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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0189764, in view of Mu et al. foreign patent document CN219695550.
Regarding claim 1 Wang discloses an optical imaging lens assembly (title), comprising a lens barrel (inter alia paragraph [0110] “the photographing lens assembly can include … a barrel” see figure 19), and a lens group (e.g. examples 1, 3, 7 & 9 see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17) and at least one spacing element that are accommodated in the lens barrel (inter alia paragraph [0110] “the photographing lens assembly can include … an annular spacer”), wherein the lens group comprises a first lens (e.g. first lens element E1), a second lens (e.g. second lens element E2), a third lens (e.g. third lens element E3), a fourth lens (e.g. fourth lens element E4), a fifth lens (e.g. fifth lens element E5) and a sixth lens (e.g. sixth lens element E6) that are sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); the first lens has a negative refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), an object-side surface of the first lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17), and an image-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); the second lens has a positive refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), an object-side surface of the second lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17), and an image-side surface of the second lens is a concave surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); the third lens has a positive refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), an object-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17), and an image-side surface of the third lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); the fourth lens has a positive refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), an object-side surface of the fourth lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17), and an image-side surface of the fourth lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); the fifth lens has a negative refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), and an object-side surface of the fifth lens is a concave surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17); and the sixth lens has a positive refractive power (e.g. see Tables 1A, 3A, 7A & 9A), and an object-side surface of the sixth lens is a convex surface (see figures 1, 5, 13 & 17).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the at least one spacing element comprises: a first spacing element, positioned between the first lens and the second lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the first lens, and the optical imaging lens assembly satisfies: 0.28≤(D0s-d0s)/(EPD×tan(Semi-FOV))≤0.5, and 2.24≤d1m/(R2×N1)≤2.77.
Mu teaches a similar optical imaging lens assembly (title e.g. see figures 2-3) including a lens barrel (e.g. barrel P0), and a lens group of six lenses (e.g. lenses E1-E6) and at least one spacing element that are accommodated in the lens barrel (e.g. spacer elements P1-P6); and further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) comprises: a first spacing element (e.g. first spacer element P1), positioned between the first lens and the second lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the first lens (paragraph [n0084] “P1 located between the first lens E1 and the second lens E2 and in contact with the image side of the first lens E1” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by Wang to include a first spacing element between the first lens and the second lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the first lens as taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding the optical imaging lens assembly satisfying: 0.28≤(D0s-d0s)/(EPD×tan(Semi-FOV))≤0.5, and 2.24≤d1m/(R2×N1)≤2.77 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 0.28≤(D0s-d0s)/(EPD×tan(Semi-FOV))≤0.5, and 2.24≤d1m/(R2×N1)≤2.77, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Regarding satisfying -14.87≤V1×(EP01+CP1)/(f1×R1)≤-10.99 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy -14.87≤V1×(EP01+CP1)/(f1×R1)≤-10.99, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Regarding satisfying 0.3<(DT11-DT12)/(D1s-d1s) ≤1.24 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 0.3<(DT11-DT12)/(D1s-d1s) ≤1.24, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a second spacing element, positioned between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens, and satisfy: 6.37≤D2s/DT22≤10.24.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a second spacing element (e.g. second spacer element P2), positioned between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens (paragraph [n0084] “P2 located between the second lens E2 and the third lens E3 and in contact with the image side of the second lens E2” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a second spacing element between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying 6.37≤D2s/DT22≤10.24– either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 6.37≤D2s/DT22≤10.24, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a second spacing element, positioned between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens, and satisfy: 4.81mm≤|R3×f2|/(N2+CT2+EP12)≤8.38mm.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a second spacing element (e.g. second spacer element P2), positioned between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens (paragraph [n0084] “P2 located between the second lens E2 and the third lens E3 and in contact with the image side of the second lens E2” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a second spacing element between the second lens and the third lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the second lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying 4.81mm≤|R3×f2|/(N2+CT2+EP12)≤8.38mm – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 4.81mm≤|R3×f2|/(N2+CT2+EP12)≤8.38mm, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a third spacing element, positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens, and satisfy: -0.11≤(T34-CP3)×V3/f3≤0.79.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a third spacing element (e.g. third spacer element P3), positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens (paragraph [n0084] “P3 located between the third lens E3 and the fourth lens E4 and in contact with the image side of the third lens E3” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a third spacing element between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying -0.11≤(T34-CP3)×V3/f3≤0.79 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy -0.11≤(T34-CP3)×V3/f3≤0.79, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a third spacing element, positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens, and satisfy: 1.22≤D3s/R6+D3m/R7≤3.62.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a third spacing element (e.g. third spacer element P3), positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens (paragraph [n0084] “P3 located between the third lens E3 and the fourth lens E4 and in contact with the image side of the third lens E3” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a third spacing element between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying 1.22≤D3s/R6+D3m/R7≤3.62– either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 1.22≤D3s/R6+D3m/R7≤3.62, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a third spacing element, positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens; and a fourth spacing element, positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens, and satisfy: 0.14≤(EP34+CP4)/(f4×N4)≤0.25.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a third spacing element (e.g. third spacer element P3), positioned between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens (paragraph [n0084] “P3 located between the third lens E3 and the fourth lens E4 and in contact with the image side of the third lens E3” see figure 3), and a fourth spacing element (e.g. fourth spacer element P4), positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P4 located between the fourth lens E4 and the fifth lens E5 and in contact with the image side of the fourth lens E4” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a third spacing element between the third lens and the fourth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the third lens and a fourth spacing element between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying 0.14≤(EP34+CP4)/(f4×N4)≤0.25 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 0.14≤(EP34+CP4)/(f4×N4)≤0.25, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a fourth spacing element, positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens; and a fifth spacing element, positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with an image-side surface of the fifth lens, and satisfy: -0.54≤(d5s-d4m)/R10≤0.34.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a fourth spacing element (e.g. fourth spacer element P4), positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P4 located between the fourth lens E4 and the fifth lens E5 and in contact with the image side of the fourth lens E4” see figure 3) and a fifth spacing element (e.g. fifth spacer element P5), positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P5 located between the fifth lens E5 and the sixth lens E6 and in contact with the image side of the fifth lens E5” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a fourth spacing element between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens and a fifth spacing element between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying -0.54≤(d5s-d4m)/R10≤0.34 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy -0.54≤(d5s-d4m)/R10≤0.34, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a fifth spacing element, positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with an image-side surface of the fifth lens, and satisfy: 3.95≤D5m/DT61<4.94.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a fifth spacing element (e.g. fifth spacer element P5), positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P5 located between the fifth lens E5 and the sixth lens E6 and in contact with the image side of the fifth lens E5” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a fifth spacing element between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying 3.95≤D5m/DT61<4.94 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy 3.95≤D5m/DT61<4.94, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Wang as modified by Mu discloses the optical imaging lens assembly according to claim 1, as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one spacing element further comprises: a fourth spacing element, positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens; and a fifth spacing element, positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with an image-side surface of the fifth lens, and satisfy: -0.10≤(EP45+CP5+CT5)/R12≤0.66.
Mu further teaches the at least one spacing element (e.g. P1-P6) further comprises: a fourth spacing element (e.g. fourth spacer element P4), positioned between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P4 located between the fourth lens E4 and the fifth lens E5 and in contact with the image side of the fourth lens E4” see figure 3) and a fifth spacing element (e.g. fifth spacer element P5), positioned between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens (paragraph [n0084] “P5 located between the fifth lens E5 and the sixth lens E6 and in contact with the image side of the fifth lens E5” see figure 3) for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment (paragraph [n0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one spacing element in the optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to further include a fourth spacing element between the fourth lens and the fifth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fourth lens and a fifth spacing element between the fifth lens and the sixth lens and in direct contact with the image-side surface of the fifth lens as further taught by Mu for the purpose of improving the lens's imaging quality by providing sufficient space for system coma adjustment.
Regarding satisfying -0.10≤(EP45+CP5+CT5)/R12≤0.66 – either (1) this is inherent given structure, function and intended use of the combination of Wang as modified by Mu or (2) this is defining an optimal or working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Wang as modified by Mu has a stack of six lenses with the required powers and curvatures separate by spacer elements in a barrel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to adjust the sizes for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone (see Wang figures 20-23 & 25-26 and Mu paragraphs [n0002 & n0151]). Further, a modification would have involved a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, in the case where satisfaction of the conditions is not inherent, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for optical imaging lens assembly as disclosed by the combination of Wang as modified by Mu to satisfy -0.10≤(EP45+CP5+CT5)/R12≤0.66, for the purpose of fitting the optical imaging lens assembly into a particular device, such as a smartphone, as indicated by both Wang and Mu, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and a change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0291292; in regards to an optical imaging lens assembly (title), comprising a lens barrel (paragraph [0057] “include a barrel member”), and a lens group (e.g. examples 3-5, see figures 5, 7 & 9) comprising: a first negative lens with a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface (e.g. x10), a second positive lens with a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface (e.g. x20), a third positive lens with a convex object-side surface and a convex image-side surface (e.g. x30), a fourth positive lens with a convex object-side surface and a convex image-side surface (e.g. x40), a fifth negative lens with a concave object-side surface, and a sixth positive lens with a convex object-side surface.
Wu et al. foreign patent document CN218601567; in regards to an optical imaging lens assembly (title e.g. see figure 2), comprising a lens barrel (e.g. P0) holding six lenses (e.g. E1-E6) with spacer elements between the lenses (e.g. P1-P5) for the purpose of blocking excess external light and enhancing the structural stability (paragraph [n0093]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights