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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, fifth-twelfth paragraphs, filed June 5, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hsueh et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0025549).
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 Hsueh et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0025549).
With regard to independent claim 1, although Hsueh et al teaches an imaging lens system (page 1. Paragraph [0002] and Figure 21) comprising: a first lens (Figure 21, element 1110), a second lens (Figure 21, element 1120), a third lens (Figure 21, element 1130), a fourth lens (Figure 21, element 1140), a fifth lens (Figure 21, element 1150), a sixth lens (Figure 21, element 1160), and a seventh lens (Figure 21, element 1170) spaced apart from each other and sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object side toward an imaging plane (Figure 21), wherein the second lens has negative refractive power (page 24, paragraph [0220], lines 1-2); wherein the third lens has a convex image-side surface (page 24, Paragraph [0221], lines 3-4 and Figure 21, element 1132), wherein TTL/2IH < 0.730, where TTL is a distance along the optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane and 2IH is a diagonal length of the imaging plane (page 26, paragraph [0229], wherein TL/ImgH = 1.40 and TTL/2IH = (TL/ImgH)/2 = 0.720), and wherein the seventh lens has a focal length within a range of -7.0 mm to -3.0 mm (page 25, Table 21, wherein f7 = -4.59), Hsueh et al fails to explicitly teach, in this embodiment, an imaging lens system wherein the fifth lens element has negative refractive power. However, Hsueh et al does teach that the fifth lens may have negative refractive power (page 3, paragraph [0048]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the imaging lens system, s taught by Hsueh et al, with the fifth lens as having negative refractive power to shorten the back focal length and decrease the total track length (page 3, paragraph [0048]).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0219], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1111).
With regard to dependent claim 3, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0220], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1121).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0222], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1141).
With regard to dependent claim 5, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0223], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1151).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (page 25, paragraph [0224], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1161).
With regard to dependent claim 7, Hsueh 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 imaging lens system wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface (page 25, paragraph [0225], lines 7-9 and Figure 21, element 1171, wherein surface 1171 is concave in an off-axis region).
With regard to independent claim 8, although Hsueh et al teaches an imaging lens system (page 1. Paragraph [0002] and Figure 21) comprising: a first lens (Figure 21, element 1110), a second lens (Figure 21, element 1120), a third lens (Figure 21, element 1130), a fourth lens (Figure 21, element 1140), a fifth lens (Figure 21, element 1150), a sixth lens (Figure 21, element 1160), and a seventh lens (Figure 21, element 1170) spaced apart from each other and sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object side toward an imaging plane (Figure 21), wherein the second lens has negative refractive power (page 24, paragraph [0220], lines 1-2); wherein TTL/2IH < 0.730, where TTL is a distance along the optical axis from an object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane and 2IH is a diagonal length of the imaging plane (page 26, paragraph [0229], wherein TL/ImgH = 1.40 and TTL/2IH = (TL/ImgH)/2 = 0.720), wherein the seventh lens has a focal length within a range of -7.0 mm to -3.0 mm (page 25, Table 21, wherein f7 = -4.59), and wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fifth lens (page 25, Table 21, wherein the radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens = 6.209; the radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fifth lens = -2.096, such that 6.209 > -2.096), Hsueh et al fails to explicitly teach, in this embodiment, an imaging lens system wherein the fifth lens element has negative refractive power. However, Hsueh et al does teach that the fifth lens may have negative refractive power (page 3, paragraph [0048]), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the imaging lens system, s taught by Hsueh et al, with the fifth lens as having negative refractive power to shorten the back focal length and decrease the total track length (page 3, paragraph [0048]).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0219], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1111).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0220], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1121).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0222], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1141).
With regard to dependent claim 12, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (page 24, paragraph [0223], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1151).
With regard to dependent claim 13, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (page 25, paragraph [0224], lines 2-3 and Figure 21, element 1161).
With regard to dependent claim 14, Hsueh et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8, and further teaches such an imaging lens system wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface (page 25, paragraph [0225], lines 7-9 and Figure 21, element 1171, wherein surface 1171 is concave in an off-axis region).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. You et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0231925) and Tang et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0285030) both teach imaging lens systems comprising seven lenses wherein the fifth lens has negative refractive power.
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
16 July 2026
Prosecution Insights