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 .
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2019/0056568 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Huang discloses 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, and an eighth lens element sequentially arranged along an optical axis from an object side to an image side, each of the first lens element to the eighth lens element comprising an object-side surface facing toward the object side and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing toward the image side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through (page 7, section [0101] – page 8, section [0110], Figure 1, “110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180”), wherein: an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the third lens element is convex (Figure 1, “131”) and a periphery region of the object-side surface of the third lens element is concave (page 7, section [0104], Figure 1, “131,” re: object-side surface 131 includes at least one inflection point); a periphery region of the object-side surface of the fourth lens element is concave (Figure 1, “141”); the fifth lens element has positive refracting power (page 7, section [0106], Figure 1, “150”); an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the seventh lens element is concave (Figure 1, “172”); and lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the eight lens elements describe above (Figure 1, “110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180”); wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: (G45+T5+G56)/T6≧1.800 → (0.118+0.584+0.080)/0.345 = 2.27 (page 10, TABLE 1), wherein G45 is an air gap from the fourth lens element to the fifth lens element along the optical axis, T5 is a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis, G56 is an air gap from the fifth lens element to the sixth lens element along the optical axis, and T6 is a thickness of the sixth lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: (T6+T7+T8)/(G12+G45+G67)≦3.500 → (0.345+0.346+0.369)/(0.149+0.118+0.412) = 1.56 (page 10, TABLE 1), wherein T7 is a thickness of the seventh lens element along the optical axis, T8 is a thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis, G12 is an air gap from the first lens element to the second lens element along the optical axis, and G67 is an air gap from the sixth lens element to the seventh lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: T6/(G12+G45)≦1.600 → 0.345/(0.149+0.118) = 1.29 (page 10, TABLE 1), wherein G12 is an air gap from the first lens element to the second lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: (T4+T6)/G45≦6.000 → 0.262+0.345)/0.118 = 5.14 (page 10, TABLE 1), wherein T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: (G34+G45)/G78≧1.500 → (0.41+0.118)/0.388 = 1.36 (page 10, TABLE 1), wherein G34 is an air gap from the third lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and G78 is an air gap from the seventh lens element to the eighth lens element along the optical axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art by Chen (US 2018/0106988 A1) teaches an optical imaging lens comprising only eight lens elements wherein the periphery region of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave; a periphery region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave; an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the third lens element is concave.
However, Chen does not teach “a periphery region of the object-side surface of the third lens element is concave; and an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the fourth lens element is convex” as to claim(s) 1-7; or “wherein: an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is concave” as to claim(s) 15-20.
Thus, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of applicant’s independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The claimed invention is therefore considered to be in condition for allowance as being novel and nonobvious over prior art.
Claims 11 and 13 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 11: an optical imaging lens as claimed, specifically wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: AAG/(G23+G45)≦5.500.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 13: an optical imaging lens as claimed, specifically wherein the optical imaging lens satisfies: ALT/(T4+G45)≦4.800.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues in paragraph 3 of page 12 of Applicant’s arguments “that the inflection point recited in Huang’s disclosure is different from the transition point, and the periphery region of the object-side surface (131) of the third lens element is convex, which is different from what is recited in claim 8, which is concave.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Huang discloses wherein each of the object-side surface (131) and the image-side surface (132) of the third lens element (130) includes at least one inflection point (page 7, section [0104]). Furthermore, Huang teaches wherein an inflection point is defined as a point where center of curvature is shifted from the object side to the image side (or from the image side to the object side) of a curve on the lens surface from a paraxial region thereof to the off-axis region thereof (page 7, section [0096]), meaning that the convex paraxial surface (i.e. image side center of curvature) of the object side surface of the third lens shifts to a concave off-axis surface (i.e. object side center of curvature) due to the inflection point, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation and anticipating the claim. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and is made FINAL.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
170
166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (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 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights