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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinohara et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0109685).
With regard to independent claim 8, Shinohara et al teaches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 11) comprising: a first lens (Figure 11, element L1) having a refractive power (page 4, paragraph [0069], lines 1-2); a second lens (Figure 11, element L1) having a concave image-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R4); a third lens (Figure 11, element L1) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0075], lines 1-2) and a concave image-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R6); a fourth lens (Figure 11, element L1) having positive refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0077], lines 1-2) and a convex image-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R8); a fifth lens (Figure 11, element L1) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0078], lines 1-2); and a sixth lens (Figure 11, element L1) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0079], lines 1-2), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (Figure 11), wherein the optical imaging system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Figure 11), wherein a radius of curvature of the image-side surface of the second lens (page 16, Table 21, data for R4 = 2.9401) is greater than a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens (page 16, Table 21, data for R3 = -61.1788, such that 2.9401 > -61.1788), and wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fifth lens (page 16, Table 21, data for R9 = 11.6955) is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fifth lens (page 16, Table 21, data for R10 = 4.0956, such that 11.6955 > 4.0956).
With regard to dependent claim 9, Shinohara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8,and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R2).
With regard to dependent claim 10, Shinohara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8,and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R5).
With regard to dependent claim 11, Shinohara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8,and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R11).
With regard to dependent claim 12, Shinohara et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 8,and further teaches such an optical imaging system wherein the sixth lens has a concave image-side surface (page 16, Table 21, data for R12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
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.
With regard to independent claim 1, although Huang (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0050846) teaches an optical imaging system (page 1, paragraph [0003] and Figure 1) comprising: a first lens (Figure 1, element 110) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0051], lines 1-2) and a concave image-side surface (Figure 1, element 112 and page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 1); a second lens (Figure 1, element 120) having a concave image-side surface (Figure 1, element 122 and page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 4); a third lens (Figure 1, element 130) having positive refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0053], lines 1-2); a fourth lens (Figure 1, element 140) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0054], lines 1-2); a fifth lens (Figure 1, element 150) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0055], lines 1-2); and a sixth lens (Figure 1, element 160) having a refractive power (page 5, paragraph [0056], lines 1-2), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (Figure 1), wherein the optical imaging system has a total number of six lenses with refractive power (Figure 1), and wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens (page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 3 = 6.331207) is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the first lens (page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 1 = 2.086509, such that 6.331207 > 2.086509), wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the fifth lens (page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 10 = 3.081457) is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the fifth lens (page 6, Table 1, Curvature Radius data for Surface 11 = 2.199585, such that 3.081457 > 2.199585), wherein a thickness of the first lens (page 6, Table 1, Thickness data for Lens 1 = 2.000) is greater than a thickness of the fifth lens (page 6, Thickness data for Lens 5 = 0.633, such that 2.000 > 0.633), Huang fails to teach such an optical imaging system simultaneously satisfying wherein 7.0 mm < 2ImgHT (Figure 2, wherein ImgHt = 2.88 and 2ImgHT = 5.76), wherein 21mgHT is a diagonal length of the imaging plane.
With regard to dependent claims 2-7, claims 2-7 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
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 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
19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights