CTFR 18/671,479 CTFR 90023 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended by the Applicant. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Priority As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.14(c) , acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on Continuation of application 17078416, filed 10/23/2023, which is a continuation of application 16/397048, filed 04/29/2019, which is a continuation of application 15/445125, filed 02/28/2017, which claims foreign priority to KR 10-2016-0159263, filed 11/28/2016 (Korea). 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 201.15. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN 104570280 A (of record, see IDS dated 05/22/2024, where English language machine translation is referenced) . In regard to independent claim 1 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) an optical imaging system (i.e. lens module 100, see e.g. Abstract, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19, where e.g. embodiments 1,3, 5 may are referenced for brevity), comprising: a first lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 10, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a second lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 20, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a third lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 30 with a convex object-side surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a fourth lens comprising a concave object-side surface along an optical axis (i.e. Lens 40 with concave object-side surface on optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19), a fifth lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 50 with a concave object-side surface in paraxial region, e.g. 0, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a sixth lens comprising a concave image-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 60 with a concave image-side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), and a seventh lens comprising a refractive power (lens 70, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19) sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are sequentially disposed from object side to imagining plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the first lens to the seventh lens are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are sequentially disposed from object side to imagining plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the optical imaging system comprises a total number of seven lenses with refractive power (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are only lenses in lens assembly module, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens (i.e. as lens 30 object side R5 is greater than lens 20 image side R4, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the seventh lens, and thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is greater than thickness of L70, e.g. 0.54>0.53, where thickness of L60 is 0.554 see e.g. emb. 3 see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein (the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expression): f2/f < -2.0 (i.e. given f2 of Lens 20 and f of lens assembly module, see exam. 1, 2,3, etc., 6-7, paragraphs [127-188,147], Tables 1-13, e.g. value -1.86), where f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (i.e. as focal length of L20 f2 , and focal length of lens assembly module f, e.g. paragraphs [15-18, 78-82, 127-188], Tables 1-13 and summary table 15). Bai thus discloses the claimed invention except that in the same embodiment the thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is close to the thickness of L60 along optical axis, e.g. 0.54, vs. 0.554, which amounts to only 2.5% difference see e.g. embodiment 3, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). However Bai also discloses that in embodiments 2, 6, 7 that the thickness of first lens L10 is greater than thickness of sixth lens L60 along optical axis, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the first or sixth lens such that the fist lens is thicker than the sixth lens along optical axis, which is also disclosed in embodiments 2, 6 and 7 of Bai, 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 the current instance, lens thickness is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the thickness along with the lens curvatures determines lens refraction properties and focusing power (see Bai, e.g. [69-77,118-125]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the optimize the thickness of first lens to be greater than thickness of sixth lens on optical axis in order to optimizing the refractive power of the first lens, correct spherical aberration, and reduce image quality deterioration (see e.g. Bai paragraphs [77, 125]) and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because small adjustment of relative lens thickness in multi lens system to balance optical powers, reduce aberrations and/or mini aturize the optical system is a routine activity in lens design. Regarding claim 2 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the first lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 10 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 3 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the second lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 20 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 4 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the third lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 30 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. (i.e. Lens 20 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 5 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 50 with concave object side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [07,77,82, 107, 120, 127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..16, 19). Regarding claim 6 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21 that the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 60 with convex object surface along optical axis, (i.e. Lens 60 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 7 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 70 with convex object side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). In regard to independent claim 8 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) an optical imaging system (i.e. lens module 100, see e.g. Abstract, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19, where e.g. embodiments 1,3, 5 may are referenced for brevity), comprising: a first lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 10, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a second lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 20, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a third lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 30 with a convex object-side surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a fourth lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 40 with concave object-side surface on optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19), a fifth lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 50 with a concave object-side surface in paraxial region, e.g. 0, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a sixth lens comprising a concave image-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 60 with a concave image-side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), and a seventh lens comprising a refractive power (lens 70, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the first lens to the seventh lens are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are sequentially disposed from object side to imagining plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the optical imaging system comprises a total number of seven lenses with refractive power (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are only lenses in lens assembly module, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens (i.e. as lens 30 object side R5 is greater than lens 20 image side R4, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the seventh lens, and thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is greater than thickness of L70, e.g. 0.54>0.53, where thickness of L60 is 0.554 see e.g. emb. 3 see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein (the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expression): f2/f < -2.0 (i.e. given f2 of Lens 20 and f of lens assembly module, see exam. 1, 2,3, etc., 6-7, paragraphs [127-188,147], Tables 1-13, e.g. value -1.86), and OAL/f < 1.4 (i.e. as distance TTL from object side of Lens 10 to image plane surface, and focal length of lens assembly module f, e.g. embodiments 1-7, see e.g. paragraphs [15-18, 78-82, 127-188], Tables 1-13 and summary table 15, e.g. value 1.229) where f is an overall focal length of the optical imaging system, f2 is a focal length of the second lens (i.e. as focal length of L20 f2 , and focal length of lens assembly module f, e.g. paragraphs [15-18, 78-82, 127-188], Tables 1-13 and summary table 15), and OAL represents a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane (i.e. as distance TTL from object side of Lens 10 to image plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [15-18, 78-82, 127-188], Tables 1-13 and summary table 15). Bai this discloses the claimed invention except that in the same embodiment the thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is close to the thickness of L60 along optical axis, e.g. 0.54, vs. 0.554, which amounts to only 2.5% difference see e.g. embodiment 3, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). However Bai also discloses that in embodiments 2, 6, 7 that the thickness of first lens L10 is greater than thickness of sixth lens L60 along optical axis, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the first or sixth lens such that the fist lens is thicker than the sixth lens along optical axis, as taught in embodiments 2, 6 and 7 of Bai, 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 the current instance, lens thickness is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the thickness along with the lens curvatures determines lens refraction properties and focusing power (see Bai, e.g. [69-77,118-125]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the optimize the thickness of first lens to be greater than thickness of sixth lens on optical axis in order to optimizing the refractive power of the first lens, correct spherical aberration, and reduce image quality deterioration (see e.g. Bai paragraphs [77, 125]) and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because small adjustment of relative lens thickness in multi lens system to balance optical powers, reduce aberrations and/or mini aturize the optical system is a routine activity in lens design. Regarding claim 9 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the first lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 10 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 10 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the second lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 20 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 11 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the third lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 30 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. (i.e. Lens 20 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 12 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 50 with concave object side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [07,77,82, 107, 120, 127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..16, 19). Regarding claim 13 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21 that the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 60 with convex object surface along optical axis, (i.e. Lens 60 with convex object surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Regarding claim 14 , Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) that the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 70 with convex object side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7,..19). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 06/01/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and their dependent claims 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. Specifically, Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Bai does not disclose the new amended limitation in claims 1 and 8, namely that (1) “a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens”, because embodiments 1, 3 and 5 do not disclose this limitation. However, the examiner disagrees. With respect to the above issue (1), the cited prior art of Bai teaches the majority and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1, as Bai teaches (see Figs. 1-21) an optical imaging system (i.e. lens module 100, see e.g. Abstract, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19, where e.g. embodiments 1,3, 5 may are referenced for brevity), comprising: a first lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 10, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a second lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 20, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1,4,7..19), a third lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 30 with a convex object-side surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a fourth lens comprising a concave object-side surface along an optical axis (i.e. Lens 40 with concave object-side surface on optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19), a fifth lens comprising a refractive power (i.e. Lens 50 with a concave object-side surface in paraxial region, e.g. 0, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,7..19), a sixth lens comprising a concave image-side surface along the optical axis (i.e. Lens 60 with a concave image-side surface along optical axis, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), and a seventh lens comprising a refractive power (lens 70, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13], Figs. 1, 4,..19) sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are sequentially disposed from object side to imagining plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the first lens to the seventh lens are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are sequentially disposed from object side to imagining plane surface, e.g. paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-13, Figs. 1, 4,..19), wherein the optical imaging system comprises a total number of seven lenses with refractive power (i.e. Lenses 10-70 are only lenses in lens assembly module, paragraphs [02, 08-20, 65-82,117-124], examples 1-7 paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1-15, Figs. 1, 4, 7,..19), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the second lens (i.e. as lens 30 object side R5 is greater than lens 20 image side R4, paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the seventh lens, and a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is greater than thickness of L70, e.g. 0.54>0.53, where the thickness of L60 is 0.554 see e.g. emb. 3 see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13), and wherein (the optical imaging system satisfies the following conditional expression): f2/f < -2.0 (i.e. given f2 of Lens 20 and f of lens assembly module, see exam. 1, 2,3, etc., 6-7, paragraphs [127-188,147], Tables 1-13, e.g. value -1.86), where f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (i.e. as focal length of L20 f2 , and focal length of lens assembly module f, e.g. paragraphs [15-18, 78-82, 127-188], Tables 1-13 and summary table 15). Bai thus discloses the claimed invention except that in the same embodiment the thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is close to the thickness of L60 along optical axis, e.g. 0.54, vs. 0.554, which amount to only 2.5% difference see e.g. embodiment 3, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). However Bai also discloses that in embodiments 2, 6, 7 that the thickness of first lens L10 is greater than thickness of sixth lens L60 along optical axis, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the first or sixth lens such that the fist lens is thicker than the sixth lens along optical axis, which is also disclosed in embodiments 2, 6 and 7 of Bai, 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 the current instance, lens thickness is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the thickness along with the lens curvatures determines lens refraction properties and focusing power (see Bai, e.g. [69-77,118-125]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the optimize the thickness of first lens to be greater than thickness of sixth lens on optical axis in order to optimizing the refractive power of the first lens, correct spherical aberration, and reduce image quality deterioration (see e.g. Bai paragraphs [77, 125]) and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because small adjustment of relative lens thickness in multi lens system to balance optical powers, reduce aberrations and/or mini aturize the optical system is a routine activity in lens design. Specifically, it is noted that Bai teaches a thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the seventh lens, and a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens (i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is greater than thickness of L70, e.g. 0.54>0.53, where the thickness of L60 is 0.554 see e.g. emb. 3 see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). It was noted that Bai thus discloses the claimed invention except that in the same embodiment the thickness along the optical axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the optical axis of the sixth lens, i.e. as thickness d1 of L10 is close to the thickness of L60 along optical axis, e.g. 0.54, vs. 0.554, which amounts to only 2.5% difference, see e.g. embodiment 3, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). However, Bai also discloses that in embodiments 2, 6, 7 that the thickness of first lens L10 is greater than thickness of sixth lens L60 along optical axis, see paragraphs [127-188], Tables 1, 3, 5,..13). Hence, it was noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the first or sixth lens such that the fist lens is thicker than the sixth lens along optical axis, which is also disclosed in embodiments 2, 6 and 7 of Bai, 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 the current instance, lens thickness is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the thickness along with the lens curvatures determines lens refraction properties and focusing power (see Bai, e.g. [69-77,118-125]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the optimize the thickness of first lens to be greater than thickness of sixth lens on optical axis in order to optimizing the refractive power of the first lens, correct spherical aberration, and reduce image quality deterioration (see e.g. Bai paragraphs [77, 125]) and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because small adjustment of relative lens thickness in multi lens system to balance optical powers, reduce aberrations and/or mini aturize the optical system is a routine activity in lens design. Therefore, the cited prior art of Bai teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claim 1. The same responses also apply for the same limitation recited in claim 8. With regard to the above issue (1), it is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson , 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 10 in the Remarks dated 06/01/2026. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm. 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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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. /MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/671,479 Page 14 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights