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 .
Election/Restrictions
(1) Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/4/25 is acknowledged.
(2) Claim(s) 1 is/are allowable. The restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/26/25 has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 11/26/25 is withdrawn. Claim(s) 8-19 is/are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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(s) 13-15 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the first and second directions" in claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 14-15 inherit(s) the indefiniteness of the claim from which it/they depend(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-12,16-19 is/are allowed. Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as described above, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art found is YOSUKE (JP 2017102353, of record, as evidenced by the translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YOSUKE teaches (Figs. 1-2, Example 1) An optical system comprising:
a plurality of lenses; and
an aperture stop (SP) disposed between any two of the plurality of lenses,
wherein the optical system satisfies the following inequalities:
0.20≤2f tan(θ max/2)/y(θ max) (~1, f=2, y(θmax)=4, θmax=90.2)
where y(θ) is a projection characteristic of the optical system representing a relationship between a half angle of view θ and an image height y, θ max is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, f is a focal length of the optical system, and θ80 is a half angle of view of 80% of the maximum half angle of view.
While YOSUKE does not explicitly teach 2f tan(θ max/2)/y(θ max)≤0.95, which is considered an obvious subject matter as one of ordinary skill in the art can choose to have a smaller θmax by selecting/cropping the central portion of image.
However the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including “1.35≤{y(θ max)−y(θ80)}/(fθ max−fθ 80)≤2.50”, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
The other claim(s) is/are allowed or would be allowable for its/their claim dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights