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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0121100), hereinafter “Song”.
Regarding claim 1, Song disclose an imaging lens system (see Fig. 1), comprising: a first lens (E1) comprising positive refractive power (Table 3); a second lens (E2) comprising a refractive power; a third lens (E3) comprising a refractive power; a fourth lens (E4) comprising negative refractive power (Table 3); a fifth lens (E5) comprising a refractive power; a sixth lens (E6) comprising a refractive power; and a seventh lens (E7) comprising a refractive power, wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object side of the imaging lens system toward an imaging plane of the imaging lens system (see Fig. 1, Table 1), wherein a thickness along the axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the axis of the seventh lens (Table 1), wherein a thickness along the axis of the sixth lens is greater than a thickness along the axis of the fourth lens (Table 1), 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 sixth lens (Table 1), and wherein an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens is greater than an absolute value of a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Song disclose wherein the first lens (E1) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Song disclose wherein the second lens (E2) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Song disclose wherein the third lens (E3) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Song disclose wherein the fourth lens (E4) has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Song disclose wherein the sixth lens (E6) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 1, Table 1).
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0361196), hereinafter “Chang”.
Regarding claim 9, Chang discloses an imaging lens system (40) (see Fig. 4A), comprising: a first lens (410) comprising positive refractive power (Table 7); a second lens (420) comprising a refractive power; a third lens (430) comprising negative refractive power (Table 7); a fourth lens (440) comprising a refractive power; a fifth lens (450) comprising a negative refractive power (Table 7); a sixth lens (460) comprising a refractive power; and a seventh lens (470) comprising a refractive power, wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis from an object side of the imaging lens system toward an imaging plane of the imaging lens system (40) (see Fig. 4A), wherein a thickness along the axis of the first lens is greater than a thickness along the axis of the seventh lens (Table 7), 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 sixth lens (Table 7), and 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 (Table 7).
Regarding claim 10, Chang discloses wherein the first lens (410) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 4A, Table 7).
Regarding claim 13, Chang discloses wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 4A, Table 7).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see Fig. 4A, Table 7).
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (USPG Pub No. 2019/0121100) in view of Jhang et al. (USP No. 10,705,319), hereinafter “Jhang”.
Regarding claim 6, Song discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Jhang discloses wherein the fifth lens (5’50) has a concave object-side surface (5’51) in a paraxial region thereof (see Figs. 22, 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens system of Song with wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof of Jhang for the purpose of providing an imaging lens system with reduced aberration, simpler manufacturing and higher yield rate (Col. 18, Lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 8, Song discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Jhang discloses wherein the seventh lens (5’70) has a convex object-side surface (5’71) in a paraxial region thereof (see Figs. 22, 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens system of Song with wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof of Jhang for the purpose of providing an imaging lens system with reduced aberration, simpler manufacturing and higher yield rate (Col. 18, Lines 48-51).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (USPG Pub No. 2019/0361196) in view of Okano (USPG Pub No. 2020/0004125).
Regarding claim 11, Chang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Okano discloses wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface (3) in a paraxial region thereof (Table 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens system of Chang with wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof of Okano for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight imaging lens system (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Okano discloses wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (5) in a paraxial region thereof (Table 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging lens system of Chang with wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof of Okano for the purpose of providing a compact and lightweight imaging lens system (Paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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.
Conclusion
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights