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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended and claim 12 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application to KR 10-2023-0154657, filed 11/09/2023 (Korea).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are not acceptable for examination purposes.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitations where “TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis” as recited in claim 1 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently no drawing depicts that the above ratio where the ImgH is defined as image height from the optical axis. Twice the image height so defined would mean that the total image plane dimension is larger than the track length TTL from the object-side surface of first lens to the imaging plane. The drawings instead depict the imaging system TTL is larger than the total image plane dimension or 2*ImgHT, meaning that the above ratio is larger than 1, not less than 0.850. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8 and 17-18 are 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 contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claims 1 and 17 now recite the claim limitation where ““TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis”, which is not well supported by the original specification nor the drawings. For example the drawing do not depict that the above ratio where the ImgH is defined as image height from the optical axis. Twice the image height so defined would mean that the total image plane dimension is larger than the track length TTL from the object-side surface of first lens to the imaging plane. The drawings instead depict the imaging system TTL is larger than the total image plane dimension or 2*ImgHT, meaning that the above ratio is larger than 1, not less than 0.850. In each of the embodiments the astigmatic field and distortion curves Figs. 2, 4, ..16 disclose the maximum image height measured from the optical axis as IMG HT being 3.58. The summary table 17 lists the ImHT of each embodiment as 7.168, which is close to twice the 3.58 mm value of Figures 2,4,..,16, as indication that the ImgHT actually represents the total size or dimension of the image plane, not the maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis, as amended in claims 1 and 17. Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim limitation is supported, nor does there appear to be a clear written description of the claim limitation noted above in the application as filed. Therefore the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported (see MPEP 2163.04, Sec. I).
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17 and therefore inherits the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the amended limitation expression for “TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis”. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how the symbol ImgHT can be treated, given it is unclear the height as so currently defined can be used to evaluate the conditional expression above, given that none of the drawings nor the disclosure clearly support the above limitation, raising the ambiguity as to what is the height to0 be considered in the claims? Specifically, amended limitation where ““TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis”, is not well supported by the original specification nor the drawings. For example the drawing do not depict that the above ratio where the ImgH is defined as image height from the optical axis. Twice the image height so defined would mean that the total image plane dimension is larger than the track length TTL from the object-side surface of first lens to the imaging plane. The drawings instead depict the imaging system TTL is larger than the total image plane dimension or 2*ImgHT, meaning that the above ratio is larger than 1, not less than 0.850. In each of the embodiments the astigmatic field and distortion curves Figs. 2, 4,6,8,10,12,14 and 16 disclose the maximum image height measured from the optical axis as IMG HT being 3.58. The summary table 17 lists the ImHT of each embodiment as 7.168, which is close to twice the 3.58 mm value of Figures 2,4,..,16, indicating that the ImgHT actually represents the total size or dimension of the image plane, not the maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis, as amended in claims 1 and 17, and stated by the Applicant. Furthermore, confusion arises precisely from the fact that the symbol ImgHT that is customary used by one of ordinary skill in the art (also noted by the Applicant) and in the prior art to designate, maximum or total image height measured from the optical axis, but not the height of the total image plane or diagonal of the image plane of the image sensor. However, the amended claims are still confusing and not supported by the disclosure. For the purposes of examination the above limitation will be treated such that the term ImgHT refers to some height or maximum height of image plane or twice the image height or twice image sensor diagonal. It is suggested to amend the claim and/or provide further explanations in order to remove the indefiniteness and new matter issues.
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiency.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17 and therefore inherits the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudnick et al. (hereafter Rudnick, of record, see IDS dated 07/15/2025) US 20230353855 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) An imaging lens system ( lens systems for compact digital cameras, e.g. 400, 500, ..1800, see abstract, paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 1-37, Figs. 4-15), comprising:
a first lens group comprising one or more lenses (G1 with lenses L1, L2, L3, .. see paragraphs [61-75], examples Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 1-37); and
a second lens group comprising one or more lenses (G2 with lenses L6, L7, L8, see paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 1-37, Figs. 4-15) and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction (i.e. as G2 moves along optical axis for focusing, abstract, paragraphs [67-69,74], Figs. 3A-B),
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group are arranged sequentially from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. as G1, G2 are sequentially arranged from object side toward image side at image on image sensor e.g. 404, paragraphs [61-75], Figs. 5-15),
wherein the first and second lens groups comprise a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens (i.e. as e.g. G1 and G2 have six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object-side toward the imaging plane ( as six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, for example L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7, or L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7 or L8, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (i.e. as L3 has convex object side surface, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm (i.e. as L6 has focal length in that range, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, lens data Tables 5, 8,11,14,20,23,29,32,35), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850 (i.e. given values for total track length TTL and sensor diagonal SD, see Table , e.g. values 0.39,0.348 paragraphs 72-76], as depicted by ration of sizes of TTL and SD in Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis (i.e. treated in light of112a, and 112b issues presented above, as total track length TTL from object side surface of first lens L1 to image plane, and height of imaging plane as height or size of sensor, i.e. sensor diagonal ½SD=ImgHT currently defined, see Table 1, paragraphs 72-74]).
Regarding claim 2, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that the foremost lens has a convex image-side surface ( as L1 with convex image side, e.g. Fig. 8, Table 14-16, paragraphs [72-74, 86]).
Regarding claim 3, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a rear lens in the first lens group disposed closest to the second lens group has a convex image-side surface (e.g. convex image side in last lens of G1, e.g. L6 in 400-800, 1000-1500, or L5 in 900, see Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 2-37, paragraphs [61-74]).
Regarding claim 4, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a front lens in the second lens group disposed closest to the first lens group has a concave object-side surface (e.g. convex object side in first lens in G2 closest to G1, e.g. L7 in 400-800, 1000-1500, or L6 in 900, see Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 2-37, paragraphs [61-74]).
Regarding claim 5, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that a rearmost lens disposed closest to the imaging plane has a concave image-side surface (e.g. concave image side of last lens closest to image plane in G2, e.g. L7 in 400-800, 1000-1300, 1500, or L6 in 900, or L8 in 1400, see Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 2-37, paragraphs [61-74]).
Regarding claim 6, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that:
fG1/fG1F < 1.10, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and fG1F is a focal length of the foremost lens (i.e. as optical power of G1, PG1=1/fG1, and optical power of first lens L1 as P1=1/fG1F, hence fG1/fG1F = P1/PG1, e.g. values 0.89, 0.5, e.g. Tables 4, 7,10,13, 16, 22,25,28,31,34,37, see paragraphs [72-74, 75-81]).
Regarding claim 7, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that:
fG2/fG2F < 1.0, where fG2 is a focal length of the second lens group, and fG2F is a focal length of a lens disposed closest to the object in the second lens group (i.e. as optical power of G2, PG2=1/fG2, and optical focal length f7 of first lens L7 in G2, hence fG2/fG2F = 1/[(PG2)*(f7)], e.g. value -0.124, 0.5, e.g. Tables 1, 32, Fig. 14, see paragraphs [91]).
In regard to independent claim 17, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) an electronic device comprising : an imaging lens system ( lens systems for compact digital cameras, e.g. 400, 500, ..1800, see abstract, paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 1-37, Figs. 4-15), comprising: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens (as six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, see paragraphs [61-75], examples Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 1-37) sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane ( as six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, for example L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7, or L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7 or L8, are sequentially arranged from object side toward image side at image on image sensor e.g. 404, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (i.e. as L3 has convex object side surface, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm (i.e. as L6 has focal length in that range, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, lens data Tables 5, 8,11,14,20,23,29,32,35), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850 (i.e. given values for total track length TTL and sensor diagonal SD=ImgHT, see Table 1, e.g. values 0.387, 0.39, paragraphs 72-74]),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from the optical axis (i.e. as treated given the 112 issues noted above, total track length TTL from object side surface of first lens L1 to image plane, and height of imaging plane as height or size of sensor, i.e. sensor diagonal ½SD=ImgHT as currently defined, see Table 1, paragraphs 72-74]).
Regarding claim 18, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that the imaging lens system further comprises a seventh lens disposed on an image side of the sixth lens (as L8 on image side of L7, as depicted in Figs. 14-15, e.g. paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 32,35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13-16 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
Regarding independent claim 9, the closest cited prior art of Liu teaches (see Figs. 1-12) such an imaging lens system ( optical lens, for camera module and electronic device, abstract, e.g. 100, see abstract, paragraphs [01, 03-08, 14-25,32-36,47-59, 85-92], embodiments 1-5 in examples in Tables 1-17, Figs. 1-12), comprising:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens, sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. as G1, G2, with L1,L2,L3,L4,L5, L6 that are sequentially arranged from object side toward image side at imaging surface 101, paragraphs [14-25,32-36,47-59], examples Figs. 1-11), wherein the first lens has a convex image-side surface (L1 convex on image side, see Figs. 1-11, paragraphs [14-25,32-36,47-59], Tables 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14),
wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (L3 convex on object side, see Figs. 1-11, paragraphs [14-25,32-36,47-59], Tables 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14),and
wherein -1.2 < f1/f4 < -0.40, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens (i.e. as focal lengths of L1, L4, f1, f4, e.g. value -0.97, given lens data in Tables 16, 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, paragraphs [14-25,32-36,47-59]).
However, regarding claim 9, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such an imaging lens system including the specific arrangement where the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 9.
Further, regarding to independent claim 9, another close cited prior art of Jung teaches (see Figs. 1-13) such an imaging lens system ( optical imaging system for camera, electronic device, e.g. 100-400, see abstract, paragraphs [02-15, 37-54,74-81,83-91,92-100,101-109, 110-114], embodiments 1-4 in examples in Tables 1-5, Figs. 1-2,4-5,7-8,10-11, 12), comprising:
a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens, sequentially arranged from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. as first through seventh lens L1,L2,L3,L4,L5, L6,L7, that are sequentially arranged from object side toward image side at imaging surface at sensor 190, paragraphs [74-81,83-91,92-100,101-109, 110-114], Tables 1-4, Figs. 1-2,4-5,7-8,10-11), wherein the first lens has a convex image-side surface (L1 convex on image side, see Figs. 1,4,7,10, Tables 1-4),
wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (L3 convex on object side, see Figs. 1,4,7, Tables 1-3, note that L3 is convex on image side, Fig. 10, Table 10), and
wherein -1.2 < f1/f4 < -0.40, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens (i.e. as focal lengths of L1, L4, f1, f4, e.g. value -0.41, given lens data in Tables 1-4, paragraphs [74-81,83-91,92-100,101-109, 110-114]).
However, regarding claim 9, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such an imaging lens system including the specific arrangement where the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 9.
With respect to claims 10-11, 13-16, these claims depend on claim 9 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) that fG1/f < 0.550, where fG1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and f is a focal length of the imaging lens system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 07/22/2026 with respect to claim 1 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8-9 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Rudnick does not disclose the new limitation where (1) “the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm”, and “the third lens has a convex object-side surface” because fifth lens is negative in all examples and one example (6) lens 3 is not convex on object side. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to issue (1), as noted above, the cited prior art of Rudnick teaches all limitations of claim 1 and 17, as Rudnick teaches (see Figs. 1-18) An imaging lens system ( lens systems for compact digital cameras, e.g. 400, 500, ..1800, see abstract, paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 1-37, Figs. 4-15), comprising:
a first lens group comprising one or more lenses (G1 with lenses L1, L2, L3, .. see paragraphs [61-75], examples Figs. 4-15, and details in Tables 1-37); and
a second lens group comprising one or more lenses (G2 with lenses L6, L7, L8, see paragraphs [02-07, 14-38, 61-75], examples in Tables 1-37, Figs. 4-15) and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction (i.e. as G2 moves along optical axis for focusing, abstract, paragraphs [67-69,74], Figs. 3A-B),
wherein the first lens group and the second lens group are arranged sequentially from an object side toward an imaging plane (i.e. as G1, G2 are sequentially arranged from object side toward image side at image on image sensor e.g. 404, paragraphs [61-75], Figs. 5-15),
wherein the first and second lens groups comprise a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, and a sixth lens (i.e. as e.g. G1 and G2 have six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object-side toward the imaging plane ( as six lenses from L1 through L7 Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13, or from L1 through L8 Figs. 14-15, for example L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7, or L1,L2,L3,L4,L6, and L7 or L8, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface (i.e. as L3 has convex object side surface, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37),
wherein the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm (i.e. as L6 has focal length in that range, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, lens data Tables 5, 8,11,14,20,23,29,32,35), and
wherein the imaging lens system satisfies the following conditional expression:
TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850 (i.e. given values for total track length TTL and sensor diagonal SD, see Table , e.g. values 0.39,0.348 paragraphs 72-76], as depicted by ration of sizes of TTL and SD in Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15),
where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of a foremost lens disposed closest to an object, to the imaging plane, and ImgHT is a maximum height of the imaging plane measured from an optical axis (i.e. treated in light of112a, and 112b issues presented above, as total track length TTL from object side surface of first lens L1 to image plane, and height of imaging plane as height or size of sensor, i.e. sensor diagonal ½SD=ImgHT currently defined, see Table 1, paragraphs 72-74]).
Specifically, Rudnick teaches that the third lens has a convex object-side surface (i.e. as L3 has convex object side surface, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, see Tables 5-16,20-25,29-37), and also that the fifth lens has a focal length within a range of 10 mm to 40 mm (i.e. as L6 has focal length in that range, see Figs. 5-8, 10-11,13-15, lens data Tables 5, 8,11,14,20,23,29,32,35). Note that fifth lens is denoted ad L6 in Rudnick. Moreover, it is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.).
Therefore the cited prior art of Rudnick teaches all limitations of claim 1 including the limitations raised under issue (1) above. The same responses equally apply to claim 17.
Regarding 112(b) rejections, it is noted that new limitations do not overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, and add additional new matter rejections, as the claimed ranges are not supported by the lens data and the drawings. The current and previous 112(b) rejections were given not because one of ordinary skill in the art would certainly understand that, in the field of imaging lens systems, "height of the imaging plane", (often denoted ImgHT or IH), is a well-understood convention meaning the maximum image height from the optical axis to the edge of the effective imaging area (i.e., the semi-diagonal or half the full image height/diagonal of the sensor), but because if the incontinency between claimed subject matter and the disclosure. As explained in the 112(b) section, the TTL/(ImgHT*2) < 0.850 is supported only if the ImgHT represents the entire length (full diagonal)of the imaging area.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 8 of the Remarks dated 07/22/2026.
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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights