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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 11/17/25 have been considered as follows.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments for claim 7 are moot in view of the new ground rejections.
Applicant argues the rejections for claims 1-2,5 should be withdrawn because Son (US 20210157103) does not teach the value of F/D1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out, as shown in Fig. 1 of Son, the entrance pupil diameter of the system is defined by the rays parallel to the optical axis incident on the 1st lens, which value can be obtained from Fno and the focal length in Table 11. Further as shown in Fig. 1, D1 is slightly larger than the entrance pupil diameter and can be measured by a ruler (Fig. 1 is considered as substantially drawn to scale verified by the data provided in Son). Therefore F/D1 can be obtained with the values of F (provided in Table 11 of Son and D1). Applicant may consider to verify the values discussed above by using a professional lens design software and data provided in Son.
Therefore Examiner maintains the rejections.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-27 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
I. claim(s) 21-24, drawn to optical system comprising refractive indices;
II. claim(s) 25-27, drawn to optical system comprising shapes of 6th lens.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The groups of inventions listed above lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of (see the rejections below).
In addition, each invention Group comprises its own special technical feature, as described above, not found in other invention group(s).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (Group I is considered as the originally presented invention as it relates to the limitations in claim 1), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
“an assembly of eight lenses consisting of” should be “an assembly consisting of eight lenses wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of the examination of the above claim(s), the above suggested correction(s) will be used by the examiner to interpret the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 7,28 is/are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Son (US 20210157103, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Son teaches (Fig. 1, Tables 1,11) An optical system comprising an assembly of eight lenses consisting of:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, and an eighth lens sequentially disposed along an optical axis from an object side to an image side, each lens having a refractive power,
wherein the second lens has a positive refractive power,
wherein the third lens has a negative refractive power,
wherein the seventh lens has a positive refractive power,
wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power,
wherein a center thickness of the second lens is greater than a center thickness of each of the first and third to eighth lenses,
wherein an Abbe number of the second lens is greater than Abbe numbers of the third and fifth lenses,
wherein the following equations are satisfied:
0.5<TTL/D8<1.5 (~0.9)
0<|f2/f3|<5 (5.7/12)
wherein TTL is a distance from an apex of an object-side first surface of the first lens to the image sensor, D8 is an effective diameter of the eighth lens, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens.
Regarding claim 28, Son further teaches The optical system of claim 7, including an image sensor (IMG) on an image side of the eighth lens and an optical filter (IF) between the image sensor and the eighth lens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2,5,21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 20210157103, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches (Fig. 1, Tables 1,11) An optical system comprising:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, and an eighth lens sequentially disposed along an optical axis from an object side to an image side,
wherein the second lens has a positive refractive power,
wherein the third lens has a negative refractive power,
wherein the seventh lens has a positive refractive power,
wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power,
wherein refractive indices of the third, and fifth lenses are greater than refractive indices of the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth lenses, and
wherein the following equation is satisfied:
1.2<F/D1<2.4 (~1.48)
wherein F is a total effective focal length of the optical system, and D1 is an effective diameter of the first lens.
Son does not explicitly teach refractive index of the first lens is greater than refractive indices of the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth lenses.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having refractive index of the first lens is greater than refractive indices of the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth lenses would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving production by allowing some manufacturing errors (in which the refractive index of 1st lens is slightly larger than 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th lenses, Examiner notes Applicant may consider to include a specific value in the claim beyond manufacturing errors for the differences of the indices to overcome the rejection).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Son by having refractive index of the first lens is greater than refractive indices of the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth lenses for the purposes of improving production.
Regarding claim 2, Son further teaches (Table 1) The optical system of claim 1, wherein a center thickness of the second lens is thicker than a center thickness of each of the first, and third to eighth lenses.
Regarding claim 5, Son further teaches (Fig. 1) The optical system of claim 1, comprising an image sensor on an image side of the eighth lens and an optical filter between the image sensor and the eighth lens,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following equation:
0.5<TTL/D8<1.5 (~0.9)
where TTL is a distance from an apex of an object-side first surface of the first lens to the image sensor, and D8 is an effective diameter of the eighth lens.
Regarding claim 21, Son further teaches The optical system of claim 1, wherein the refractive indices of the third lens, the fifth lens, and the seventh lens are 1.6 or more.
Son does not explicitly teach the refractive index of the first lens is 1.6 or more.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the refractive index of the first lens is 1.6 or more would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving production by allowing some manufacturing errors (a value of 1.55, which is 0.004 more than 1.546 shown in Table 1, rounds up to 1.6 for the refractive index).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of Son by having the refractive index of the first lens is 1.6 or more for the purposes of improving production.
Regarding claim 22, Son further teaches The optical system of claim 1, wherein the refractive indices of the second lens, the fourth lens, the sixth lens, and the eighth lens are less than 1.6 (1.546).
Regarding claim 23, Son further teaches The optical system of claim 1, wherein the third lens and the fifth lens have highest refractive indices (1.678) among the first to eighth lenses.
Regarding claim 24, Son further teaches The optical system of claim 1, wherein the refractive indices of the third lens and the fifth lens are 1.65 or more (1.678).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234