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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/114,476, filed on 08/28/2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 08/06/2024 and 02/24/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claim 8, the limitation “wherein a distance from an image-side surface of the first lens to an object-side surface of the second lens is greater than a distance from an image-side surface of the second lens to an object-side surface of the third lens” contains subject matter that is not presented within the specification. Each of the examples in the specification, along with the corresponding tables, convey the opposite to be true. The distance from the image-side surface of the first lens to the object-side surface of the second lens is actually less than the distance from the image-side surface of the second lens to the object-side surface of the third lens. For this reason, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0346460), hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an optical imaging system (10) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 62, Line 2), comprising: a first lens (3) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3); a second lens (4) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3); a third lens (5) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3); a fourth lens (6) having a concave image-side surface (62) (see Figs. 2, 3); a fifth lens (7) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3); and a sixth lens (8) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3), wherein the optical imaging system (10) has a total of six lenses with refractive power (see Fig. 3), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane (see Figs. 2, 3), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface (51) of the third lens (5) is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface (41) of the second lens (4) (see Fig. 3), wherein a distance from an image-side surface (32) of the first lens (3) to an object-side surface (41) of the second lens (4) is greater than a distance from an image-side surface (42) of the second lens (4) to an object-side surface (51) of the third lens (5) (see Fig. 3), and wherein an entire field of view (FOV) of the optical imaging system is 75° or more (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the first lens (3) has a convex object-side surface (31) (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the first lens (3) has a concave image-side surface (32) (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses wherein the third lens (5) has a convex object-side surface (51) (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses wherein the sixth lens (8) has a convex object-side surface (81) (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses an optical imaging system (10) (see Fig. 30, Paragraph 159, Line 2), comprising: a first lens (3) having a refractive power (see Fig. 31); a second lens (4) having a refractive power (see Fig. 31); a third lens (5) having a positive refractive power (see Fig. 3); a fourth lens (6) having a concave image-side surface (62) (see Figs. 30, 31); a fifth lens (7) having a refractive power (see Fig. 3); and a sixth lens (8) having a concave image-side surface (82) in a paraxial region (see Figs. 30, 31), wherein the optical imaging system (10) has a total of six lenses with refractive power (see Fig. 31), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane (see Figs. 30, 31), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface (51) of the third lens (5) is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface (41) of the second lens (4) (see Fig. 31), and wherein a distance from an image-side surface (32) of the first lens (3) to an object-side surface (41) of the second lens (4) is greater than a distance from an image-side surface (42) of the second lens (4) to an object-side surface (51) of the third lens (5) (see Fig. 31)
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses wherein the first lens (3) has a convex object-side surface (31) (see Figs. 30, 31).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses wherein the first lens (3) has a concave image-side surface (32) (see Figs. 30, 31).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses wherein the third lens (5) has a convex object-side surface (51) (see Figs. 30, 31).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses wherein the sixth lens (8) has a convex object-side surface (81) (see Figs. 30, 31).
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 4, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (USPG Pub No. 2015/0346460) in view of You (USP No. 10,215,959).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Chen discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface. In the same field of endeavor, You discloses wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface (S3) (see Fig. 4). 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 optical imaging system of Chen with wherein the second lens has a convex object-side surface of You for the purpose of providing high resolution while minimizing the total length of the optical imaging system (Col. 1, Lines 20-30).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Chen discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface. In the same field of endeavor, You discloses wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface (S4) (see Fig. 4). 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 optical imaging system of Chen with wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface of You for the purpose of providing high resolution while minimizing the total length of the optical imaging system (Col. 1, Lines 20-30).
Prior Art Citations
Chen et al. (USPG Pub No. 2018/0329177 – Table 1), Shih et al. (USPG Pub No. 2016/0282585 – Table 1), Jung et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0276909 – Table 1) are each being cited herein to show and optical imaging system relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights