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 § 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0338613), hereinafter “Tang”, in view of Mori (USPG Pub No. 2017/0059816).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an optical imaging system (see Fig. 8A) comprising: a first lens (810) having a negative refractive power (Paragraph 211, Table 15); a second lens (820) having a refractive power; a third lens (830) having a refractive power; a fourth lens (840) having a refractive power and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Paragraph 214, Table 15); a fifth lens (850) having a refractive power; and a sixth lens (860) having a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Paragraph 216, Table 15), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (see Fig. 8A, Table 15), wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the sixth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Table 15), wherein f3 is within a range of 1.8 mm to 4.20 mm, where f3 is a focal length of the third lens (Table 15). Tang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less. In the same field of endeavor, Mori discloses wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less (Table 4). 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 imaging system of Tang with wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less of Mori for the purpose of providing an optical imaging system sufficiently correcting aberrations in order to obtain high optical performance (Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 8, Tang discloses an optical imaging system (see Fig. 8A) comprising: a first lens (810) having a negative refractive power (Paragraph 211, Table 15); a second lens (820) having a refractive power; a third lens (830) having a refractive power; a fourth lens (840) having a refractive power and a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Paragraph 214, Table 15); a fifth lens (850) having a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Paragraph 215, Table 15); and a sixth lens (860) having a refractive power, wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (see Fig. 8A, Table 15), wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the sixth lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (Table 15), wherein f3 is within a range of 1.8 mm to 4.20 mm, where f3 is a focal length of the third lens (Table 15). Tang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less. In the same field of endeavor, Mori discloses wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less (Table 4). 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 imaging system of Tang with wherein 90° ≤ FOV, where FOV is a maximum field of view of the optical imaging system, and wherein an Abbe number of the fourth lens is 55 or less of Mori for the purpose of providing an optical imaging system sufficiently correcting aberrations in order to obtain high optical performance (Paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Tang further discloses wherein the first lens (810) has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 8A, Table 15).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Tang further discloses wherein the second lens (820) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 8A, Table 15).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Tang further discloses wherein the second lens (820) has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 8A, Table 15).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Tang further discloses wherein the third lens (830) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 8A, Table 15).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Tang and Mori teach the optical imaging system set forth above for claims 1 and 8, Mori further discloses wherein the third lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Table 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the optical imaging system of Tang with the teachings of Mori for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1 and 8.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Tang further discloses wherein the fifth lens (850) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 8A, Table 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Mori cures the deficiencies of Tang and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
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 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 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights