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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/420,951, filed on 01/31/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 04/09/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the search strategies would not impose serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because there are distinct differences between the inventions that require separate search strategies and search queries. By design, the structural requirements of a lens element, such as the thickness and convex or concave shape, affects the properties of the light transmitted. The differences in conditions also prove a distinct difference between the systems since the conditions are further limitations of the lenses and their structural designs. Therefore, Inventions I and II are distinct, thus imposing a serious burden since each invention entails a unique search strategy and search query.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/14/2026.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine (USP No. 9,110,271).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine discloses an optical photographing system comprising six lens elements (see Fig. 1), the six lens elements being, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens element (L1), a second lens element (L2), a third lens element (L3), a fourth lens element (L4), a fifth lens element (L5) and a sixth lens element (L6) (see Fig. 1, Table 1); each of the six lens elements has an object-side surface towards the object side and an image-side surface towards the image side (see Fig. 1, Table 1); wherein the first lens element (L1) has positive refractive power (Table 1), the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the image-side surface of the first lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1); the object-side surface of the second lens element (L2) is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1); the third lens element (L3) has positive refractive power (Table 1); the fifth lens element (L5) has positive refractive power (Table 1), the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the image-side surface of the fifth lens element is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1); the object-side surface of the sixth lens element (L6) is convex in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is concave in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1), the image-side surface of the sixth lens element comprises at least one convex shape in an off-axis region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1); wherein a central thickness of the fourth lens element is greater than an axial distance between the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element (Table 1); wherein a central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, a central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, a central thickness of the third lens element is CT3, the central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, a central thickness of the fifth lens element is CT5, and the following condition is satisfied: (CT1+CT2+CT4)/(CT3+CT5) < 0.80 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Sekine discloses wherein the fourth lens element has negative refractive power; the sixth lens element has negative refractive power; the central thickness of the first lens element is CT1, the central thickness of the second lens element is CT2, the central thickness of the third lens element is CT3, the central thickness of the fourth lens element is CT4, the central thickness of the fifth lens element is CT5, and the following condition is satisfied: (CT1+CT2+CT4)/(CT3+CT5) < 0.77 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine discloses wherein a focal length of the second lens element is f2, a focal length of the third lens element is f3, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.17 ≤|f3/f2|< 0.50 (Table 6).
Regarding claim 4, Sekine discloses wherein a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the first lens element is R1, a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the first lens element is R2, and the following condition is satisfied: 0.13 ≤ |R2/R1|<3.0 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sekine discloses wherein an axial distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element is larger than an axial distance between the third lens element and the fourth lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sekine discloses wherein an absolute value of a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the third lens element is larger than an absolute value of a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Sekine discloses wherein a central thickness of the sixth lens element is larger than the central thickness of the first lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Sekine discloses wherein an absolute value of a focal length of the second lens element is larger than an absolute value of a focal length of the third lens element (Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Sekine discloses an image capturing apparatus (Col. 1, Lines 13-15), comprising: the optical photographing system of claim 1 (see Fig. 1); and an image sensor disposed on an image surface of the optical photographing system (Col. 1, Lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 11, Sekine discloses an electronic device, comprising: the image capturing apparatus of claim 10 (Col. 1, Lines 11-16).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine (USP No. 9,110,271) in view of Lee et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0138425), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 5, Sekine discloses wherein a focal length of the fifth lens element is f5, a focal length of the sixth lens element is f6, a focal length of the optical photographing system is f, an axial distance between the object-side surface of the first lens element and an image surface is TL (Table 1), and the following conditions are satisfied: and 0.45 < f/TL < 0.70 (Table 1). Sekine discloses the claimed invention except for 0.70 < |f5/f6| < 1.0. In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses 0.70 < |f5/f6| < 1.0 (Table 13 – 3rd Embodiment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the optical photographing system of Sekine with 0.70 < |f5/f6| < 1.0 of Lee for the purpose of providing a bright and large aperture imaging system capable of appropriate aberration correction (Paragraph 8).
Prior Art Citations
Chen et al. (USPG Pub No. 2016/0048005 – Fig. 19) is being cited herein to show an optical photographing system relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights