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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1 and 14. 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (20210373300) .
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an optical imaging system (Fig 1, [0045], camera lens group), sequentially comprising from an object side to an image side along an optical axis (Fig 1, [0006]): a diaphragm (STO); a first lens ([0068], E1) with a refractive power ([0069]); a second lens (E2) with a negative refractive power ([0069]); a third lens (E3) with a refractive power ([0069]); a fourth lens (E4) with a negative refractive power ([0069]); a fifth lens (E5) with a refractive power ([0069]); a sixth lens (E6) with a positive refractive power ([0069]), an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface (Fig 1, [0069]); and a seventh lens (E7) with a refractive power ([0069]); wherein an effective focal length f ([0047], f) of the optical imaging system (Fig 1) and an entrance pupil diameter (EPD) ([0047], EPD) of the optical imaging system satisfy: f/EPD<1.4 ([0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Hu discloses wherein an effective focal length f1 of the first lens ([0048], f1, Table 1), a curvature radius R1 of an object-side surface of the first lens (Table 1) and the effective focal length f ([0071], focal length f) of the optical imaging system satisfy: 1.0<(f1 +R1)/f<1.6 (Table 1, value of 1.09 and within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses wherein the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system ([0071], focal length f) and a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens (Table 1) satisfy: 2.5<f/R4<3.5 (Table 1, value of 2.89 and within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses wherein an effective focal length f6 of the sixth lens and a curvature radius R12 of the image-side surface of the sixth lens satisfy: -2.0<f6/R12<0 (Table 1, value of -1.17 and within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses wherein Semi-FOV is a half of a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and Semi-FOV satisfies: 10.00°<Semi-FOV<30.0° ([0071], value of 22° and within the claimed range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed, pending applicant’s overcoming of the 112(a) rejection above.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13 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 3, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein an effective focal length f2 of the second lens and a curvature radius R3 of an object-side surface of the second lens satisfy: -6.5<f2/R3<-2.0”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein an effective focal length f3 of the third lens and a curvature radius R5 of an object-side surface of the third lens satisfy: 1.5<f3/R5<5.0”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein an effective focal length f4 of the fourth lens, a curvature radius R8 of an image-side surface of the fourth lens and the effective focal length f of the optical imaging system satisfy: -3.0<(f4+R8)/f<0”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein an effective focal length f7 of the seventh lens and a curvature radius R14 of an image-side surface of the seventh lens satisfy: -9.5<f7/R14<-2.5”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 9, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein a center thickness CT1 of the first lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT2 of the second lens on the optical axis satisfy: 3.5<CT1/CT2<5.0”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 10, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein a center thickness CT3 of the third lens on the optical axis and a center thickness CT5 of the fifth lens on the optical axis satisfy: 2.0<CT3/CT5<3.5”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 11, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein T45 is an air space between the fourth lens and the fifth lens on the optical axis, T34 is an air space between the third lens and the fourth lens on the optical axis, and T45 and T34 satisfy: 17.0
m
m
-
2
<1/(T45xT34)<27.0
m
m
-
2
“.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 13, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “wherein TTL is an on-axis distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging surface, ImgH is a half of a diagonal length of an effective pixel region on the imaging surface, and TTL and ImgH satisfy: 2.5<TTL/ImgH<3.0”.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 14, the prior art of Hu taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical imaging system including the specific arrangement: “a diaphragm; a first lens with a refractive power; a second lens with a negative refractive power; a third lens with a refractive power; a fourth lens with a negative refractive power; a fifth lens with a refractive power; a sixth lens with a positive refractive power, an image-side surface thereof is a convex surface; and a seventh lens with a refractive power, wherein an effective focal length f of the optical imaging system and a curvature radius R4 of an image-side surface of the second lens satisfy: 2.5<f/R4 3.5”. Claims 15-20 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuo (20200393652), Wenren (20190170966), and Li (20200179101) are examples of a camera lens systems utilizing at least seven lens components for good imaging quality.
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 on 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/Examiner, Art Unit 2872