DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2016/0033744) in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0346461).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) discloses a lens module comprising a first lens 110 comprising a refractive power, a second lens 120 comprising a convex object-side surface 121, a third lens 130 comprising a refractive power, a fourth lens 140 comprising negative refractive power, a fifth lens 150 comprising a refractive power, and a sixth lens 160 comprising a refractive power, wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an image side. Tsai discloses all the claimed limitations except that first lens comprising a negative refractive power, wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the third lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens, and wherein the lens module has an overall focal length of 1.8 mm to 2.4 mm. However, such features are merely design choice purpose and are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Within the same field of endeavor, Chen (figures 2 and 4) discloses a lens module comprises 6 lenses wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the third lens (0.57) is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens (0.30), and wherein the lens module has an overall focal length of 1.8 mm to 2.4 mm (2.2mm). In addition, Tsai ([0037]) teaches that the first lens element has positive refractive power, so that it provides the imaging optical system with the positive refractive power as it needs to be so as to reduce the total track length of the imaging optical system. With this being said, the remaining choice of a negative refractive power for the first lens would have been obvious and well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the above features for design purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the first lens has a concave image-side surface 112.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface 122.
Regarding claim 4, Chen (figures 2 and 4) further discloses wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface 1311.
Regarding claim 5, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the third lens has a convex image-side surface 132.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the fourth lens has a concave image-side surface 142.
Regarding claim 7, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface 151.
Regarding claim 8, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the fifth lens has a convex image-side surface 152.
Regarding claim 9, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface 161.
Regarding claim 10, Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) further discloses wherein the sixth lens has a concave image-side surface 162.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Tsai failed to teach a first lens comprising a negative refractive power, as newly amended. The Examiner respectively disagrees. Tsai ([0037]) teaches that the first lens element has positive refractive power, so that it provides the imaging optical system with the positive refractive power as it needs to be so as to reduce the total track length of the imaging optical system. With this being said, the remaining choice of a negative refractive power for the first lens would have been obvious and well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the above features for design purpose. Secondly, the Applicant argues that Chen failed to teach that the second lens comprising a convex object-side surface. The Examiner respectively disagrees. Tsai (Embodiment 1; figure 1A; Table 1) discloses a second lens 120 comprising a convex object-side surface 121. The Office Action relies on Chen (figures 2 and 4) disclosing a lens module comprises 6 lenses only for the deficiencies in Tsai wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the third lens (0.57) is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens (0.30), and wherein the lens module has an overall focal length of 1.8 mm to 2.4 mm (2.2mm). Therefore, Chen does not require to have a second lens comprising a convex object-side surface as Tsai already teaches this feature.
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 JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/16/26
Prosecution Insights