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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 12, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the correspondingly necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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 and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0148012 to Yamazaki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki discloses (e.g., Fig. 1 and Table 1) an optical imaging system, comprising: a first lens L1, a second lens L2, a third lens L3 and a fourth lens L4 disposed in order from an object side to an imaging side (Fig. 1): wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region (Fig. 1; Table 1), and wherein the optical imaging system satisfies a conditional expression:
-0.5<R1/R3<1.0,
where R1 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens, and R3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens (e.g., Table 1, R1 is 1.687, R3 is -5.717, yielding a ratio of -0.295, within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki discloses wherein the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
-2.0<f4/f<-0.5,
where f is an overall focal length of the optical imaging system and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens (calculated from values provided in Table 1, f4 is –2.235, f is 3.864, yielding a ratio of -0.578, within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, Lyu discloses wherein the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expressions:
1.0<TTL/f<2.0,
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane and f is an overall focal length of the optical imaging system (calculated from values provided in Table 1, ratio of about 1.18, within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 10, Lyu discloses wherein the third lens has a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface (Fig. 1, Table 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki would have rendered obvious wherein the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.5<EPD/TTL<0.7,
where EPD is an entrance pupil diameter, and TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an image plane (where Yamazaki teaches in paragraphs [0039] and [0070] that the pupil can be adjusted to ensure telecentricity and optimize the incident angle and compensate aberrations, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamazaki to achieve the claimed inequality expression, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3–7 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.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights