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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 17 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-17 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 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.
Claims 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 211826688 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches an imaging lens system (Figure 1) comprising:
a first lens (Figure 1 lens 1, [0082]), a second lens (lens 2), a third lens (lens 3), a fourth lens (lens 4), a fifth lens (lens 5), a sixth lens (lens 6), a seventh lens (lens 7), and an eighth lens (lens 8) sequentially arranged at intervals from an object side (Figure 1 lenses 1-8 are arranged sequentially, [0082]),
wherein the first lens (lens 1) has negative refractive power ([0083] lens 1 is negative),
wherein the third lens (lens 3) has positive refractive power ([0085] lens 3 is positive),
wherein the fifth lens (lens 5) has a convex object-side surface ([0087] object-side surface of lens 5 is convex), and
wherein the eighth lens (lens 8) has a convex image-side surface ([0089] image-side surface of lens 8 is convex), and wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
30 < (V1+V2)/2 < 40 (Table 1-1 V1 = 59.46, V2 = 17.94, (V1+V2)/2 = 38.7)
where V1 is an Abbe number of the first lens and V2 is an Abbe number of the second lens.
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: f4/f5 < 0 (Table 1-1 f4 = -6.00 mm, f5 = 8.28 mm, f4/f5 = -0.72) where f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens.
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: -6.3 < f6/f7 < 3.50 (Table 1-1 f6 =where f6 = 3.1 mm, f7 = -2.41 mm, f6/f7 = -1.29) is a focal length of the sixth lens and f7 is a focal length of the seventh lens.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: -40 < V4-V5 < 47 (Table 1-1 V4 = 36.35, V5 = 37.29, V4-V5 = -0.94) where V4 is an Abbe number of the fourth lens and V5 is an Abbe number of the fifth lens.
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: -35 < V7-V8 < 35 (Table 1-1 V7 = 33.84, V8 = 53.20, V7-V8 = -19.36) where V7 is an Abbe number of the seventh lens and V8 is an Abbe number of the eighth lens.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: TTL/f < 4.90 ([0112] f = 5.95 mm, TTL = 17.8 mm, TTL/f = 2.99) where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li further teaches the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: L1ED/ImgHT < 2.40 (Figure 1 L1ED has been calculated from the measured ratio L1ED to TTL in Figure 1 with L1ED measured at 1.86 in and TTL measured at 6.35 in (see labeled Figure below). Using the known TTL of 17.8 mm [0112] to scale the ratio yields a calculated L1ED of 5.21 mm. [0112] ImgHT = 7.4/2 = 3.7 mm, L1ED/ImgHT = 1.41) where L1ED is an effective diameter of an object-side surface of the first lens and ImgHT is a height of an imaging plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the closest prior art of record is Izuhara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0132530 – hereinafter referred to as “Izuhara”). Izuhara fails to teach or reasonably suggest “the imaging lens system has a total number of eight lenses with refractive power” in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 17. 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 1 and 17, specifically the limitation: “the imaging lens system has a total number of eight lenses with refractive power”
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Claims 10 and 16 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 10, the best prior art of record, Li, teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li fails to teach or reasonably suggest “the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: -1.0 < f5/f6 < 0.50 where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens and f6 is a focal length of the sixth lens” in combination with the intervening limitations (Li Table 1-1 f5 = 8.28 mm, f6 = 3.10 mm, f5/f6 = 2.67). 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: “the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression: -1.0 < f5/f6 < 0.50”
Regarding claim 16, the best prior art of record, Li, teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Li fails to teach or reasonably suggest “54 < Nsum/(Nmax-Nmin) < 56 where Nsum is the sum of refractive indices of the first to eighth lenses, and Nmin is a minimum value of the refractive indices of the first to eighth lenses” in combination with the intervening limitations (Li Table 1-1 Nsum/(Nmax-Nmin) = 37.46). 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, Li fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 16, specifically the limitation: “54 < Nsum/(Nmax-Nmin) < 56 where Nsum is the sum of refractive indices of the first to eighth lenses, and Nmin is a minimum value of the refractive indices of the first to eighth lenses”
Conclusion
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