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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/17/2026.
Amendments to claims 7-8, 10-11, and 14, filed 3/17/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claim 3, filed 1/8/2024, remains in effect.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of the invention of group I, corresponding to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 19-21 in the reply filed on 3/17/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR l.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected group II (claims 7-13) and group III (claims 14-18), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant's remarks that
“Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are amended so that claims 7-18 ultimately depend from claim 1 and can be included in the elected Group I” - Remarks pg. 7,
from which it appears Applicant is attempting to rejoin claims drawn to nonelected inventions by amending the claim set, such that claim 1 is redesignated as a linking claim between the three groups of inventions. If this is the case, then Examiner will note that rejoinder is improper because, as noted above, the claims drawn to nonelected inventions are withdrawn from further consideration. See MPEP § 821:
“Claims found to be drawn to nonelected inventions, including claims drawn to nonelected species or inventions that may be eligible for rejoinder, are treated as indicated in MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.
All claims that the examiner finds are not directed to the elected invention are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). See MPEP § 821.01 through § 821.04.”
Applicant is also reminded that, per MPEP § 821.04(a), it is only:
"Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable claim [that] will be rejoined and
fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104",
emphasis added. Thus, since no linking claim has been deemed allowable, as also noted above, it is inappropriate to rejoin claims drawn to nonelected inventions at this time.
Accordingly, Examiner reiterates the restriction requirement which is hereby made final.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 19-21, directed to the elected invention of group I, are examined below.
Claims 7-13 and 14-18, corresponding to nonelected inventions of groups II and III, respectively,
remain withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
(end of the) effective region (claim 2)
aperture stop (claims 20-21)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
On line 1, “The optical system disclosed in the embodiment of the invention” is nonidiomatic and unnecessarily verbose. It may simply be replaced by “The optical system” or “The invention”
On line 2, a comma improperly splices “The optical system […]” and “the first lens has […]”. These are independent clauses that should be coordinated properly, i.e. as separate sentences or separated by semicolon
On lines 5-6, “the seventh lens may be a thickest among thicknesses of each of the first to ninth lenses in the optical axis” is ungrammatical because “thickest” is a superlative requiring a definite article. Furthermore, comparing the “seventh lens” to “thicknesses” is illogical. The clause is also ambiguous/defective for unclearly combining “among” (implying a group) with “each” (singular treatment). The phrase “thicknesses […] in the optical axis” is further nonidiomatic and unclear. The clause at issue may be corrected to read “the seventh lens may be the thickest of the first to ninth lenses when measured along the optical axis” or similar
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is further objected to because the specification is grammatically defective and replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 2, lines 8-9, two instances of “zooning” should read “zooming”. Also “zooming up” should read “zooming in”
In ¶ 2, lines 10-11, “the camera module employs an image stabilization (IS) technology to correct or prevent image stabilization […]” is contradictory and unclear
In ¶ 3, lines 2-3, “high efficiency such as high image quality and high resolution” is unclear
In ¶ 3, line 3, “including plurality of lenses” is missing an article and should read “including a plurality of lenses”
In ¶ 3, “research on an optical system […] is being conducted” is written in a manner that suggests that all of the mentioned research is being performed on a single, particular optical system; this is neither logical nor clear
In ¶ 3, lines 10-11 “to realize high-resolution and high-definition” is ungrammatical as neither “high-resolution” nor “high-definition” appear to be used as compound adjectives, and it is therefore improper for them to be hyphenated
In ¶5, line 5 ¶ 9, line 1; “[The/the] seventh lens may be a thickest among thicknesses of each of the first to ninth lenses in the optical axis” is ungrammatical because “thickest” is a superlative requiring a definite article. Furthermore, comparing the “seventh lens” to “thicknesses” is illogical. The clause is also ambiguous/defective for unclearly combining “among” (implying a group) with “each” (singular treatment). The phrase “thicknesses […] in the optical axis” is further nonidiomatic and unclear. The clause at issue may be corrected to read “The seventh lens may be the thickest of the first to ninth lenses when measured along the optical axis” or similar
In ¶ 16, line 3, “The seventh lens may have a thickest thickness among thicknesses of each of the first to ninth lenses in the optical axis” is ungrammatical because “thickest” is a superlative requiring a definite article. The clause is also improperly redundant, as well as ambiguous/defective for unclearly combining “among” (implying a group) with “each” (singular treatment). The phrase “thicknesses […] in the optical axis” is further nonidiomatic and unclear. The clause at issue may be corrected to read “The seventh lens may be the thickest of the first to ninth lenses when measured along the optical axis” or similar
In ¶ 33, lines 5-10, “terms […] may be interpreted in a meaning” and “terms […] should be able to interpret their meanings” are improper and unclear
In ¶ 39, line 5, “includes a nine lens” is ungrammatical and should either read “includes nine lenses” or “includes a ninth lens”
In ¶ 40, line 10, “may serves” is improper and should read “may serve”
In ¶ 42, lines 10-11, it is not clear why “image sensors 300” is abruptly pluralized
Throughout the specification – e.g. line 15 of each of ¶s 47, 49, and 50 “both sides are concave of the optical axis OA” has no clear meaning and may need to have “of” replaced with “on”
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Applicant is further advised that, in response to the above objections, a substitute specification excluding the claims will be required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a), because the number or nature of the amendments will render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “the seventh lens is a thickest among thicknesses of each of the first to ninth lenses in the optical axis” is ungrammatical because “thickest” is a superlative requiring a definite article. The phrase “thicknesses […] in the optical axis” is further nonidiomatic and unclear. See also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below
In claim 2, lines 1-2, “a thickness of the seventh lens in the optical axis” is nonidiomatic and unclear, but may be corrected to read “a thickness of the seventh lens along the optical axis” or “a thickness of the seventh lens in the optical-axis direction”
In claim 2, line 6, and claim 20, line 5, “wherein the following equation satisfies” is improper, but may be corrected to read “wherein the following equation is satisfied”
In claim 5, line 2, “a smallest effective diameter” should read “the smallest effective diameter”
In claim 19, line 3, “a sensor-side” should read “a sensor-side surface”
Appropriate correction is required. Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 19-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9 recite “the seventh lens is a thickest among thicknesses of each of the first to ninth lenses in the optical axis” which is indefinite because comparing the “seventh lens” to “thicknesses” is illogical. The limitation is also ambiguous/defective for unclearly combining “among” (implying a group) with “each” (singular treatment). For examination purposes, the quoted limitation shall be read as “the seventh lens may be the thickest of the first to ninth lenses when measured along the optical axis” or similar. See also Claim Objections above.
Regarding claim 21, line 4 recites
“a focal length of each of the first and second lens groups has a positive value”. However, line 3 of claim 20 already defined “a focal length of the first lens group”. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing antecedence issues and ambiguity which ultimately render the limitation indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation is indefinite for being ambiguously worded and unclear as to whether it is requiring the recited first and second lens groups to have focal lengths that are equal in addition to being positive (“each […] has a positive value”). For examination purposes, “a focal length of […] the first […] lens group” recited in claim 21 is read as corresponding to claim’s 20 “focal length of the first lens group”. It is also understood that the two recited focal lengths do not need to be equal, only positive.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano (US 20200249437 Al) in view of Wang et al (CN 112505888, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Hirano discloses an optical system (see Table 7, FIG. 10 detailing Numerical Data Example 4) comprising:
first to ninth lenses (L1-L9) disposed along an optical axis (X) from an object side toward a sensor side,
wherein the first lens (L1) has positive (+) refractive power (f1 > 0) on the optical axis (X),
wherein the seventh lens (L7) has positive (+) refractive power (f7 > 0) on the optical axis (X),
wherein an object-side surface (i = 13) and a sensor-side surface (i = 14) of the seventh lens (L7) have a convex shape (r13 > 0, r14 < 0) on the optical axis (X),
wherein the ninth lens (L9) has negative (-) refractive power on the optical axis (X), and
wherein the seventh lens (L7) is thickest (d7 > d1 - d6) among thicknesses of each of the first to sixth lenses (L1-L6) in the optical axis (X).
Hirano thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose the seventh lens to be thicker than the eighth and ninth lens.
Hirano and Wang commonly relate to nine-component lens systems for cameras.
Wang discloses an optical system (see Table 5, FIG. 3 detailing Embodiment 2) in which the seventh lens (L7) is thicker than the eighth and ninth lens (L8 and L9).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirano with design aspects of Wang, in order to support a redistributed power profile that can provide desirable optical performance, or to balance such performance against manufacturing or some other size/packaging constraints (see, e.g., Wang ¶s 77, 81-82).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Wang further discloses
wherein L7_CT is a thickness of the seventh lens (L7) in the optical axis (O),
L7_ET is a distance in an optical axis (O) direction between an end of an effective region of the object-side surface (14) of the seventh lens (L7) and an end of an effective region of the sensor-side surface (15) of the seventh lens (L7),
wherein the following equation satisfies:
Equation: 0 < L7_ET / L7_CT < 1.
(By mere visual inspection of FIG. 3, Examiner verifies that the center thickness L7_ET of seventh lens L7 is greater than that approaching L7’s edges – i.e. the end of its effective region. Thus the positive-definite thicknesses/distances are related through L7_ET > L7_CT, and the claimed equation is automatically satisfied.)
Regarding claim 4, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Modified Hirano, based on Embodiment 2 of Wang cited above, does not disclose wherein the seventh lens has a refractive index greater than 1.6.
Wang, in another Embodiment 1, discloses (see Table 2) wherein the seventh lens has a refractive index (= 1.67) greater than 1.6.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Hirano with other design aspects of Wang, in order to provide greater refractive effect to the seventh lens in further support of a redistributed power profile with desirable optical performance.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Hirano further discloses (see FIG. 10) wherein the object-side surface (i = 1) of the first lens (L1) serves as an aperture stop (ST) (¶ 111: “there is provided an aperture stop ST on the object-side surface of the first lens Ll”).
Alternatively, Hirano discloses a sensor-side of the first lens as a location for the aperture stop. (¶ 111: “ST can be provided between the first lens Ll and the second lens L2”).
Modified Hirano does not directly disclose that a sensor-side surface of the first lens serves as an aperture stop. However, Examiner finds this limitation may only distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art by a mere rearrangement of parts – i.e. of the aperture stop from the first lens’s object-side surface over to the sensor-side surface.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to simply reposition modified Hirano’s aperture stop, in order to control the pupil that regulates light passing through the system – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Hirano further discloses (see Table 7)
wherein an object-side surface (i = 7) of the fourth lens (L4) has a convex shape (r7 > 0) on the optical axis (X),
wherein a sensor-side (i = 8) of the fourth lens (L4) has a concave shape (r8 > 0) on the optical axis (X),
wherein each of the fourth and fifth lenses (L4 and L5) has positive refractive power (f4, f5 > 0) on the optical axis (X).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Hirano further discloses (see Table 7, FIG. 10 detailing Numerical Data Example 4)
wherein the first lens (L1) disposed between an object and an aperture stop (ST) is defined as a first lens group (note ¶ 111: “aperture stop ST can be provided between the first lens Ll and the second lens L2”),
wherein a focal length of the first lens group is f_G1 (= f1),
wherein a focal length of the optical system is F (= f),
wherein the following equation satisfies:
Equation: 5 < f_G1/F (= f1/f ≈ 12.7) < 12.
Modified Hirano, based on Numerical Data Example 4 of Hirano cited above, thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that f_G1/F < 12.
However, Hirano more generally discloses a range of values 5 < f1/f < 25, which fully encompass the claimed range of 5 < f_G1/F (= f1/f) < 12.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Hirano with other design aspects of Wang, in order to provide greater refractive effect to the first lens in further support of a redistributed power profile with desirable optical performance balanced against size constraints (Hirano ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 20.
Hirano, in Numerical Data Example 4 cited above, further discloses (see Table 7)
wherein the second to ninth lenses (L2-L9) disposed between the aperture stop (102) and an image sensor (image plane IM) are defined as a second lens group,
wherein a focal length of each of the first and second lens groups has a positive value (f1 > 0 is shown in Table 7; the group focal length of lenses L2-L9 is also found to be positive by basic ray transfer matrix calculations – a value of ~ 5.83 mm is provided for reference).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Gutierrez and Calvet (US 20100284081 A1, hereinafter “Gutierrez”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hirano discloses the optical system of claim 1.
Hirano further discloses wherein the lens with a smallest effective diameter (clear aperture) is among the first to ninth lenses (L1-L9) that are closer to the object side (as indicated by ¶ 38: “a lens disposed closer to the image plane side in the imaging lens tends to have a larger effective diameter”).
Modified Hirano does not explicitly disclose that the first lens or the third lens has the smallest effective diameter.
Hirano and Gutierrez commonly relate to lens systems for cameras.
Gutierrez discloses (see FIG. 3, ¶ 103 table) the first lens (104, lens 1) or the third lens has the smallest effective diameter (see also ¶ 54: “The clear aperture of the lenses 104, 203, 204, and 205 can increase progressively in diameter from the front of the camera to the back”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Hirano with design aspects of Gutierrez, in order to control the pupil that regulates light passing through the system – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights