CTNF 18/804,754 CTNF 78669 DETAILED ACTION Priority 02-26 AIA 1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) — (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Oath/Declaration Oath/Declaration 2. Oath and declaration filed on 8/14/2024 is accepted. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The prior art documents submitted by application in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 8/14/2024 have all been considered and made of record ( note the attached copy of form PTO – 1449). Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1,4,6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,097,798 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims . The claims of the instant application corresponds to the patented claim as follows: Instant patent application No. 18/186,334 Regarding claim 1, An optical imaging system comprising: a first lens having a positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a second lens having a negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a third lens having a refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a fourth lens having a positive refractive power; a fifth lens having a negative refractive power; a sixth lens having a refractive power ; a seventh lens having a negative refractive power; and an eighth lens having a refractive power , wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane, wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system. Regarding claim 4, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens. Regarding claim 6, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to eighth lenses are aspherical. U.S.Patent No.12,092,798 B2. Regarding claim 1, An optical imaging system comprising: a first lens having a positive refractive power; a second lens having a negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface; a third lens having a refractive power, a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface; a fourth lens having a positive refractive power; a fifth lens having a refractive power; a sixth lens having a refractive power; a seventh lens having a refractive power and a concave image-side surface; and an eighth lens having a refractive power, wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane, wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and wherein f/ImgH < 2.9, where ImgH represents a half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system. Regarding claim 3, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens. Regarding claim 6, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to eighth lenses are aspherical. Claims 1 ,4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness -type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,3 and 7 respectively Patent No 11,635,594 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims. The claims of the instant application corresponds to the patented claim as follows: Instant application No. 18/804,754 Regarding claim 1, An optical imaging system comprising: a first lens having a positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a second lens having a negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a third lens having a refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a fourth lens having a positive refractive power; a fifth lens having a negative refractive power; a sixth lens having a refractive power; a seventh lens having a negative refractive power; and an eighth lens having a refractive power , wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane, wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses, and wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system. Regarding claim 4, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens. Regarding claim 6, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to eighth lenses are aspherical. U.S.Patent No. 11,635,594 B2 Regarding claim 1, An optical imaging system comprising: a first lens comprising a positive refractive power, a second lens comprising a negative refractive power, a third lens comprising a refractive power, a fourth lens comprising a positive refractive power, a fifth lens comprising a negative refractive power, a sixth lens comprising a refractive power and a concave obiect-side surface along an optical axis, a seventh lens comprising a negative refractive power, and an eighth lens comprising a positive refractive power sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane, wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to an imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system. Regarding claim 4, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens. Regarding claim 7, The optical imaging system of claim 1, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to eighth lenses are aspherical . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1,2,4,6-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (2002/0075570A1) and further in view of Baik EP 2860564A1 . Regarding claim 1, Yamakawa discloses (refer to figures 1 and 2) an optical imaging system comprising: a first lens (L1) having a positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a second lens (L2) having a negative refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a third lens (L3) having a refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a fourth lens (L4) having a positive refractive power; a fifth lens (L5) having a negative refractive power; a sixth lens (L6) having a refractive power; a seventh lens (L7) having a negative refractive power; and an eighth lens (L8) having a refractive power and wherein the first to eighth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane, wherein the optical imaging system has a total of eight lenses (paragraph 0051 and paragraph 0057) . Yamakawa discloses all of the claimed limitations except wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system. However, Baik discloses wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system (see conditional expression 2 and paragraph 0032-0033). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa to include wherein 0.7 < TTL/f < 1.0, where TTL represents a distance from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging plane, and f represents an overall focal length of the optical imaging system as taught by Baik for the predictable result of reducing the size of the lens system (paragraph 0032-0033). PNG media_image1.png 456 386 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 491 449 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Yamakawa discloses all of the claimed limitations except wherein f/ImgH < 2.9, where ImgH represents a half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane. However, Baik discloses wherein f/ImgH < 2.9, where ImgH represents a half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane (see table 1). . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa to include f/ImgH < 2.9, where ImgH represents a half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane as taught by Baik for the predictable result of reducing the size of the lens system (paragraph 0032-0033). Regarding claim 4, Yamakawa do not explicitly disclose, wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens. However, Baik discloses wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens (see conditional expression 2 and paragraph 0032-0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa to include wherein -30 < f6/f < 30, where f6 represents a focal length of the sixth lens as taught by Baik for the predictable result of reducing the size of the lens system (see paragraph 0032-0033). Regarding claim 6, Yamakawa discloses, wherein object-side surfaces and image-side surfaces of the first to eighth lenses are aspherical (see in figure 2). Regarding claim 7, Yamakawa discloses, wherein the third lens (L3) has a positive refractive power, and the sixth lens (L6) has a positive refractive power (paragraph 0049 and paragraph 0057). Regarding claim 8, Yamakawa discloses, wherein the third lens (L3) has a positive refractive power, and the sixth lens (L6) has a negative refractive power (as shown in figures 1 and 2). Regarding claim 9, Yamakawa discloses, wherein the third lens(L3) has a negative refractive power, and the sixth lens (L6) has a positive refractive power (as shown in figure 2). Regarding claim 13, Yamakawa do not explicitly discloses wherein the seventh lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. However, Baik discloses wherein the seventh lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see reference number 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa to include wherein the seventh lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof as taught by Baik for the predictable result of reducing the size of the lens system (see paragraph 0032-0033). Regarding claim 14, Yamakawa discloses, wherein the eighth lens (L8) (paragraph 0051) has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. Regarding claim 15, Yamakawa discloses, wherein the eighth lens (L8) has a positive refractive power (paragraph 0051) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (2002/0075570A1) and further in view of Baik EP 2860564A1 further in view of Shikama (2002/0005994 A1) . Regarding claim 5, Yamakawa and further in view of Baik does not explicitly discloses wherein BFL/f < 0.15, where BFL represents a distance from an image-side surface of the eighth lens to the imaging plane. However, Shikama discloses wherein BFL/f < 0.15, where BFL represents a distance from an image-side surface of the eighth lens to the imaging plane (paragraph 0095 and paragraph 0100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa in view of Baik to include wherein BFL/f < 0.15, where BFL represents a distance from an image-side surface of the eighth lens to the imaging plane for the predictable result of an imaging device with excellent imaging capabilities in a smaller system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (2002/0075570A1) and further in view of Baik (EP 2860564A1) and further in view of Peng et al (2013/0088787 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Yamakawa in view of Baik not explicitly discloses wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. However, peng et al discloses wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see 123). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa in view of Baik to include wherein the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof as taught by Peng et al for the predictable result of an imaging device with excellent imaging capabilities in a smaller system. Regarding claim 11, Yamakawa in view of Baik not explicitly discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. However, peng et al discloses wherein the fifth lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see in figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa in view of Baik to include wherein the fifth lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof as taught by Peng et al for the predictable result of an imaging device with excellent imaging capabilities in a smaller system. Regarding claim 12, Yamakawa in view of Baik not explicitly discloses wherein the sixth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. However, peng et al discloses wherein the sixth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (see figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Yamakawa in view of Baik to include wherein the sixth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof as taught by Peng et al for the predictable result of an imaging device with excellent imaging capabilities in a smaller system . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 6. Claim 3 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. 13-03-01 AIA 7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein TTL/(2*ImgH) > 1.0, where ImgH represents a half of a diagonal length of the imaging plane . Conclusion 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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. /MOHAMMED A HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/28/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,754 Page 14 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights