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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huh et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0151944).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regard to independent claim 1, Huh et al teaches an optical imaging system comprising (page 1, paragraph [0002]): a first lens (Figure 1, element 110) comprising a refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0073], line 1); a second lens (Figure 1, element 120) comprising a refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 3-4); a third lens (Figure 1, element 130) comprising a refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 5-6); a fourth lens (Figure 1, element 140) comprising a convex object-side surface (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 8-10); a fifth lens (Figure 1, element 150) comprising a refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 11-12); and a sixth lens (Figure 1, element 160) comprising a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 13-17 and annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order form an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system (Figure 1), wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens (page 5, Table 1, Radius of Curvature data for surface S6 = 3.7620) is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens (page 5, Table 1, Radius of Curvature data for surface S7 = 2.6622) and is less than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fifth lens (page 5, Table 1, Radius of Curvature data for surface S9 = 1000.0000), wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (page 5, Table 1, Radius of Curvature data for surface S12 = 1000.0000) is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens (page 5, Table 1, Radius of Curvature data for surface S1 = 1.8301) wherein a thickness of the first lens (page 5, Table 1, Thickness/Distance data for surface S1 = 0.7720) is greater than a thickness of the fifth lens (page 5, Table 1, Thickness/Distance data for surface S9 = 0.3109), wherein a thickness of the third lens (page 5, Table 1, Thickness/Distance data for surface S5 = 0.3337) is greater than a thickness of the fourth lens (page 5, Table 1, Thickness/Distance data for surface S7 = 0.2300), and wherein the second lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or higher (page 5, Table 1, Refractive Index data for the Second Lens = 1.661).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to dependent claim 2, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 1-2).
With regard to dependent claim 3, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 3-5).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 3-5).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 6-8).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the first lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 6-8).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Huh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 1, and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the fourth lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (page 4, paragraph [0073], lines 8-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper.
With regard to independent claim 8, although the prior art teaches an optical imaging system comprising: a first lens comprising a refractive power; a second lens comprising a refractive power; a third lens comprising a refractive power; a fourth lens comprising a convex object-side surface; a fifth lens comprising a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; and a sixth lens comprising a refractive power, wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order form an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging plane of the optical imaging system, the prior art fails to simultaneously teach such an optical imaging system wherein: an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fourth lens; wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fourth lens; wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the first lens; wherein a thickness of the third lens is greater than a thickness of the fourth lens and wherein the second lens has a refractive index of 1.65 or higher.
With regard to dependent claims 9-16, claims 9-16 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 8 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
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 DARRYL J COLLINS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2325. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
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 L 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.
/DARRYL J COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights