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
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/9/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden among different groups of invention, the different groups of invention overlap in scope, and the different groups of invention are obvious variants with each other. This is not found persuasive because,
The invention groups require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention group would not likely be applicable to another.
Further the question as to whether or not inventions overlap in scope is not whether the groups share some limitations. In fact, if such were the case, no restriction between groups with a linking or generic claim would ever be proper. Clearly, such an interpretation would not be consistent with restriction practice or double patenting practice as a whole. Rather, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention, MPEP806.05.
In addition Examiner notes there is nothing of record to show the groups of invention to be obvious variants to each other, e.g., Invention I with positive 3rd lens and Invention II with negative 7th lens and negative 8th lens can not be obvious variants to each other, e.g., Invention I may have positive 7th and 8th lenses and the optical effects are entirely different (just like a person with nearsighted can not use reading glasses as an obvious variant for the nearsighted glasses). If Applicant insists the two groups of invention are obvious variants to each other, Applicant needs to provide further evidences to support Applicant’s assertion and also indicate which limitation and which claim in each group of invention are obvious variants to each other respectively so Examiner can conduct a proper complete search and apply the related prior art properly based on Applicant’s asserted obviousness. Examiner notices only Embodiments 11 and 12 of the instant Application have 9 lenses. Applicant incorrectly cites all embodiments to support the claimed invention in the Remarks filed 4/9/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-6,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 101871107, as evidenced by the translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches (Figs. 1-3, Fig. 3 is a lens table data) An optical imaging lens comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element, a sixth lens element, a seventh lens element, a ninth lens element and an eighth lens element (100-900) sequentially from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth and eighth lens elements having an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through as well as an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through, wherein:
the first lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a first order from the object side to the image side;
the first lens element has positive refracting power (100 as seen in Fig. 1, curvature being reciprocal of radius in Fig. 3, surface#1&2);
the second lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a second order from the object side to the image side;
the third lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a third order from the object side to the image side;
the third lens element has positive refracting power (300 as seen in Fig. 3, curvature being reciprocal of radius in Fig. 3, surface#5&6);
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the third lens element is convex (curvature=0.01 for surface#5 in Fig. 3);
the fourth lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a fourth order from the object side to the image side;
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is convex (curvature=-0.04 for surface#8 in Fig. 3);
the fifth lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a fifth order from the object side to the image side;
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave (curvature=-0.04 for surface#8 in Fig. 3);
the sixth lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a sixth order from the object side to the image side;
the seventh lens element is arranged to be a lens element in a seventh order from the object side to the image side;
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the seventh lens element is convex (curvature=0.028 for surface#11 in Fig. 3);
the ninth lens element (800) is arranged to be a lens element in an eighth order from the object side to the image side; and
the eighth lens element (900) is arranged to be a lens element in a first order from the image side to the object side;
wherein lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the nine lens elements described above.
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T6, a thickness of the seventh lens element along the optical axis is represented by T7, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies an inequality: (T6+T7)/T5≥3.600 (8.85/0.92).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by T3, a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T4, a distance from the image-side surface of the second lens element to the object-side surface of the third lens element along the optical axis is represented by G23, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies an inequality: (T2+G23+T3)/T4≥4.200 (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, a thickness of the seventh lens element along the optical axis is represented by T7, a thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T8, a distance from the image-side surface of the seventh lens element to the object-side surface of the eighth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G78, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies an inequality: (T7+G78+T8)/T1≤3.500 (8.31/4.63).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis is represented by T2, a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T5, a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by T6, a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the object-side surface of the fifth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G45, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies an inequality: (G45+T5+T6)/T2≤5.300 (8.49/5.02).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is represented by T1, a distance from the image-side surface of the third lens element to the object-side surface of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G34, a distance from the image-side surface of the fifth lens element to the object-side surface of the sixth lens element along the optical axis is represented by G56, a sum of the thicknesses of the first lens element, the second lens element, the third lens element, the fourth lens element, the fifth lens element, the sixth lens element, the seventh lens element, and the eighth lens element along the optical axis is represented by ALT, and the optical imaging lens further satisfies an inequality: ALT/(T1+G34+G56)≥3.200 (as seen in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2,7,9-10 is/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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including “TTL/(T6+G67+T7+G78)≤4.500”, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including “EFL/(G12+T2+T3)≤4.700”, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including “AAG/(G67+G78)≤3.700”, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the limitations of the claim including “TL/(T3+G34+T6)≤3.600”, along with the other claimed limitations of the claim.
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