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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2024. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/23/2024 has been previously acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 4/24/2025, 8/19/2025, and 8/12/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art Park et al US 2021/0109320.
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) 1-6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (20210109320).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an optical imaging system (Fig 1, [0055], optical imaging system), comprising: a first lens (110), a second lens (120), a third lens (130), a fourth lens (140), a fifth lens (150), a sixth lens (150) and a seventh lens (170), disposed in order from an object side (Fig 1, [0095]), wherein the first lens (110) has positive refractive power ([0099]), and the second lens (120) has negative refractive power ([0100]), and wherein 0.5 < TTL/(2xlMG HT) < 0.67 is satisfied ([0066], Conditional expression 16 shows within the claimed range), where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane on an optical axis ([0069]), and IMG HT is half a diagonal length of the imaging plane ([0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein 4.5 mm < IMG HT < 6.5 mm is satisfied ([0114], IMG HT is 4.54 mm and within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses wherein TTL/ƩCT < 2.97 is satisfied ([0096]-[0097] discloses a value of 2.96 and within the claimed range), where ƩCT is a sum of thicknesses of the first to seventh lenses on the optical axis (Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses wherein -0.2 < f/f4 < 0 is satisfied ([0066], Conditional expression 7 discloses a value within the claimed range), where f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein v1-v2 < 38 ([0066], Conditional expression 2 discloses a value within the claimed range) and n2+n4 > 3.3 ([0092], a value of at least 3.36 is within the claimed range) are satisfied, where v1 is an Abbe number of the first lens ([0066]), v2 is an Abbe number of the second lens ([0066]), n2 is a refractive index of the second lens ([0092]), and n4 is a refractive index of the fourth lens ([0092]).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses wherein TTL/f < 1.205 ([0179], Table 11 discloses a value of 1.1121 and within the claimed range) and BFL/f < 0.21 are satisfied ([0179], Table 11 discloses a value of 0.1711 and within the claimed range), where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the seventh lens to the imaging plane on the optical axis (Table 11), and f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system (Table 11).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses wherein 0.3 < |f1/f2|< 0.45 is satisfied ([0096], Table 1 discloses a value of .422 and within the claimed range), where f1 is a focal length of the first lens (Table 1), and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (Table 1).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses wherein the third lens has positive refractive power ([0169], third lens 530 may have positive refractive power), the fourth lens has negative refractive power ([0170], fourth lens 540 may have negative refractive power), the fifth lens has negative refractive power ([0171], fifth lens 550 may have negative refractive power), the sixth lens has positive refractive power ([0173], sixth lens 560 may have positive refractive power), and the seventh lens has negative refractive power ([0175], seventh lens 570 may have negative refractive power).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 and 15 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 7, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -0.02 < CT4/f4 < 0 is satisfied, where CT4 is a thickness of the fourth lens on the optical axis, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -0.5 < R8/f4 < 0 is satisfied, where R8 is a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fourth lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 9, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -20°< SWG42 < -2.9° is satisfied, where SWG42 is a sweep angle at a maximum effective diameter of an image-side surface of the fourth lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 10, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein 0°< SWG41_0.3 < 1.1° is satisfied, where SWG41_0.3 is a sweep angle at a point of a maximum effective diameter x 0.3 of an object-side surface of the fourth lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 11, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -0.5° < SWG42_0.2 < 0.6° is satisfied, where SWG42_0.2 is a sweep angle of a point of a maximum effective diameter x 0.2 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 12, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -3° < SWG31_0.5 < 3° is satisfied, where SWG31_0.5 is a sweep angle at a point of a maximum effective diameter x 0.5 of an object-side surface of the third lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 13, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein -1° < SWG31_0.2 < 2° is satisfied, where SWG31_0.2 is a sweep angle of a point of a maximum effective diameter x 0.2 of an object-side surface of the third lens”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 15, the prior art of Park taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein 20 mm < |f345|< 120 mm and 4 < |f345|/f < 25 are satisfied, where f345 is a combined focal length of the third to fifth lenses, and f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huh (20240094508) and Son (20190227282) are examples of a seven lens optical imaging system used to correct aberration and implement high resolution.
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