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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 04/21/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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)(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, 3-11 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (USPG Pub No. 2023/0131146), hereinafter “Lee”.
The applied reference has a common assignee 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, Lee discloses an optical imaging system (600) (see Fig. 8) comprising: a first lens group (G1) comprising a plurality of lenses; a second lens group (G2) comprising a plurality of lenses; a third lens group (G3) comprising a plurality of lenses; and a stop (S5) disposed between the first lens group and the second lens group (see Fig. 8), wherein the first lens group, the second lens group, and the third lens group are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis of the optical imaging system from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an image plane of the optical imaging system (see Fig. 8), each of the second lens group and the third lens group is configured to move along the optical axis relative to the first lens group (see Figs. 8, 9), the plurality of lenses of the second lens group comprises at least one glass lens and at least one plastic lens (Paragraph 125, Table 3), an Abbe number of a glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the second lens group is vg2_g, an Abbe number of a plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens of the second lens group is vg2_p, and |vg2_g-vg2_p| is greater than 25 (Table 3), and among all of the lenses included in the first to third lens groups, a lens disposed closest to the stop is included in the second lens group, and has an effective radius that is larger than an effective radius of each of the other lenses of the first to third lens groups (Table 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein at least one lens of each of the first to third lens groups has a length in a first axial direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and a length in a second axial direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first axial direction that is longer than the length in the first axial direction (Paragraph 141 – “elliptical shape or a D-cut shape”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses further comprising an optical path changing element (455) disposed on an object side of the first lens group and configured to change a path of light passing through the optical imaging system (see Figs. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein an effective focal length of the optical imaging system at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system is EFL_T, an effective focal length of the optical imaging system at a wide-angle end of the optical imaging system is EFL_W, and EFL_W/EFL_T is less than 0.7 (Paragraph 154 – 11.5/27.5 = 0.42).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses wherein an Abbe number of a lens disposed closest to the object side of the optical imaging system among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group is vg2_1, and vg2_1 is greater than 55 (Table 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein a spacing distance on the optical axis between the first lens group and the second lens group at a wide-angle end of the optical imaging system is D12_W, a spacing distance on the optical axis between the first lens group and the second lens group at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system is D12_T, and D12_T/D12_W is less than 0.3 (Table 4).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein a field of view at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system is FOV_T, a field of view at a wide-angle end of the optical imaging system is FOV_W, and FOV_W/FOV_T is greater than 1.6 (Paragraph 154 – 28.2/11.6 = 2.43).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein a focal length of the second lens group is fg2, a focal length of the third lens group is fg3, and fg2/fg3 is greater than -0.8 (Table 3 – 9.25/-14.29=-0.65).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein an F number of the optical imaging system at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system is Fno_T, a field of view of the optical imaging system at a telephoto end of the optical imaging system is FOV_T, and Fno_T/FOV_T is less than 0.5 (1/°) (Paragraph 154 – 5/11.6=0.43).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses wherein the plurality of lenses of the first lens group comprises at least one glass lens and at least one plastic lens (Paragraph 125), the plurality of lenses of the third lens group comprises at least one plastic lens (Paragraph 125), and an effective radius of a glass lens having a largest effective radius among the glass lenses of the first and second lens groups is MAX_GED, an effective radius of a plastic lens having a smallest effective radius among the plastic lenses of the first to third lens groups is MIN_PED, and MAX_GED/MIN_PED is greater than 1 and less than 1.7 (Table 3).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses wherein the first lens group (G1) has a negative refractive power (Paragraph 128), the second lens group (G2) has a positive refractive power (Paragraph 129), and the third lens group (G3) has a negative refractive power (Paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses wherein among the plurality of lenses of the second lens group, a lens disposed closest to the object side of the optical imaging system has a positive refractive power (Paragraph 130, Table 3).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses wherein the plurality of lenses of the third lens group comprises a lens (L7) having a positive refractive power disposed closest to the object side of the optical imaging system among the plurality of lenses of the third lens group (Paragraph 137), and a lens (L8) having a negative refractive power disposed closest to the image side of the optical imaging system among the plurality of lenses of the third lens group (Paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses an optical imaging system (600) (see Fig. 8) comprising: a first lens group (G1) comprising a plurality of lenses and having a negative refractive power (Paragraph 128); a second lens group (G2) comprising a plurality of lenses and having a positive refractive power (Paragraph 129); and a third lens group (G3) comprising a plurality of lenses and having a negative refractive power (Paragraph 137), wherein the first lens group, the second lens group, and the third lens group are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis of the optical imaging system from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an image side of the optical imaging system (see Fig. 8), each of the second lens group and the third lens group is configured to move along the optical axis relative to the first lens group (see Figs. 8, 9), the optical imaging system further comprises a stop (S5) disposed between the first lens group and the second lens group (see Fig. 8), the plurality of lenses of the second lens group comprises at least one glass lens and at least one plastic lens (Table 3, Paragraph 125), a glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the second lens group has a length in a first axial direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and a length in a second axial direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first axial direction that is longer than the length in the first axial direction (Paragraphs 140, 141 – “elliptical shape or a D-cut shape”), and among all of the lenses included in the first to third lens groups (Table 3), a lens disposed closest to the stop is included in the second lens group (Table 3), and has an effective radius that is larger than an effective radius of each of the other lenses of the first to third lens groups (Table 3).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses wherein an Abbe number of a glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the second lens group is vg2_g, an Abbe number of a plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens of the second lens group is vg2_p, and |vg2_g-vg2_p| is greater than 25 and less than 35 (Table 3, Paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses wherein the plurality of lenses of the first lens group comprises at least one glass lens and at least one plastic lens (Paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses wherein an Abbe number of a glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the first lens group is vg1_g, an Abbe number of a plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens of the first lens group is vg1_p, and |vg1_g-vg1_p| is greater than 30 (Table 3, Paragraph 125).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee (USPG Pub No. 2023/0131146) in view of Wu (USPG Pub No. 2017/0184826).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein each plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens of the second lens group is an aspherical lens, and each glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the second lens group is a spherical lens. In the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses wherein each plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens (21) of the second lens group is an aspherical lens, and each glass lens of the at least one glass lens (22) of the second lens group is a spherical lens (Paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an optical imaging system of Lee with wherein each plastic lens of the at least one plastic lens of the second lens group is an aspherical lens, and each glass lens of the at least one glass lens of the second lens group is a spherical lens of Wu for the purpose of providing an optical imaging system that corrects aberration and improved image quality (Paragraphs 26, 27). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (USPG Pub No. 2023/0131146) in view of Son et al. (USPG Pub No. 2021/0063704), hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the plurality of lenses of the first lens group comprises at least one glass lens and at least one plastic lens (Paragraph 125). Lee discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and an effective radius of a glass lens having a largest effective radius among the glass lenses of the first and second lens groups is MAX_GED, one half of a diagonal length of the image plane of the optical imaging system is IMG HT, and MAX_GED/IMG HT is greater than 1 and less than 1.4. In the same field of endeavor, Son discloses and an effective radius of a glass lens having a largest effective radius among the glass lenses of the first and second lens groups is MAX_GED, one half of a diagonal length of the image plane of the optical imaging system is IMG HT, and MAX_GED/IMG HT is greater than 1 and less than 1.4 (Table 13, Paragraph 231). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an optical imaging system of Lee with and an effective radius of a glass lens having a largest effective radius among the glass lenses of the first and second lens groups is MAX_GED, one half of a diagonal length of the image plane of the optical imaging system is IMG HT, and MAX_GED/IMG HT is greater than 1 and less than 1.4 of Son for the purpose of providing an advantageous configuration of a miniaturized optical imaging system capable of performing a zooming function (Paragraphs 5, 6). Furthermore, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 15-21 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. Lee addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights