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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 29, 2026 has been entered. Claim 13 has been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0086638).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an optical imaging system (Figure 1), comprising:
a first lens group (Figure 1 lens group G11, [0053]) comprising a first lens (Figure 1 lens L1, [0054]) and a second lens (Figure 1 lens L2, [0054]) and having negative refractive power ([0049] lens group G11 has negative refractive power);
a second lens group (Figure 1 lens group G12, [0053]) comprising a third lens (Figure 1 lens L31, [0056]), a fourth lens (Figure 1 lens L41, [0056]), and fifth lens (Figure 1 lens L51, [0056]) and having positive refractive power ([0049] lens group G12 has positive refractive power); and
a third lens group (Figure 1 lens group G31, [0053]) comprising a sixth lens (Figure 1 lens L61, [0057]) and seventh lens (Figure 1 lens L71, [0057]), and having negative refractive power ([0049] lens group G31 has negative refractive power),
wherein the fourth lens (lens L41) has positive refractive power ([0056] lens L41 has positive refractive power) and the fifth lens (lens L51) has negative refractive power ([0056] lens L51 has negative refractive power),
wherein the sixth lens (lens L61) has a concave object-side surface ([0057] lens L61 has meniscus shape concave toward the object side) and a convex image-side surface ([0057] lens L61 has meniscus shape concave toward object side thus L61 is convex toward the image side),
wherein the second lens group (lens group G21) and the third lens group (lens group G31) are configured to move in an optical axis direction to adjust a focal length and magnification ([0056]-[0057] lens groups G21 and G31 move during zooming), and the following conditional expression is satisfied,
FNOt ≤ 3.6 (Table 3 FNOt = 2.8),
where FNOt is an F value at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches an optical path convertor (Figure 1 bending unit R1, [0049]) disposed on an object side of the first lens group (Figure 1 bending unit R1 is on object side of lens group G11).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches a first lens of the second lens group (Figure 1 lens L31 is first lens of lens group G21) has positive refractive power (Table 1 focal length of lens L31 calculated to be 12.49 mm).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches a first lens of the second lens group (Figure 1 lens L31) satisfies the following conditional expression, 55 < G2L1 (Table 1 G2L1 = 56.1), where G2L1 is an Abbe number of the first lens of the second lens group.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches the following conditional expression is satisfied, fw/ft < 0.7 (Table 3 fw = 6 mm, ft = 7 mm, fw/ft = 0.67),
where fw is a focal length at a wide-angle end of the optical imaging system, and ft is a focal length at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further teaches dtG12/dwG12 < 0.3 (Table 3 dtG12 = 0.3 mm, dwG12 = 1.701 mm, dtG12/dwG12 = 0.18), where dtG12 is a distance between the first lens group and the second lens group at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system, and dwG12 is a distance between the first lens group and the second lens group at a wide-angle end of the optical imaging system.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0035141 – hereinafter referred to as “Yeh”).
Regarding claim 17, Yeh teaches an optical imaging system (Figure 1), comprising:
a first lens (Figure 1 lens 110), a second lens (120), a third lens (130), a fourth lens (140) having positive refractive power ([0140] lens 140 has positive refractive power), a fifth lens (150) having negative refractive power ([0141] lens 150 has negative refractive power) and a convex image-side surface ([0141] image side of lens 150 is convex), a sixth lens (160) having negative refractive power ([0142] lens 160 has negative refractive power), and a seventh lens (170) sequentially disposed from an object side, forming first (Figure 1 lens group G1, [0136]), second (Figure 1 lens group G2, [0136]), and third lens groups (Figure 1 lens group G3, [0136]) sequentially disposed from an object side,
an optical path convertor (Figure 80 reflective element LF, [0131]) disposed on an object side of the first lens group ([0131] reflective element LF can be disposed between the imaged object and a lens group LG),
wherein the first lens (lens 110) has a positive refractive power ([0137] lens 110 has positive refractive power) and the third lens (lens 130) has positive refractive power ([0139] lens 130 has positive refractive power),
wherein the second lens group (lens group G2) and the third lens group (lens group G3) are configured to move in an optical axis direction to adjust a focal length and magnification ([0103] second and third lens groups move during zooming), and
wherein the first lens group is fixed ([0103] position of lens group G1 with respect to image surface does not change) in an optical axis direction.
Regarding claim 18, Yeh teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Yeh further teaches at least a portion of the first to seventh lenses are formed of a plastic material (Table 1 lenses are made of plastic).
Regarding claim 20, Yeh teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Yeh further teaches FNOt ≤ 3.6(Table 3 FNOt must be ≤ 3.6 at a telephoto position between zooming state 1 and zooming state 2), where FNOt is an F value at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system.
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, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0086638) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Quan (Chinese Patent Publication CN 112731636 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Quan”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Lee fails to teach a stop ([0009] aperture stop) disposed between the first lens group and the second lens group ([0010] aperture stop disposed in front of second lens group). However, Quan teaches an optical system (Figure 1) with a stop ([0009] aperture stop) disposed between the first lens group and the second lens group ([0010] aperture stop disposed in front of second lens group). Quan further teaches adding a stop between the first and second lens groups to balance the spherical aberration, depth of field, brightness, and sharpness of the image as desired ([0055]). Therefore, 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 optical system taught by Lee by adding a stop between the first and second lens groups as taught by Quan in order to balance the spherical aberration, depth of field, brightness, and sharpness of the image as desired (Quan [0055]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0035141) as applied to claim 17 above in view of Tomioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0379223).
Regarding claim 19, Yeh teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 17. Yeh fails to teach wherein the lenses included in the second and third lens groups have a specific gravity of 2 g/cm3. However, Tomioka teaches and three lens unit optical system (Figure 1) with lenses having a specific gravity of 2 g/cm3 ([0097] condition expression 15-1 specific gravity of lens is between 0.8 and 2.00 g/cm3). Tomioka further teaches having a low specific gravity of lenses in order to reduce the weight of the optical system ([0097]). Therefore, 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 second and third lens groups taught by Yeh using lenses with a specific gravity of between 0.8 and 2 g/cm3 as taught by Tomioka in order to reduce the weight of the optical system (Tomioka [0097]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 9 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:
Regarding claim 8, the best prior are of record, Lee, fails to teach or reasonably suggest alone or in combination “1.6≤FOVw/FOVt” (Lee teaches FOVw/FOVt = 1.45; Figure 4 image height = 2.70 mm; Table 3 fw = 6 mm, ft = 9 mm; FOVw = 2arctan(2.7/6) = 48.46°; FOVt = 2arctan(2.7/9) = 33.52°) in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 8, specifically the limitation: “1.6≤FOVw/FOVt”
Regarding claim 9, the best prior of record, Lee, fails to teach or reasonably suggest alone or in combination “|fG2/fG3| < 0.6” (Lee teaches |fG2/fG3| = 0.74; Table 1 fG2 calculated to be 3.78 mm and fG3 calculated to be -5.08 mm) in combination with the intervening limitations of the claims. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 9, specifically the limitation: “|fG2/fG3| < 0.6”
Regarding claim 10, the best prior art of record, Shim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0333357 – hereinafter referred to as “Shim”) fails to teach or reasonably suggest alone or in combination “a third lens having positive refractive power” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since such a modification would have unpredictable results on the overall optical system.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 10, specifically the limitation: “a third lens having positive refractive power”
Claims 11-12 and 14-16 depend from claim 10.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights