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 05/15/2026. 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 10, 24, 26, 33-34, 37, 40-41, 44, 47-48, 51, 54-55 and 58; and
B) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 8-10, 16-17, 24 and 26.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the specification and the claims as provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 18-20, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are still claims 1-28 in which claims 1-8 and 12-28 are examined in the present office action, and claims 9-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected Invention.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.
B) Regarding the objections to the specification as set forth in the office action of 02/17/2026, the amendments to the specification as provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 18-19, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the specification as set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the objections to the claims 6, 8, 17, 24 and 26 as set forth in the office action of 02/17/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 18-19, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claims 6, 8, 17, 24 and 26 as set forth in the mentioned office action.
D) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the office action of 02/17/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 18-19, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the claim 16 as set forth in element 11c) of the mentioned office action. However, the rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in elements 11a); 11b) and 11d) of the office action are repeated. Applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, page 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argued that “With respect to … is a more accurate approach” (amendment, page 19. While applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is respectfully invited to review the office action of 02/17/2026, page 6, element 11a) in which the claim 1 and claims 15 and 23 (see element 11b)) each is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because it is unclear which component of the photographing lens assembly having the so-called “an image surface” based on the claimed language as provided in the claim (examiner’s emphasis). In particular, while the claims 1 and 23 each recites a lens assembly having four lenses, and claim 15 recites a lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture stop wherein each lens has an object-side surface and an image-side surface; however, each of claims 1, 15 and 23 does not recite any element/component having the so-called “an image surface”. Because all features of a claim each is given a board interpretation then it is unclear which component, if any, of the lens assembly with the claimed language being provided having the so-called “an image surface”.
E) Regarding the rejection of claims 1-5, 8 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US Publication No. 2015/0085382) as set forth in the office action of 02/17/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 05/15/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 18-19, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection while still based on the applied art does not rely on matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The lengthy specification which was amended by the amendment of 05/15/2026 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 § 112
5. 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.
6. 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) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. 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, of record).
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 5.0 of the range of (0.3; 5.0); 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; 5.0) 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 governing the ratio of |f1d/R4| as clearly disclosed in the present specification in each of pages 3 and 13. It is noted that while applicant has amended claim 1 by narrowing the range governing the ratio of |f1d/R4| from “(0.3; 5.4)” to --(0.3; 5.0)--; however, the range of (0.3; 5.0) is merely that of a preferred embodiment and no criticality has been disclosed. See present specification in page 13, lines 8-13. Thus, because absent any showing of criticality then a lens assembly having a range of (0.3; 5.0) for governing the ratio of |f1d/R4| having the same effect or not any unexpected result from a lens assembly having a range of (0.3; 5.4) for governing the ratio of |f1d/R4|. With the mentioned opinion then the value of 0.57 for |f1d/R4| of the photographic lens system as provided by Choi et al is so close to the upper value of 0.54 of the range governing the ratio of |f1d/R4| 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 with the range of (0.3; 5.0). See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
Thus, the lens system with range of (0.3; 5.0) 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
d) 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
13. The US Patent No. 11,782,239 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a photographic lens assembly having four lenses and an aperture which lens assembly is used in an electronic device. However, the lens assembly of the mentioned Patent does not discloses all features of the lens assembly recited in each of independent claims 1, 15 and 23 of the present application.
14. 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.
15. 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
Prosecution Insights