DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 07/28/2026) with respect to claims 8-25 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection. Embodiment #2 of Geng is relied upon to reject claims 8-25 in the instant rejection, rather than embodiment #3 as previously cited.
4. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 (see AF/D.132 dated 07/28/2026) is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 8-14 over Geng et al. (CN 112130286 A, of record).
On page 2 of the declaration, applicant provides “an arbitrary value of 2.6” and proceeds to create a graph (referred to as Fig. C, but labelled Figure 14) using this arbitrary value. Based on this graph & Geng’s omission of an Fno value, applicant asserts that “light CANNOT properly focus on the imaging plane” in a Zemax reconstruction of Geng’s system. However, applicant’s explicit use of an “arbitrary” value to model Geng’s system nullifies any arguments based on the resulting model(s).
The examiner refers back to an argument presented in the Office Action dated 10/22/2025, stating that “[a]pplicant’s ability to construct non-working lens examples using Zemax software is not evidence that working examples couldn’t be achieved.” One single Zemax reconstruction based upon arbitrary parameters is especially not evidence of such and clearly fails to demonstrate that routine experimentation has been performed.
Further, as stated in the Office Action dated 06/04/2025, “Applicant should take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ [KSR] at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” In this instance, a PHOSITA attempting to reconstruct such a lens system would know to balance multiple parameters and would also know not to use arbitrary values.
5. Finally, applicant’s declaration refers only to the system described in the above-referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
6. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 8-25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN 112130286 A, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Geng discloses an optical imaging lens (Fig. 3), from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 3, E1), a second lens element (Fig. 3, E2), a third lens element (Fig. 3, E3) and a fourth lens element (Fig. 3, E4), the first lens element to the fourth lens element each 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 (Fig. 3), the optical imaging lens comprising:
the first lens element has negative refracting power ([0091], -2.01) and an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex ([0091], curvature value for surface S1 is positive);
the second lens element has positive refracting power ([0091], 1.04) and an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is convex ([0091], curvature of S4 is negative); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the four lens elements described above (Fig. 3, E1-E4);
wherein EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens, G23 is an air gap between the second lens element and the third lens element along the optical axis, T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis, G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis, HFOV is a half field of view of the optical imaging lens and TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis to satisfy: EFL/(G23+T3+G34) ≥ 1.490 ([0089], EFL=1.26; G23=0.0276, T3=0.3023, and G34=0.3082; giving 1.97).
Geng fails to disclose wherein HFOV/(TTL+EFL) ≥ 18.000 degrees/mm is satisfied.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the TTL of Geng such that HFOV/(TTL+EFL) ≥ 18.000 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the TTL value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 9, modified Geng discloses wherein Gmax is the largest value of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: Gmax/Tmin ≥ 1.000 ([0091], Gmax=0.8566 and Tmin=0.2445, giving 3.503).
Regarding claim 10, modified Geng fails to disclose wherein ImgH is an image height of the optical imaging lens, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: TTL/ImgH ≥ 3.000 ([0089], TTL=4.00 and ImgH=1.95, giving 2.05).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the ImgH of modified Geng such that TTL/ImgH ≥ 3.000 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the ImgH value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 11, modified Geng discloses wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: BFL/(G23+T4) ≥ 1.500 ([0091], BFL=0.9659, G23=0.0276, and T4=0.3950; giving 2.286).
Regarding claim 12, modified Geng discloses wherein ALT is a sum of thicknesses of all the four lens elements along the optical axis, BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (ALT+BFL)/(AAG+EFL) ≥ 0.900 ([0091], ALT=1.8418, BFL=0.9659, AAG=1.1924, and EFL=1.26; giving 3.22).
Regarding claim 13, modified Geng discloses wherein an Abbe number of the first lens element is v1 and an Abbe number of the second lens element is v2, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: |vl-v2| ≤ 30.000 ([0091], v1=56.1 and v2=56.1, giving 0).
Regarding claim 14, modified Geng discloses wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: BFL/(G12+G34) ≤ 2.900 ([0091], BFL=0.9659, G12=0.8566, and G34=0.3082; giving 0.8292).
Regarding claim 15, Geng discloses an optical imaging lens (Fig. 3), from an object side to an image side in order along an optical axis comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 3, E1), a second lens element (Fig. 3, E2), a third lens element (Fig. 3, E3) and a fourth lens element (Fig. 3, E4), the first lens element to the fourth lens element each 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 (Fig. 3), the optical imaging lens comprising:
the first lens element has negative refracting power ([0091], -2.01) and an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the first lens element is convex ([0091], curvature of S1 is positive);
the second lens element has positive refracting power ([0091], 1.04) and an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the second lens element is convex ([0091], curvature of S4 is negative);
an optical axis region of the image-side surface of the third lens element is concave ([0091], curvature of S6 is positive); and
lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the four lens elements described above (Fig. 3, E1-E4);
wherein HFOV is a half field of view of the optical imaging lens, TTL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to an image plane along the optical axis, EFL is an effective focal length of the optical imaging lens, ALT is a sum of thicknesses of all the four lens elements along the optical axis, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis and G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis to satisfy: and ALT/(T1+G34) ≤ 5.000 ([0091], ALT=1.8418, T1=0.2445, and G34=0.3082; giving 3.332).
Geng fails to disclose wherein HFOV/(TTL+EFL) ≥ 18.000 degrees/mm is satisfied.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the TTL of Geng such that HFOV/(TTL+EFL) ≥ 18.000 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the TTL value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 16, modified Geng discloses wherein TL is a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens element to the image-side surface of the fourth lens element along the optical axis and G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: TL/(G12+G34) ≤ 5.100 ([0091], TL=2.6392, G12=0.8566, and G34=0.3082; giving 2.2658).
Regarding claim 17, modified Geng discloses wherein BFL is a distance from the image-side surface of the fourth lens element to the image plane along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (EFL+BFL)/(T1+T4) ≤ 3.700 ([0089], EFL=1.26; [0091], BFL=0.9659, T1=0.2445, and T4=0.3950; giving 3.48).
Regarding claim 18, modified Geng discloses wherein G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element along the optical axis, T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis and T4 is a thickness of the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: (ALT+EFL)/(G12+T3+T4) ≤ 3.200 ([0091], ALT=1.8418, G12=0.8566, T3=0.3023, and T4=0.3950; [0089], EFL=1.26; giving 1.20).
Regarding claim 19, modified Geng discloses wherein G23 is an air gap between the second lens element and the third lens element along the optical axis and T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: EFL/(G23+T3+G34) ≥ 1.490 ([0089], EFL=1.26; [0091], G23=0.0276, T3=0.3023, and G34=0.3082; giving 1.97).
Regarding claim 20, modified Geng discloses wherein Gmax is the largest value of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: EFL/Gmax ≤ 3.500 ([0089], EFL=1.26; [0091], Gmax=0.8566; giving 1.47).
Regarding claim 21, modified Geng discloses wherein Tmax is the largest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and T2 is a thickness of the second lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: Tmax-T2 ≤ 90 μm ([0091], Tmax=0.9000 and T2=0.9000, giving 0).
Regarding claim 22, modified Geng discloses wherein T3 is a thickness of the third lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: T3-Tmin ≤ 150 μm ([0091], T3=0.3023 and Tmin=0.2445, giving 57.8 μm).
Regarding claim 23, modified Geng discloses wherein v3 is an Abbe number of the third lens element and v4 is an Abbe number of the fourth lens element, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: v3+v4 ≥ 70.000 ([0091], v3=19.2 and v4=55.7, giving 74.9).
Regarding claim 24, modified Geng fails to disclose wherein AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and T1 is a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: AAG/T1 ≤ 3.500 ([0091], AAG=1.1924 and T1=0.2445, giving 4.877).
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the TTL of Geng such that AAG/T1 ≤ 3.500 was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the AAG value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the device.
Regarding claim 25, modified Geng discloses wherein AAG is a sum of three air gaps from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis and Tmin is the smallest thickness of four lens elements from the first lens element to the fourth lens element along the optical axis, and the optical imaging lens satisfies the relationship: AAG/Tmin ≤ 7.700 ([0091], AAG=1.1924 and Tmin=0.2445, giving 4.877).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights