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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 8, 2024 and July 16, 2024 have been considered by the examiner. It should be noted that the citations appearing as lined through has not been considered by the examiner as a copy of the citations has not been provided for the examiner’s review.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 11, 2026.
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, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0202452).
With regard to independent claim 1, although Kuo et al teaches an imaging lens system (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 1), comprising: a first lens (Figure 1, element 111) comprising a refractive power (page 2, paragraph [0039], lines 5-10); a second lens (Figure 1, element 112) comprising a refractive power (page 2, paragraph [0039], lines 5-10); a third lens (Figure 1, element 113) comprising a refractive power (page 2, paragraph [0039], lines 5-10); a fourth lens (Figure 1, element 121) comprising a refractive power (page 4, Table 1, lens data for element 121); a fifth lens (Figure 1, element 122) comprising a refractive power (page 4, Table 1, lens data for element 122); a sixth lens (Figure 1, element 123) comprising a convex object-side surface (page 2, paragraph [0027], line 7); and a seventh lens (Figure 1, element 124) comprising a refractive power (page 4, Table 1, lens data for element 124), wherein the first to seventh lens are sequentially disposed along an optical axis from an object side toward an imaging plane (Figure 1), wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of seven lenses with refractive power (Figure 1), Kuo et al fails to teach such an imaging lens system wherein a refractive index temperature coefficient of the fourth lens or the sixth lens is greater than -10*10-6/°C and less than -0.5*10-6/°C. Kuo et al does teach such an imaging lens system wherein a refractive index temperature coefficient of the sixth lens is approximately -0.45 (page 3, paragraph [0045], lines 17-26, wherein (Pxdn/dt)lens6 = -6.3x10-6/°C and P is defined as the focal power of the sixth lens = 14 (calculated)), 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, as taught by Kuo et al, since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
With regard to dependent claim 2, Kuo 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 2, paragraph [0027], lines 3-4).
With regard to dependent claim 4, Kuo 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 third lens has a convex object-side surface (page 2, paragraph [0027], lines 4-5).
With regard to dependent claim 6, Kuo 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 concave object-side surface (page 2, paragraph [0027], line 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper. Although the prior art teaches an imaging lens system, comprising: a first lens comprising a refractive power; a second lens comprising a refractive power; a third lens comprising a refractive power; a fourth lens comprising a refractive power; a fifth lens comprising a refractive power; a sixth lens comprising a convex object-side surface; and a seventh lens comprising a refractive power, wherein the first to seventh lens are sequentially disposed along an optical axis from an object side toward an imaging plane, wherein the imaging lens system has a total number of seven lenses with refractive power, and wherein a refractive index temperature coefficient of the fourth lens or the sixth lens is greater than -10*10-6/°C and less than -0.5*10-6/°C, the prior art fails to simultaneously teach such an imaging lens system: wherein the second lens has a concave object-side surface, as claimed in dependent claim 3; wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface, as claimed in dependent claim 5; or wherein the seventh lens has a concave object-side surface, as claimed in dependent claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakai et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0235210), Chen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0241263)Wei et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0257079), Bao et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0363609) and Wei et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0333510) all teach imaging lens systems comprising seven lenses.
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