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 present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 12/18/2025. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding the specification, applicant has made changes to pages 3-5, 10 and 28; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 15, 23 and 26. There is not any claim being added/canceled into/from the application. The pending claims are still claims 1-28.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 10/23/2025, applicant has made an election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/18/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims are of the same types of inventions thus would not pose an undue burden on the examiner, see Election of 12/18/2025, page 15. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons.
a) Applicant is respectfully invited to review the features recited in the claims of each groups of Inventions I-II which recite different features and not overlapped from each other. In particular, the claims of the Invention I recite features related to the f-number, the focal length, the distance between two adjacent surfaces, the thickness of a lens and the ranges governing those parameters while the claims of the Invention II recite features related to shaped configurations, distances of the lens surfaces with respect to an optical axis/path and the ranges governing those parameters which features are not recited in the claims of Invention I and not overlapped with features recited in the claims of the Invention I and vice versa.
b) It is noted that the Election/Restriction set forth in the office action of 10/23/2025 provided different classes/subclasses which are required to search for different features recited in different Inventions.
Thus, the different structures constituted by different features among claims of the Inventions I-II require different searches for each structure and thus cause a serious burden on the examiner to search and examination of different inventions if an election was not being issued.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
As a result of applicant’s election and the examiner’s response as provided above, claims 1-8 and 12-28 are examined in the present office action, and claims 9-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected Invention. Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 9-11 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings contain twenty five sheets of figures 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3A-3B, 4A-4B, 5A-5B, 6A-6B, 7A-7B, 8A-8B, 9A-9B, 10-14 and 15A-15B were received on 07/17/2023. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification which was amended by the amendment of 12/18/2025 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) Page 24: on line 9, “a stop S1” should be changed to --a stop S--. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the figure 1 in which it shows a stop named as --S--, not S1;
b) Page 10: lines 4-9: the range governing the field of view as provided in the page is not correct because the values of the range each does not have a unit of measurement. In particular, what does applicant mean by “70.0 < FOVd < 110.0” wherein the FOVd is a field of view at d-line reference wavelength? Should “70.0 < FOVd < 110.0” be changed to --70.00 < FOVd < 110.00--?
c) In each Table 1A (page 26), Table 2A (pages 33-34), Table 3A (page 37), Table 4A (pages 40-41), Table 5A (page 44), Table 6A (pages 47-48), Table 7A (page 51), Table 8A ( pages 54-55), and Table 9A (page 58): the use of term “Thickness” for a distance between two surfaces is not proper. Applicant should note that there is a space between two adjacent lens elements (or between a lens and a stop) which is not considered as a thickness of a lens. Should the term “Thickness” in each mentioned Tables be changed to --Thickness/Space--?
There are still some grammatical and idiomatic errors in the specification. Applicant should carefully proofread the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 17, 24 and 26 are objected to because each of mentioned claims repeats the same feature recited in its base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
a) In each of claims 6 and 8: the feature thereof “the central thickness … the optical path” (lines 2-3 of each claim) repeats the same feature recited in its base claim 1 on lines 19-20. Should “the central thickness … the optical path” recited in claims 6 and 8 on lines 2-3 of each claim be deleted?
b) In claim 17: the features thereof “the sum of the central thicknesses … is ΣAT ” (lines 2-6) repeats the same feature recited in its base claim 15 on lines 13-16. Should “the sum of the central thicknesses … lens assembly is ΣAT ”recited in claim 17 on lines 2-6 be deleted?
c) In claim 24: the features thereof “the curvature radius … is R4” (lines 1-3) repeats the same feature recited in its base claim 23 on lines 18-20. Should “the curvature radius … is R4” recited in claim 24 on lines 1-3 be deleted?
d) In claim 26: the features thereof “the axial distance … is BLd” (lines 3-4) repeats the same feature recited in its base claim 23 on lines 12-14. Should “the axial distance … is BLd” recited in claim 26 on lines 3-4 be deleted?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
11. Claims 1-8 and 12-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “an axial distance … wavelength is BLd” (lines 11-14). The mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear which component having the so-called “an image surface”?
For the purpose of examination, the feature of “an image surface” recited on line 13 of the claim is understood as --an image surface of an image sensor--.
b) Each of claims 15 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a) above.
c) Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “a field of view … 70.0 < FOVd < 110.0” (lines 3-6). The mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite because the values of the range each does not have a unit of measurement. In particular, what does applicant mean by “70.0 < FOVd < 110.0” wherein the FOVd is a field of view at d-line reference wavelength?
For the purpose of examination, the range of “70.0 < FOVd < 110.0” is understood as --70.00 < FOVd < 110.00--.
d) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-5, 8 and 12-14, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US Publication No. 2015/0085382, submitted by applicant).
Choi et al discloses a photographic lens system.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 12-14, the photographic lens system for use in an electronic device such as a (mobile phone/digital) camera, see paragraph [0019], which is understood as the one having an image sensor with an image surface for receiving images formed by the photographic lens system wherein the electronic device is able to use with infrared spectrum, i.e., a spectrum of wavelengths in a range of 700 nm to 1,000 nm. Regarding lens features, the photographic lens system of the third Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0078]-[0091] and shown in figs. 5-6 comprises the following features:
a1) four lenses (L1-L4) and an aperture stop located between the first and second lenses;
a2) the first lens (L1) has a negative power, see Table 13, and the image-side lens surface, i.e., lens surface numbered as #2 in Table 11 and fig. 5, is concave in a paraxial region;
a3) the fourth lens (L4) has a negative power, see Table 13, and the image-side lens surface, i.e., lens surface numbered as #9 in Table 11 and fig. 5, is concave in a paraxial region. It is noted that the surfaces of the fourth lens has at least one inflection point, see Fig. 5;
a4) regarding the ranges governing the axial distance, TD, between the object-side lens surface of the first lens to the imager-side lens surface of the fourth lens, the axial distance, BLd, between the image-side lens surface of the fourth lens to an image surface of an image sensor at d-line reference wavelength, the Abbe number, V4d, of the fourth lens at d-line reference wavelength, the focal length, f1d, of the first lens at d-line reference wavelength, the curvature radius of the image-side lens surface, R2, of the first lens, the curvature radius of the image-side lens surface, R4, of the second lens, the central thickness, CT1, of the first lens, the central thickness, CT3, of the third lens, and the central thickness, CT4, of the fourth lens
as recited in the claim 1, the following results are obtained from Tables 11, 13 and paragraphs [0078] and [0085]-[0089]:
a31) the TD is 2.46 mm and the BLd is 1.14 mm then the ratio of TD/BLd is 2.16 which is inside the range of (1.0; 2.2);
a32) the V4d is 23 which is inside the range of (10.0; 24.0);
a33) the f1d is -10.00 mm and the R2 is 6.817 mm then the ratio of f1d/R2 is -1.47 which is inside the range of (-2.6; 0);
a34) the f1d is -10.00 mm and the R4 is -1.751 mm then the ratio of |f1d/R4| is 5.71 which is closed to the upper value of 5.4 of the range of (0.3; 5.4); and
a35) the CT1 is 0.57 mm, the CT3 is 0.74 mm, and the CT4 is 0.30 mm then the ratio of (CT1+CT4)/CT3 is 1.18 which is inside the range of (0.82; 2.0).
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
The only feature missing from the lens system of the third Embodiment as described in paragraphs [0078]-[0091] and shown in figs. 5-6 provided by Choi et al is that the lens system of the third Embodiment does not disclose that the value of ratio of |f1d/R4| is inside the range of (0.3; 5.4) as recited in claim 1. However, the value of 0.57 for |f1d/R4| is so close to the upper value of 0.54 of the range as claimed in claim 1 that there is not any unexpected result or difference in optical performance occurred between the lens system of the third Embodiment provided by Choi et al and the lens system of the present claim 1. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
Thus, the lens system with range of (0.3; 5.4) related to the ratio of |f1d/R4| as recited in claim 1 is read from the lens system of the third Embodiment as provided by Choi et al or it would have obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize lens system of the third Embodiment provided by Choi et al and adjust the optical characteristics of the lens element(s) constituted the lens(es) of the lens system so that the value of the ratio of |f1d/R4| is inside the range claimed or any similar range(s) to meet a particular application. Applicant should further note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
b) regarding present claim 2, the third lens (L3) has a concave object-side lens surface in a paraxial region, i.e., lens surface numbered as #6 in Table 11 and fig. 5, and Fno of the lens system of the third Embodiment is around 2.0 which is inside the range of (1.8; 2.8);
c) regarding present claim 3, the second lens (L2) has a convex image-side lens surface in a paraxial region, i.e., lens surface numbered as #5 in Table 11 and fig. 5 and the object-side lens surface of the fourth lens, i.e., lens surface numbered as #8 in Table 11 and fig. 5 has at least one inflection point;
d) regarding present claim 4, the focal length, fd, of the lens system at d-line reference wavelength is 1.47 mm, and the axial distance, TLd, between the object-side lens surface of the first lens to the image surface of the image sensor at d-line reference wavelength is 3.6 mm then the ratio of fd/TLd is 0.41 which is inside the range of (0.25; 0.50);
e) regarding present claim 5, the focal length, fd, of the lens system at d-line reference wavelength is 1.47 mm, and the sum of axial distances, ΣAT, between two adjacent lenses is 0.42 mm then the ratio of fd/ ΣAT is 3.5 which is inside the range of (1.6; 4.0);
f) regarding present claim 8, the distance, T12, between the first and second lens is 0.33 mm, and the central thickness, CT4, of the fourth lens is 0.3 then the ratio of T12/CT4 is 1.1 which is inside the range of (0.2; 1.5).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome the rejection of its base claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the present office action.
16. Claims 15-28 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the present office action.
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) The photographing lens assembly having four lenses as recited in the dependent claim 6 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0085382 by the feature regarding the range governing the relationship between the focal length, fd, of the lens assembly and the central thickness of the fourth lens as recited in the feature thereof “a focal length … 1.0 < fd/CT4 < 4.0” (claim 6 on lines 1-5). It is noted that while a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture stop, which meets the features regarding the lens shapes and the conditions governing TD, BLd, V4d, f1d, R2, R4, CT1, CT3 and CT4 recited in features thereof “the first lens … 0.82 < (CT1+CT4)/CT3 < 2.0” of claim 1 on lines 6-26, is disclosed in the US Publication No. 2015/0085382; however, the US Publication Nos. 2015/0085382 does not disclose that the ratio of fd/CT4 is inside the claimed range in claim 6.
b) The photographing lens assembly having four lenses as recited in the dependent claim 7 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0085382 by the feature regarding the range governing the relationship between the focal length, f1d, of the first and the focal length, f2d, of the second lens as recited in the feature thereof “the focal length … -3.0 < f1d/f2d < -0.08” (claim 7 on lines 1-4). It is noted that while a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture stop, which meets the features regarding the lens shapes and the conditions governing TD, BLd, V4d, f1d, R2, R4, CT1, CT3 and CT4 recited in features thereof “the first lens … 0.82 < (CT1+CT4)/CT3 < 2.0” of claim 1 on lines 6-26, is disclosed in the US Publication No. 2015/0085382; however, the US Publication Nos. 2015/0085382 does not disclose that the ratio of f1d/f2d is inside the claimed range in claim 7.
c) The photographing lens assembly having four lenses as recited in the independent claim 15 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0085382 by the feature regarding the range governing the relationship between the axial distance, TLd, from the object-side lens surface of the first lens to an image surface and the axial distance, SD, from the apertures top to the image-side lens surface of the fourth lens as recited in the features thereof “an axial distance … is SD” (claim 15 on lines 18-20) and “2.55 < TLd/SD < 4.5” (claim 15 on line 27). It is noted that while a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture stop, which meets the features regarding the lens shapes and the conditions governing TD, BLd, V4d, FNo, ΣCT, ΣAT, R1 and R2 recited in features thereof “wherein the photographic lens assembly … is R2” (claim 15 on lines 6-18) and “1.0 < TD/BLd < 2.4 … 1.5 < (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) < 1.4” (claim 15 on lines 22-26) is disclosed in the US Publication No. 2015/0085382; however, the US Publication Nos. 2015/0085382 does not disclose that the ratio of TLd/SD is inside the claimed range in claim 15.
c) The photographing lens assembly having four lenses as recited in the independent claim 23 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2015/0085382 by the feature regarding the range governing the relationship between the object-side lens surface, R3, and the image-side lens surface, R4, of the second lens, as recited in the features thereof “a curvature radius … is R4” (claim 23 on lines 18-20) and “-0.48 < (R3-R4)/(R3+R4) < 1.60” (claim 23 on line 26). It is noted that while a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture stop, which meets the features regarding the lens shapes and the conditions governing TD, BLd, V4d, f1d, R2, T12, and CT1 recited in features thereof “wherein the photographic lens assembly … is CT1” (claim 23 on lines 6-18) and “1.0 < TD/BLd < 2.4 … 0.2 < T12/CT1 < 1.7” (claim 23 on lines 22-25) is disclosed in the US Publication No. 2015/0085382; however, the US Publication Nos. 2015/0085382 does not disclose that the ratio of (R3-R4)/(R3+R4) is inside the claimed range in claim 23.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
19. The US Publication Nos. 2021/0165188; 2019/0107689 and 20123/0057969 are cited as of interest in that each discloses a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture which lens assembly is used in an electrocnic device. However, the lens assembly of each mentioned Publciations does not discloses all features of the lens assembly recited in each of independent claism 1, 15 and 23 of the present application.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872