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. 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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0179275 to Takeuchi et al. Regarding Claim 1 , Takeuchi discloses (e.g., focusing on the embodiment of Fig. 3, paragraphs [0070] – [0079] and Table 5 ) a camera optical lens, comprising from an object side to an image side: a first lens 2 , a second lens 3 and a third lens 4 ; wherein a focal length of the camera optical lens is f, a focal length of the first lens is f1, an on-axis distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens is d2, a total optical length from an object side surface (S2) of the first lens to an image plane (S) of the camera optical lens along an optic axis of the camera optical lens is TTL, a field of view of the camera optical lens is FOV, a full field image height of the camera optical lens is IH, a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the third lens is R5, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the third lens is R6, a refractive index of the first lens is n1 (where each of these variables represent existing physical properties, and do not specifically limit the claim, except for the following relational expressions) , and following relational expressions are satisfied (using values in Table 5 for the calculations) : 0.80 ≤ f1/f ≤ 1.60 (where f1 is 5.70 and f is 4.3 2 , yielding a quotient of 1.32 , which is within the claimed range); 0.14 ≤ d2/TTL ≤ 0.22 (where d2 is 1.10 and TTL is 6.358 , yielding a quotient of 0. 173 , which is within the claimed range); 100.00 ≤ (FOV*f)/IH ≤ 115.00 (where FOV is 60. 6 °, f is 4.3 2 , and IH is 2.5 2 , yielding a quotient of 103. 9 , which is within the claimed range); 1.40 ≤ R5/R6 ≤ 4.00 (where R5 is 2.182 and R6 is 1.450 , yielding a quotient of 1.505 , which is within the claimed range); and 1.70 ≤ n1 ≤ 2.10 (where n1 is 1. 713 , within the claimed range ). Regarding Claim 8 , Takeuchi discloses (again with respect to the embodiment of Table 5) a combined focal length of the first lens and the second lens is f12, and a following relational expression is satisfied: 0.31 ≤ f12/f ≤ 1.18 (where f12 is 4.504 and f is 4.32, yielding a quotient of 1.043, which is within the claimed range). Regarding Claim 10 , Takeuchi discloses wherein the first lens is made of glass (paragraph [0051]), and the second lens and the third lens are made of plastic (paragraphs [0019] – [ 0020]). 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 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 of this title, 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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 2 – 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi. Regarding Claim 2 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein a focal length of the second lens is f2, an on-axis thickness of the second lens is d3, and a following relational expression is satisfied: 1.5 0 ≤ f2/d3 ≤ 4. 00 (where the embodiment of Table 5 yields a value of 6.46; the embodiment of Table 8 yields a value of 5.113; both near the end of the claimed range, such that it would have been obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed range) . Regarding Claim 3 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the second lens is R3, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the second lens is R4, and a following relational expression is satisfied: 1.5 0 ≤ R3/ R 4 ≤ 5. 00 (where Table 5 yields 1.152; Table 8 yields 1.14; both near the end of the claimed range, such that it would have been obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed range) . Regarding Claim 4 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein a focal length of the third lens is f3, and a following relational expression is satisfied: -1.2 0 ≤ f3/f ≤ -0.6 0 (where Table 8 yields -1.15, which is within the claimed range, see the footnote with respect to Claim 1) . Regarding Claim 5 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein the first lens has a positive refractive power (see both Tables 5 and 8) , an object-side surface of the first lens is convex in a paraxial region, and an image-side surface of the first lens is concave in the paraxial region (Table 5) ; a curvature radius of an object-side surface of the first lens is R1, a curvature radius of an image-side surface of the first lens is R2, and an on-axis thickness of the first lens is d1, and following relational expressions are satisfied: -126.25 ≤ (R1+R2)/(R1 – R2) ≤ -1.8 0 (where Table 5 yields -1.702, very near the end of the claimed range, such that it would have been obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed range) ; and 0.08 ≤ d1/TTL ≤ 0.45 (Table 5 yields 0.157, which is within the claimed range). Regarding Claim 7 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein the third lens has a negative refractive power (both Tables 5 and 8) , an object-side surface of the third lens is convex in a paraxial region, and an image-side surface of the third lens is concave in the paraxial region (both Tables 5 and 8) ; an on-axis thickness of the third lens is d5, and following relational expressions are satisfied: 0.83 ≤ (R5+R6)/(R5 – R6) ≤ 8.91 (where Table 5 yields 4.96, which is within the claimed range) ; and 0.02 ≤ d5/TTL ≤ 0.12 (where Table 5 yields 0.157, near the end of the claimed range, such that it would have been obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed range). Regarding Claim 9 , Takeuchi would have rendered obvious wherein an F-number of the camera optical lens is FNO, and a following relational expression is satisfied: FNO ≤ 3 .47 (where Table 5 is 4.00, Table 8 is 3.96, both near the end of the claimed range, such that it would have been obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claimed range) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is 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: the prior art of record fails to disclose, and would not have rendered obvious, the combination of features recited in Claim 6, including the claimed relational expressions, when combined and taken as a whole with the features of Claim 1 from which it depends. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3183 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am to 5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Caley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2286 . 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. /RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871