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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 1/17/2025 and 10/17/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (TW I500958 B). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a lens assembly (Fig 8A, [0184], imaging lens assembly, Table 15, Table 16) comprising: an aperture (Stop); an image sensor (I) aligned with the aperture (800) on an optical axis (890), the image sensor comprising an imaging plane (img) configured to receive at least a portion of light incident through the aperture (800); and a plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) sequentially arranged along the optical axis (890) between the aperture and the image sensor, the plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) comprising a first lens (810) closest to the aperture among the plurality of lenses and having a positive refractive power ([0185]), a second lens (820) adjacent to the first lens and having a negative refractive power ([0186]), a third lens (830) adjacent to the second lens (Fig 8A), a fourth lens (840) adjacent to the third lens (Fig 8A), and a fifth lens (850) closest to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses and having a positive refractive power ([0188]), wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.55 <
O
A
L
2
I
H
< 0.7 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 1 calculated to be 0.66 and within the claimed range), -0.05 <
T
23
-
T
12
E
F
L
< 0.05 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 2 calculated to be -0.018 and within the claimed range), and 90° <= FOV < = 110° (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 3 calculated to be 92° and within the claimed range), and wherein OAL corresponds to a distance between the imaging plane and an object-side surface (S2) or an aperture-side surface of the first lens (810) measured on the optical axis (890), IH corresponds to a maximum height of the imaging plane (Table 15), T12 corresponds to a gap between the first lens (810) and the second lens (820) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), T23 corresponds to a gap between the second lens (820) and the third lens (830) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), EFL corresponds to a total focal length of the lens assembly (Table 15), and FOV corresponds to a field of view of the lens assembly ([0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Chung discloses wherein the lens assembly satisfies 20 <= Vd1- Vd2 <= 45 (Table 15, Vd1-Vd2 = 34.3 which is within the claimed range), and wherein Vd1 corresponds to an Abbe number of the first lens (Table 15, Vd1 is disclosed to be 55.7) and Vd2 corresponds to an Abbe number of the second lens (Table 15, Vd1 is disclosed to be 21.4).
Regarding claim 4, Chung discloses wherein each of the plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) comprises an inflection point on at least one of an object-side surface (Fig 8A shows inflection point on surface 811, 821, 831, 841, and 851) and an image sensor-side surface.
Regarding claim 5, Chung discloses wherein each of the third lens (830), the fourth lens (840), and the fifth lens (850) comprises an inflection point on an object-side surface and an image sensor- side surface (Fig 8A shows that lens 830, 840, 850 have an inflection point on sides 831 and 832, 841 and 842, and 851 and 852).
Regarding claim 11, Chung discloses wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.25 <
B
F
L
I
H
< 0.45 (Fig 8A, Table 15, distance between 851 and 870 calculated to 0.37 and within the claimed range), and wherein BFL corresponds to a distance from an image sensor-side surface of the fifth lens to the imaging plane on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 15, Chung discloses an electronic assembly ([0001], imaging lens assembly for use in electronic products) comprising: a lens assembly (Fig 8A, [0184], imaging lens assembly, Table 15, Table 16) comprising: an aperture (Stop); an image sensor (I) aligned with the aperture (800) on an optical axis (890), the image sensor comprising an imaging plane (img) configured to receive at least a portion of light incident through the aperture (800); and a plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) sequentially arranged along the optical axis (890) between the aperture and the image sensor, the plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) comprising a first lens (810) closest to the aperture among the plurality of lenses and having a positive refractive power ([0185]), a second lens (820) adjacent to the first lens and having a negative refractive power ([0186]), a third lens (830) adjacent to the second lens (Fig 8A), a fourth lens (840) adjacent to the third lens (Fig 8A), and a fifth lens (850) closest to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses and having a positive refractive power ([0188]), and a processor configured to obtain an image of a subject using the lens assembly ([0229], used within mobile device, digital cameras, 3D image capture), wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.55 <
O
A
L
2
I
H
< 0.7 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 1 calculated to be 0.66 and within the claimed range), -0.05 <
T
23
-
T
12
E
F
L
< 0.05 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 2 calculated to be -0.018 and within the claimed range), and 90° <= FOV < = 110° (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 3 calculated to be 92° and within the claimed range), and wherein OAL corresponds to a distance between the imaging plane and an object-side surface (S2) or an aperture-side surface of the first lens (810) measured on the optical axis (890), IH corresponds to a maximum height of the imaging plane (Table 15), T12 corresponds to a gap between the first lens (810) and the second lens (820) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), T23 corresponds to a gap between the second lens (820) and the third lens (830) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), EFL corresponds to a total focal length of the lens assembly (Table 15), and FOV corresponds to a field of view of the lens assembly ([0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Chung discloses wherein the lens assembly satisfies 20 <= Vd1- Vd2 <= 45 (Table 15, Vd1-Vd2 = 34.3 which is within the claimed range), and wherein Vd1 corresponds to an Abbe number of the first lens (Table 15, Vd1 is disclosed to be 55.7) and Vd2 corresponds to an Abbe number of the second lens (Table 15, Vd1 is disclosed to be 21.4).
Regarding claim 18, Chung discloses wherein each of the plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) comprises an inflection point on at least one of an object-side surface (Fig 8A shows inflection point on surface 811, 821, 831, 841, and 851) and an image sensor-side surface.
Regarding claim 20, Chung discloses a lens assembly (Fig 8A, [0184], imaging lens assembly, Table 15, Table 16) comprising: an aperture (Stop); an image sensor (I) aligned with the aperture (800) on an optical axis (890), the image sensor comprising an imaging plane (img) configured to receive at least a portion of light incident through the aperture (800); and a plurality of lenses (810, 820, 830, 840, 850) sequentially arranged along the optical axis (890) between the aperture and the image sensor, wherein a first lens (810) of the plurality of lenses that is closest to the aperture (Stop) has a positive refractive power ([0185]), wherein the second lens (820) comprises an inflection point on an image side surface and an inflection point on an object side surface (Fig 8A shows an inflection point on 820 within each side of 821 and 822), wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.55 <
O
A
L
2
I
H
< 0.7 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 1 calculated to be 0.66 and within the claimed range), -0.05 <
T
23
-
T
12
E
F
L
< 0.05 (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 2 calculated to be -0.018 and within the claimed range), and 90° <= FOV < = 110° (see [0163], Table 15, Conditional expression 3 calculated to be 92° and within the claimed range), and wherein OAL corresponds to a distance between the imaging plane and an object-side surface (S2) or an aperture-side surface of the first lens (810) measured on the optical axis (890), IH corresponds to a maximum height of the imaging plane (Table 15), T12 corresponds to a gap between the first lens (810) and the second lens (820) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), T23 corresponds to a gap between the second lens (820) and the third lens (830) measured on the optical axis (Table 15), EFL corresponds to a total focal length of the lens assembly (Table 15), and FOV corresponds to a field of view of the lens assembly ([0055]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (TW I500958 B). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 7, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape comprising a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the first lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape comprising a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the first lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 8, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein the second lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the second lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein the second lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the second lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 9, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein the third lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a convex image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein the third lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a convex image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 10, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 12, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein each of the first lens and the second lens comprises an inflection point on at least one of an object-side surface and an image sensor-side surface, and wherein each of the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens comprises an inflection point on an object-side surface and an image sensor-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein each of the first lens and the second lens comprises an inflection point on at least one of an object-side surface and an image sensor-side surface, and wherein each of the third lens, the fourth lens, and the fifth lens comprises an inflection point on an object-side surface and an image sensor-side surface, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 13, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape comprising a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, wherein the first lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface, wherein the second lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the second lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein the first lens has a meniscus shape comprising a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, wherein the first lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface, wherein the second lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein the second lens comprises an inflection point on the concave image sensor-side surface, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 14, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1 but doesn’t specify wherein the third lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a convex image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein the third lens comprises a concave object-side surface and a convex image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, and wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Regarding claim 19, Chung discloses all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15 but doesn’t specify wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide wherein each of the fourth lens and the fifth lens comprises a convex object-side surface and a concave image sensor-side surface in a paraxial region, since 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 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235. As discussed by Chung, the chosen shapes are utilized to reduce aberrations and optimize the length of the imaging lens assembly (Chung, [0227]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 2, the prior art of Chung taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a lens assembly including the specific arrangement: “wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.05 <
Y
22
-
Y
11
E
F
L
< 0.16, and wherein Y11 corresponds to an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens and Y22 corresponds to an effective radius of an image sensor-side surface of the second lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of Chung taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a lens assembly including the specific arrangement: “wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.95 <
O
A
L
T
s
i
< 1.05, and wherein Tsi corresponds to a distance from the aperture to the imaging plane on the optical axis”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 16, the prior art of Chung taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an electronic device including the specific arrangement: “wherein the lens assembly satisfies 0.05 <
Y
22
-
Y
11
E
F
L
< 0.16, and wherein Y11 corresponds to an effective radius of the object-side surface of the first lens and Y22 corresponds to an effective radius of an image sensor-side surface of the second lens”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (20160109686) and Liao (20200192061) are examples of an optical imaging assembly used within an electronic device such as a smartphone or electronic surveillance system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights