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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 6/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups overlap in scope and there is no serious burden among different groups of invention. This is not found persuasive because,
The invention groups require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention group would not likely be applicable to another.
Further the question as to whether or not inventions overlap in scope is not whether the groups share some limitations. In fact, if such were the case, no restriction between groups with a linking or generic claim would ever be proper. Clearly, such an interpretation would not be consistent with restriction practice or double patenting practice as a whole. Rather, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention, MPEP806.05.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20220171162).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches (Fig. 7, Table 7) An optical imaging lens, comprising a first lens element, a second lens element, a third lens element, a fourth lens element, a fifth lens element, a sixth lens element, a seventh lens element, an eighth lens element, and a ninth lens element arranged in sequence from an object side to an image side along an optical axis, each of the first lens element to the ninth lens element comprising an object-side surface facing the object-side surface and allowing imaging rays to pass through and an image-side surface facing the image-side and allowing the imaging rays to pass through, wherein
a periphery region of the image-side surface of the first lens element is concave (as seen in Fig. 7);
the third lens element has positive refracting power;
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the fifth lens element is concave;
a periphery region of the image-side surface of the sixth lens element is convex (as seen in Fig. 7); and
an optical axis region of the object-side surface of the ninth lens element is concave,
wherein lens elements of the optical imaging lens are only the nine lens elements described above,
a thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is greater than a thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis;
the thickness of the first lens element along the optical axis is greater than a thickness of the fifth lens element along the optical axis.
Jang does not explicitly teach a periphery region of the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is concave.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having a periphery region of the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is concave, would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having desired image size by selecting/cropping the central portion of the full image size (not as part of the rejection, Examiner notes the outmost portion of the 8th lens, whether convex or not, does not appear to be the periphery region of the optical effective area as the light from the 7th lens would not be able to reach the detector through the region).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Jang by having a periphery region of the object-side surface of the eighth lens element is concave, for the purposes of having desired image size.
Regarding claim 9, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein a thickness (0.319) of the fourth lens element along the optical axis is greater than an air gap (0.094) between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 10, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein the optical imaging lens further satisfies: (G12+G23+G34)/T2≥1.700 (~2), wherein G12 is an air gap between the first lens element and the second lens element on the optical axis, G23 is an air gap between the second lens element and the third lens element on the optical axis, G34 is an air gap between the third lens element and the fourth lens element on the optical axis, and T2 is a thickness of the second lens element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 11, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein a thickness (0.284) of the third lens element along the optical axis is greater than an air gap (0.178) between the third lens element and the fourth lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 12, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein an air gap (0.23) between the fifth lens element and the sixth lens element along the optical axis is greater than an air gap (0.058) between the sixth lens element and the seventh lens element along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 13, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein the optical imaging lens further satisfies: (T5+T8)/T2≥3.000 (~4), wherein T5 is the thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis, T8 is the thickness of the eighth lens element along the optical axis, and T2 is a thickness of the second lens element on the optical axis.
Regarding claim 14, Jang further teaches The optical imaging lens according to claim 8, wherein the optical imaging lens further satisfies: ALT/(T1+G89)≤3.900 (~4/1.396), wherein ALT is a sum of nine thicknesses of the first lens element to the ninth lens element on the optical axis, T1 is a thickness of the first lens element on the optical axis, and G89 is an air gap between the eighth lens element and the ninth lens element on the optical axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights