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 with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-20 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 § 112
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the infrared cut filter” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0082802).
With regard to independent claim 1, Lu et al taches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 1), comprising: a first lens (Figure 1, element E1), a second lens (Figure 1, element E2), a third lens (Figure 1, element E3), a fourth lens (Figure 1, element E4), a fifth lens (Figure 1, element E5), a sixth lens (Figure 1, element E6), a seventh lens (Figure 1, element E7), an eighth lens (Figure 1, element E8), a ninth lens (Figure 1, element E9), and a tenth lens (Figure 1, element E10), sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the first lens has positive refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], line 1), wherein the second lens has positive refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], lines 3-4), wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], line 20), a concave object-side surface (page 5, paragraph [0074], line 21 and Figure 1, element S15) and a convex image-side surface (page 5, paragraph [0074], line 22 and Figure 1, element S16), and wherein two of the third lens to the fifth lens have positive refractive power (page 6, Table 1, wherein the fourth (f4 = 31.05) and fifth (f5 = 39.91) lenses have positive refractive power).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Lu 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 system wherein the third lens has negative refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], lines 6-7), and wherein the fourth lens and the fifth lens have positive refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], lines 9 and 12-13, respectively).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Lu 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 system wherein the following conditional expressions are satisfied: TTL/f < 1.5 (page 6, paragraph [0076], wherein f = 5.44; TTL = 7.57; and TTL/f = 1.39), and 0< FSG/f < 0.15 (page 6, Table 1, Thickness/distance data for S22 and paragraph [0074], wherein FSG = 0.6400; TTL = 7.57; and FSG/TTL = 0.12), where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, FSG is a distance between an image-side surface of [an] infrared cut filter and an imaging plane, and f is a total focal length of the optical imaging system.
With regard to dependent claim 9, Lu 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 system wherein the ninth lens has positive refractive power, and the tenth lens has negative refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0074], lines 22-23 and 25-26, respectively).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Lu 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 system wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 0 <ν1- ν3 < 60 (page 6, Table 1, wherein ν1 = 52.5; ν3 = 19.2; and ν1- ν3 = 33.3), where ν1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and ν3 is an Abbe number of the third lens.
With regard to dependent claim 12, Lu et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches an electronic device comprising such an optical imaging system (page 15, paragraph [0111]).
Claims 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuo (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0137339).
With regard to independent claim 13, Kuo teaches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 15), comprising: a first lens (Figure 15, element 810), a second lens (Figure 15, element 820), a third lens (Figure 15, element 830), a fourth lens (Figure 15, element 840), a fifth lens (Figure 15, element 850), a sixth lens (Figure 15, element 860), a seventh lens (Figure 15, element 870), an eighth lens, (Figure 15, element 880) a ninth lens (Figure 15, element 890), and a tenth lens (Figure 15, element 893) sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power (page 30, paragraph [0249], lines 1-2), a concave object-side surface (page 30, paragraph [0249], line 2 and Figure 15, element 881) and a convex image-side surface (page 30, paragraph [0249], lines 3-4 and Figure 15, element 882), wherein at least one of the first lens to the tenth lens is formed of a glass material (page 6, paragraph [0088], lines 1-3), and wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 400 < Σνn < 500, where νn is an Abbe number of an nth lens, and n is a natural number from 1 to 10 (page 30, Table 15, wherein Σνn = 427.2).
With regard to dependent claim 16, Kuo teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the fourth lens and the fifth lens have positive refractive power (page 29, paragraph [0245], lines 1-2 and paragraph [0246], lines 1-2, respectively).
With regard to dependent claim 18, Kuo teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, and further teaches an electronic device comprising such an optical imaging system (Figure 17).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0057605).
With regard to independent claim 19, Li et al teaches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 9), comprising: a first lens (Figure 9, element E1), a second lens (Figure 9, element E2), a third lens (Figure 9, element E3), a fourth lens (Figure 9, element E4), a fifth lens (Figure 9, element E5), a sixth lens (Figure 9, element E6), a seventh lens (Figure 9, element E7), an eighth lens (Figure 9, element E8), a ninth lens (Figure 9, element E9), and a tenth lens (Figure 9, element E10), sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the first lens has positive refractive power (page 12, paragraph [0094], line 1), wherein the second lens has positive refractive power (page 12, paragraph [0094], line 3-4), wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power (page 12, paragraph [0094], lines 18-19), a concave object-side surface (page 12, paragraph [0094], lines 19-20 and Figure 9, element S15) and a convex image-side surface (page 12, paragraph [0094], line 20 and Figure 9, element S16), and wherein three of the sixth lens to the ninth lens have negative refractive power (page 12, Table 9, wherein the seventh (f7 = -999.27), eight (f8 = -1000.91), ninth (f9 = -125.64) and tenth (f10 = -5.91) lenses have negative refractive power).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0082802) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuo (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0137339).
With regard to dependent claim 7, although Lu et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, Lu fails to teach such an optical imaging system wherein the sixth lens and the seventh lens comprise an inflection point on at least one surface of an object-side surface and an image-side surface thereof. In a related endeavor, Kuo teaches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 15), comprising: a first lens (Figure 15, element 810), a second lens (Figure 15, element 820), a third lens (Figure 15, element 830), a fourth lens (Figure 15, element 840), a fifth lens (Figure 15, element 850), a sixth lens (Figure 15, element 860), a seventh lens (Figure 15, element 870), an eighth lens, (Figure 15, element 880) a ninth lens (Figure 15, element 890), and a tenth lens (Figure 15, element 893) sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power (page 30, paragraph [0249], lines 1-2), a concave object-side surface (page 30, paragraph [0249], line 2 and Figure 15, element 881) and a convex image-side surface (page 30, paragraph [0249], lines 3-4 and Figure 15, element 882), wherein at least three lenses within the system have at least one inflection point (page 3, paragraph [0049], lines 1-4), 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 optical imaging system, as taught by Lu et al, with the lens surfaces having an inflection point, as taught by Kuo, to correct for aberrations (page 3, paragraph [0049], lines 4-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 20 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: 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.
With regard to dependent claims 3, 4, 6 and 10, although the prior art teaches an optical imaging system, comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens, and a tenth lens, sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the first lens has positive refractive power, wherein the second lens has positive refractive power, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power, a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface, wherein two of the third lens to the fifth lens have positive refractive power, the prior art fails to teach such an optical imaging system: simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 400 < Σνn < 500, as defined and claimed in dependent claim 3; wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, and wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface, as claimed in dependent claim 4; wherein the sixth lens and the seventh lens have negative refractive power, as claimed in dependent claim 6; or simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 0.5 < DL1/DL2 <1.5, as claimed and defined in dependent claim 10.
With regard to dependent claims 14, 15 and 17, although the prior art teaches an optical imaging system, an optical imaging system, comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens, and a tenth lens sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power, a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface, wherein at least one of the first lens to the tenth lens is formed of a glass material, and wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied: 400 < Σνn < 500, where νn is an Abbe number of an nth lens, and n is a natural number from 1 to 10, the prior art fails to teach such an optical imaging system: simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 0.5 < DL1/DL2 <1.5, as defined and claimed in dependent claim 14; simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 0 < DL2/DL3 < 1.6, as defined and claimed in dependent claim 15; or wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, and the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface, as claimed in dependent claim 17.
With regard to dependent claim 19, although the prior art teaches an optical imaging system, an optical imaging system, comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a ninth lens, and a tenth lens, sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging side, wherein the first lens has positive refractive power, wherein the second lens has positive refractive power, wherein the eighth lens has negative refractive power, a concave object-side surface and a convex image-side surface, and wherein three of the sixth lens to the ninth lens have negative refractive power, the prior art fails to teach such an optical imaging system simultaneously satisfying the conditional expression: 1.0 < DL2/DL3 < 1.6, as defined and claimed.
Conclusion
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
05 February 2026