the seventh lens (see figure 1 in Vlakhko and figure 13 in Song).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 2<d6s/(CT6+CT7)<5.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of d6s/(CT6+CT7) is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on inner diameter d6s of an object-side surface of the sixth spacer and Song teaches that the inner diameters of spacing members are a result effective variables in that they determine the amount of light that is blocked thereby determining image quality and determining the assembly stability (paragraph 60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set d6s such that -2<d6s/(CT6+CT7)<5 in order to set the amount of light that is blocked to ensure high image quality.
As per claim 12, Vlakhko in view of Song teaches that the plurality of spacers further comprise a first spacer (P1 from Song) and a sixth spacer (P6 from Song), the first spacer is located between the first lens (first lens L1 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E1 in Song) and the second lens (second lens L2 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E2 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the first lens (see figure 13 of Song), the sixth spacer is located between the sixth lens (sixth lens L6 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E6 in Song) and the seventh lens (seventh lens L7 in Vlakhko, corresponding to E7 in Song) and abuts against part of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (see figure 13 of Song), and an outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer, an outer diameter D6m of an image-side surface of the sixth spacer, an effective diameter DT11 of a central light-transmitting region of an object-side surface of the first lens and an effective diameter DT72 of a central light-transmitting region of an image-side surface of the seventh lens (see figure 1 in Vlakhko and figure 13 in Song).
Vlakhko in view of Song do not explicitly teach that 1.7<D1s/D6m+DT11/DT72<2.1.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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).
In the instant case, the value of D1s/D6m+DT11/DT72 is a result effective variable in that is directly dependent on the outer diameter D1s of an object-side surface of the first spacer and the outer diameter D6m of an image-side surface of the sixth spacer and Song teaches that the outer diameters of the spacing members are result effective variables in that they determine the processability and yield amount (paragraph 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set D1s and D6m such that -1.7<D1s/D6m+DT11/DT72<2.1 in order to increase processability and yield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, 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 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights