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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0187442).
With regard to independent claim 1, Jia et al teaches an optical imaging lens (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 1), in order from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, comprising: a first lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a first lens (Figure 1, element L1) having negative refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 4-5), a second lens (Figure 1, element L2) having negative refractive power(page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 5-6), and a third lens (Figure 1, element L3) having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 6-7), wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is a convex surface toward the object side (Figure 1, element S1 and page 5, Curvature data for S1), and an image-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface toward the image side (Figure 1, element S2 and page 5, Curvature data for S2); both of an object-side surface of the second lens and an image-side surface of the second lens are concave surfaces (Figure 1, elements S3 and S4 and page 5, Curvature data for S3 and S4); both of an object-side surface of the third lens and an image-side surface of the third lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S5 and S6 and page 5, Curvature data for S5 and s6); an aperture (Figure 1, element STO); a second lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a fourth lens (Figure 1, element L4) having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 7-8), a fifth lens (Figure 1, element L5) having negative refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 8-9), a sixth lens (Figure 1, element L6) having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 9-10), and a seventh lens (Figure 1, element L7) having negative refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0103], lines 11-12), wherein both of an object-side surface of the fourth lens and an image-side surface of the fourth lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S7 and S8 and page 5, Curvature data for S7 and S8); both of an object-side surface of the fifth lens and an image-side surface of the fifth lens are concave surfaces (Figure 1, elements S9 and S10 and page 5, Curvature data for S9 and S10); both of an object-side surface of the sixth lens and an image-side surface of the sixth lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S11 and S12 and page 5, Curvature data for S11 and S12); an object-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface toward the object side, and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a convex surface toward the image side (see annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 3, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: L7R2/V7 < 1, as defined (page 5, wherein L7R2 – 2.1865; V7 = 23.5; and L7R2/V7 = 0.09).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: -3.5 ≤ f7/f(4567), as defined (page 5, wherein f7 = -6.34; f(4567) [calculated] = 3.02; and f7/f(4567) = 2.1).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: 1 ≤ f3/f6, as defined (page 5, wherein f3 = 3.7; f6 = 2.37; and f3/f6 = 1.56).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: -3.5 ≤ f4/f5, as defined (page 5, wherein f4 = 2.11; f5 = -2.33; and f4/f5 = -0.91).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: -3.5 ≤ f6/f7, as defined (page 5, wherein f6 = 2.37; f7 = -6.34; and f6/f7 = -0.37).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: 1 ≤ f(4567)/F, as defined (page 5, wherein f(4567) [calculated] = 3.02; F = 1.28; and f(4567)/F = 2.36).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: 1 ≤ f3/f(4567) ≤ 3, as defined (page 5, wherein f3 = 3.7; f(4567) [calculated] = 3.02; and f3/f(4567) = 1.23).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: f6/f(4567) ≤ 1, as defined (page 5, wherein f6 = 2.37; f(4567) [calculated] = 3.02; and f6/f(4567) = 0.78).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: -1 ≤ 1/f1+1/f2+1/f3+1/f4+1/f5+1/f6+1/f7 ≤ 1, as defined (page 5, wherein f1 = -4.95; f2 = -2.66; f3 = 3.7; f4 = 2.11; f5 = -2.33; f6 = 2.37; f7 = -6.34; and 1/f1+1/f2+1/f3+1/f4+1/f5+1/f6+1/f7 = 0.001).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: -3.5 ≤ f(4567)/L7R2, as defined (page 5, wherein f(4567) [calculated] = 3.02; L7R2 = 2.1865; and f(4567)/L7R2 = 1.38).
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0036289).
With regard to independent claim 1, Sun et al teaches an optical imaging lens (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 1), in order from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, comprising: a first lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a first lens (Figure 1, element 110) having negative refractive power (page 3, paragraph [0033], lines 10-11), a second lens (Figure 1, element 120) having negative refractive power(page 3, paragraph [0036], lines 10-11), and a third lens (Figure 1, element 130) having positive refractive power (page 3, paragraph [0037], lines 11-13), wherein an object-side surface of the first lens is a convex surface toward the object side (Figure 1, element S11 and page 3, paragraph [0033], lines 1-2), and an image-side surface of the first lens is a concave surface toward the image side (Figure 1, element S12 and page 3, paragraph [0033], line 3); both of an object-side surface of the second lens and an image-side surface of the second lens are concave surfaces (Figure 1, elements S21 and S22 and page 3, paragraph [0036], lines 1-4); both of an object-side surface of the third lens and an image-side surface of the third lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S31 and S32 and page 3, paragraph [0037], lines 1-4); an aperture (Figure 1, element 190); a second lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a fourth lens (Figure 1, element 150) having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0039], lines 10-11), a fifth lens (Figure 1, element 160) having negative refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0040], lines 10-12), a sixth lens (Figure 1, element 170) having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0041], lines 11-13), and a seventh lens (Figure 1, element 180) having negative refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0042], lines 13-15), wherein both of an object-side surface of the fourth lens and an image-side surface of the fourth lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S51 and S52 and page 4, paragraph [0039], lines 1-4); both of an object-side surface of the fifth lens and an image-side surface of the fifth lens are concave surfaces (Figure 1, elements S61 and S62 and page 4, paragraph [0040], lines 1-4); both of an object-side surface of the sixth lens and an image-side surface of the sixth lens are convex surfaces (Figure 1, elements S71 and S72 and page 4, paragraph [0041], lines 1-7); an object-side surface of the seventh lens is a concave surface toward the object side, and an image-side surface of the seventh lens is a convex surface toward the image side (Figure 1, elements S81 and S82 and page 4, paragraph [0042], lines 1-4).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Sun et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging lens wherein the object-side surface of the seventh lens and the image-side surface of the sixth lens are adhered to form a compound lens having positive refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0041], lines 6-8; paragraph [0042], lines 8-10).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0187442) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sun et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0036289).
With regard to dependent claim 12, although Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, Jai et al fails to teach such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: V3 > 25, as defined. Jai et al does teach such an optical imaging lens wherein V3 = 23.8 (page 5, Material data for Lens 3). In a related endeavor, Sun et al teaches an optical imaging lens, as outlined above, wherein V3 = 40.9 (page 3, paragraph [0037], lines 12-13), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the glass third lens of the optical imaging lens, as taught by Jai et al, with the glass lens having an Abbe number, as taught by Sun et al, since 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 known alternative (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
With regard to dependent claim 13, although Jai et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to dependent claim 3, Jai et al fails to teach such an optical imaging lens satisfying the conditional expression: V7 > 25, as defined. Jai et al does teach such an optical imaging lens wherein V7 = 23.5 (page 5, Material data for Lens 7). In a related endeavor, Sun et al teaches an optical imaging lens, as outlined above, wherein V7 = 29.2 (page 3, paragraph [0037], lines 15-16), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the glass seventh lens of the optical imaging lens, as taught by Jai et al, with the glass lens having an Abbe number, as taught by Sun et al, since 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 known alternative (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper.
Although the prior art teaches an optical imaging lens, in order from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, comprising: a first lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a first lens having negative refractive power, a second lens having negative refractive power, and a third lens having positive refractive power; an aperture; a second lens assembly comprising, in order from the object side to the image side along the optical axis, a fourth lens having positive refractive power, a fifth lens having negative refractive power, a sixth lens having positive refractive power, and a seventh lens having negative refractive power, wherein an object-side surface of the seventh lens and an image- side surface of the sixth lens are adhered to form a compound lens having positive refractive power, the prior art fails to teach such an optical imaging lens simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: L7R2/V7<1, as defined and claimed in independent claim 15.
With regard to dependent claims 16-26, claims 16-26 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 15 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato (U.S. Patent Number 5,076,677), Lin (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0052057), Asami (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0080693), Tsai (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0064577), Yang et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0133460), Chen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0241348) and Yu et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0411110) all teach optical imaging lenses comprising seven lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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 L 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
20 August 2025