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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 08/20/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1-2 and 11-12 and canceled claims 6 and 16.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-22, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions.
Regarding the claims, the following conclusions are made:
A1) because applicant has canceled claims 6 and 16 and has not added any claim into the application thus the pending claims are claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20;
A2) claim 1 as amended is not allowable with respect to the prior art, thus claims 1-3, and 7, directed to the elected Invention I are examined in the present office action, and claims 4-5 and 8-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions II and III. Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 4-5 and 8-10 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
A3) claim 11 as amended is allowable with respect to the prior art, thus the Election/Restriction of 03/11/2026 with respect to claims 14-15 and 18-20, directed to Inventions II and III, is now withdrawn. Claims 14-15 and 18-20 are rejoined and examined with the claims 11-13 and 17 in the present office action. See the section of Election/Restriction in the present office action.
B) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 8-9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
However, the amendments to the claims raise new problems of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph to the claims as provided in the present office action.
C) Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al (US Publication No. 2022/0342184), the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13 and 16-17, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462), and the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 9-22, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions:
C1) Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al (US Publication No. 2022/0342184) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 9-13, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al (US Publication No. 2022/0342184) set forth in the mentioned office action;
C2) Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 13-22, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, thus the claims 1-3 and 7 (Note that claim 6 was canceled in the mentioned amendment) are still rejected by the same art for the same reasons set forth in the mentioned office action and repeated in the present office action.
a) Regarding applicant’s arguments that the fifth embodiment provided by Lee does not disclose operating wavelength, see amendment in pages 13-15, the examiner offers the following opinions;
Regarding the feature that the imaging lens configured to form an image from near-infrared light in a range of wavelengths from (920 nm; 960 nm), such feature is read from the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment provided by Lee for the following reason(s).
First, it is noted that each of claims 1 and 11 merely recites that the infrared imaging lens operates in a range of wavelength of (920 nm, 960 nm) and there is not any optical performance data being provided;
Second, while Lee does not provide information regarding the range of wavelength in which the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment operates; however, the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment is an another example of the imaging lens provided by Lee in which the imaging lens has other examples which shown/described in the first, second and third embodiments wherein each first, second and third embodiments operates in a range of wavelengths of (920 nm; 960 nm), see figs 2-3, 6-7, 10-11 and paragraphs [0004]-[0058].
In other words, the imaging lens of each of the first to sixth embodiment is directed to an imaging lens which is an inventive lens in the US Publication issued to Lee. Each of the imaging lens of the fourth, fifth and sixth embodiments has the similar optical data such as effective focal length, F-Number, total lens length, and field of view as those of the imaging lens of each of the first, second and third embodiments. Thus, it is understood by one skilled in the art that the imaging lens of each fourth, fifth and sixth embodiments provided by Lee is also operated with light having a range of wavelengths of (920 nm, 960 nm)
Third, applicant’s argument that the refractive index and the Abbe number of the lens(es) of the fifth embodiments are different from those of the first, second and third embodiments, see amendment in pages 14-15, the examiner respectfully invited the applicant to review the optical data of the lenes constituted the imaging lens as described/provided in the present application, see specification in p[ages 6-15 in which the present specification discloses a plurality of embodiments of the imaging lens in which the optical data such as the radius of curvature, the thickness, the refractive index and the Abbe number of the lenses of a particular embodiment are different from those of other embodiments while all embodiments are directed to the imaging lens of the invention.
b) Regarding applicant’s arguments that the fifth embodiment of the imaging lens provided by Lee does not disclose the condition of “0.4 ≤ D1/LT < 0.8”, see amendment in pages 15-17, the examiner respectfully disagrees and offer the following opinions.
First, while the drawings is not in scale; however, the examiner has based on the same figure and same table provided optical data of the lenses constituted the imaging lens.
Second, applicant is respectfully invited tom review the US Publication No. 2021/0096343 which a copy thereof is attached with the present office action in which the Publication indicates that when the effective diameter of a lens is not given in the table(s) then measurement(s) it off of the figures using the total lens length to determine the scale, see the mentioned Publication in paragraph [0040]. Thus, with that one skilled in the art will utilize the drawings, i.e., the figure showing a lens structure to measure/decide suitable values with the details of optical data provided from the table correspond to that lens structure.
c) Regarding applicant’s arguments about the condition of (1000 ≤ DFOV < 1300) where DFOV is a diagonal field of view, applicant’s arguments provided in page 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant should note that the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment has a field-of-view of 120.600 and a lens in general and known by one skilled in the art has a circular configuration in a plane perpendicular to its axis (Note that if the lens has a different shape then the reference will disclose or provide information about its shape configuration. With such knowledge then the field-of view of the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment provided by Lee is a diagonal field-of view.
C3) Regarding the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462), and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 13-22, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462), and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the mentioned office action.
D) Regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the office action of 05/21/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 19-22, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462) set forth in the mentioned office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11 is allowable. The restriction requirement among Inventions I-III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/11/2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 03/11/2026 with respect to claims 11-15 and 17-20 (Note that claim 16 was canceled in the amendment of 08/20/2026). Claims 14-15 and 18 , directed to Invention II and claims 19-20, directed to Invention III, are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim is rejected because it is unclear how an infrared imaging lens having a diagonal filed of view in a range of (1000; 1300) is able to operate with a diagonal field of view of 900 as recited in the claim.
b) The remaining claim is dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-3, 7, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the following reasons;
a1) the feature thereof “An infrared imaging lens configured to form an image from near-infrared light within a wavelength band ranging from 920 nm to 960 nm” (lines 1-2) makes the claim indefinite. What does applicant mean by the mentioned feature? How can a near-infrared light provide an image? Does applicant intend to recite --An infrared imaging lens configured to form an image of an object with near-infrared light within a wavelength band ranging from 920 nm to 960 nm--?
a2) each of the features thereof “the lens” (line 13) and “the lens” (line 14) lacks a proper antecedent basis; and
a3) the features thereof ‘a first lens … the infrared imaging lens” (lines 4-5) and “the lens … the infrared imaging lens” (lines 13-16) make the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the structural relationship between the first lens which is closest to the object side (lines 15-16) and the so-called “the lens with refractive power closest to the object side” (lines 13-14). Are the first lens and the so-called “the lens with refractive power closest to the object side” the same or different from each other?
For the purpose of examination, the feature “the lens with refractive power closest to the object side” is understood as --the first lens--.
b) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the similar reasons set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
11. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, for the following reasons.
a) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim is rejected for the reason that the imaging lens operates with a diagonal field of view of 900, see the claim on lines 1-2, while its base claim recites that the imaging lens operates in a range of (1000; 1300), see its base claim 11 on lines 8-9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
c) The remaining claim is dependent upon the rejected base claims and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 1, 3 and 7, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US Publication No. 2024/0402462, of record).
Lee discloses an imaging lens for use in an electronic device.
a) Regarding present claims 1, 3, 11 and 13, the imaging lens (5) of the fifth embodiment as described in paragraphs [0065]-[0070] and shown in fig. 14 comprises the following features:
a1) a first lens (L51), a second lens (L52), a third lens (L53) and a fourth lens (L54) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side of the imaging lens (5) wherein each lens has a refractive power;
a2) the number of lenses is four lenses which is less than seven lenses;
a3) an aperture stop (ST5) disposed between the first and fourth lenses; and
a4) regarding the ranges governing the relationships/ratios among the diagonal field of view, DFOV, of the imaging lens, the FNo, f, of the imaging lens, the outside diameter, D1, of the first lens, the distance, LT, measured from the object side lens surface of the first lens to the image side lens surface of the fourth lens, the effective focal length, EFL, of the imaging lens, and the semi-diagonal image height, IMF, of the infrared imaging lens, the following results have been obtained from the optical data of the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment as provided in Table 13, paragraph [0068].
In particular, because the diagonal field of view, DFOV, of the imaging lens is 120.600; the FNo, f, of the imaging lens is 1.20; the effective focal length, EFL, of the imaging lens is 2.10 mm; and the distance, LT, measured from the object side lens surface of the first lens to the image side lens surface of the fourth lens is 14.34 mm then
a41) DFOV is inside the range of (1000 ; 1300) as claimed in each of claims 1 and 11;
a42) f is 1.20 which is less than 1.5 as claimed in claim 1;
a43) EFL / LT is about 0.15 which is inside the range of (0.14; 1.0) as recited in each of claims 1 and 11, and which is inside the range of (0.14; 0.2) as recited in each of claims 3 and 13;
a44) because DFOV is 120.600. and EFL is 2.10 mm then the semi-diagonal image height, IMH, is about 1.841 mm and the ratio of IMH/LT is about 0.13 which is inside the range of (0.13; 0.18) as recited in claim 11;
a45) regarding the range governing the outside diameter, D1, of the first lens and the distance, LT, measured from the object side lens surface of the first lens to the image side lens surface of the fourth lens, the following result has been obtained:
Measurements of the first lens as shown in fig. 14 with data of the first lens as provided in Table 13 then from the fig. 14, the distance between the top/upper edges of the first lens is around 84 and the thickness of the first lens is around 5 by measurements using a ruler, and the thickness of the first lens is 0.46 mm, see Table 13, then the outside diameter of the first lens is (0.46 mm x 84) / 5 = 7.73 mm and the ratio of D1 / LT is about 0.54 which is inside the range of (0.4; 0.8) as claimed.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
a46) regarding the feature that the imaging lens configured to form an image from near-infrared light in a range of wavelengths from (920 nm; 960 nm), such feature is read from the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment provided by Lee for the following reason(s).
It is noted that while Lee does not provide information regarding the range of wavelength in which the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment operates; however, the imaging lens of the fifth embodiment is an another example of the imaging lens provided by Lee in which the imaging lens has other examples which shown/described in the first, second and third embodiments wherein each first, second and third embodiments operates in a range of wavelengths of (920 nm; 960 nm), see figs 2-3, 6-7, 10-11 and paragraphs [0004]-[0058].
Each of the imaging lens of the fourth, fifth and sixth embodiments has the similar optical data such as effective focal length, F-Number, total lens length, and field of view as those of the imaging lens of each of the first, second and third embodiments.
b) Regarding present claim 7 with the range governing the outside diameter, DL, of the fourth lens and the distance, LT, measured from the object side lens surface of the first lens to the image side lens surface of the fourth lens, the following result has been obtained:
Measurements of the fourth lens as shown in fig. 14 with data of the fourth lens as provided in Table 13 then from the fig. 14, the distance between the top/upper edges of the fourth lens is around 41 and the thickness of the fourth lens is around 14 by measurements using a ruler, and the thickness of the fourth lens is 1.48 mm, see Table 13, then the outside diameter of the fourth lens is (1.69 mm x 41) / 16 = 4.33 mm and the ratio of DL / LT is about 0.31 which is inside the range of (0.3; 0.6) as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 11-13 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten/amended to overcome the rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the present office action.
16. Claim 2 is 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. It is noted that the claim needs to rewrite/draft to comply with the requirement of 35 USC 112(b), see the rejection of its base claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the present office action.
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) the infrared imaging lens configured o form an image within a wavelength band ranging from 920 nm to 960 nm wherein the infrared imaging lens comprises four lenses and satisfies the conditions thereof “a first lens …the infrared imaging lens” (claim 11 on lines 4-17) is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2024/0402462 by the condition governing the semi-diagonal image heigh of the imaging lens and the distance between the object-side lens surface of the first lens and the image-side lens surface of the fourth lens as recited in the claim on lines 9-10 and 13-25. Such condition of an imaging lens having the features thereof “a first lens …the infrared imaging lens” (claim 11 on lines 4-17) is not disclosed in the prior art.
b) the infrared imaging lens configured to form an image within a wavelength band ranging from 920 nm to 960 nm wherein the infrared imaging lens comprises four lenses and satisfies the conditions thereof “a first lens …the infrared imaging lens” (claim 1 on lines 4-176) is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Publication No. 2024/0402462 by the condition governing the total track length of the imaging lens as recited in the feature thereof “a total track length … imaging lens” (claim 2 on lines 1-4). Such condition of an imaging lens having the features thereof “a first lens …the infrared imaging lens” (claim 1 on lines 4-16) is not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B. Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights