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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 6, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments
It should be noted that claims 1-20 have been interpreted by the examiner, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, with the view that the lenses may or may not be distributed along the optical axis in a sequential order, as evidenced by Chang et al (US. Patent Publication 2021/0072517). Chang et al teaches an optical system wherein the eighth lens is disposed after the fifth lens and before the sixth lens, in order from an object side to an image side (page 3, paragraph [0052], lines 21-27 and Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11). It is suggested that Applicant define the lenses to be in sequential order from an object side to an image side, image plane or sensor.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “times” appearing in claims 13 and 14 be deleted to provide clarity to the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The parenthetical statement should be removed such that the variables are clearly defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0364754).
With regard to independent claim 13, although You et al teaches an optical system (page 1, paragraph [0002] and Figure 3), comprising: a first to a seventh lens disposed along an optical axis (Figure 3, wherein the first lens has been defined as E2, the second lens has been defined as E5, the third lens has been defined as E3, the fourth lens has been defined as E4, the fifth lens has been defined as E1, the sixth lens has been defined as E6 and the seventh lens has been defined as E7)), wherein, among the first to seventh lenses, an absolute value of focal length of the second lens is the largest (page 8, Table 6, wherein the absolute value of focal length of the second lens = 1002.15) and an absolute value of focal length of the fifth lens is the smallest (page 8, Table 6, wherein the absolute value of focal length of the fifth lens = 4.81), You et al fails to teach such an optical system wherein a ratio of the absolute values of the focal lengths of the second lens and the fifth lens is greater than 210 [times] and less than 220 [times]. However, You et al does teach wherein a ratio of the absolute values of the focal lengths of the second lens and the fifth lens = 208.3 (page 8, Table 6, wherein 1002.15/4.81 = 208.3), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the optical imaging system, as taught by You et al, since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
With regard to dependent claim 16, You et al teaches all of the claimed limitations of the instant invention as outlined above with respect to independent claim 13, and further teaches such an optical system wherein in the optical axis, the first lens has a smallest thickness among the first to seventh lenses (page 7, Table 4, wherein the first lens (E2) has a thickness = 0.2500), and wherein in the optical axis, one of the third to fifth lenses has a largest thickness among the first to seventh lenses (page 7, Table 4, wherein the fifth lens (E1) has a thickness = 0.7551).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Claims 14, 15 and 17-20 are 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.
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 the prior art teaches an optical system, comprising: a first to a seventh lens arranged along an optical axis, wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power, wherein a composite refractive power of the second to seventh lenses is a positive power, the prior art fails to teach such an optical system simultaneously satisfying: wherein among effective diameters of the first to third lenses, the second lens has a smallest effective diameter, and wherein effective diameters of the sixth and seventh lenses are smaller than an effective diameter of the fifth lens, and wherein, among the first lens to the seventh lens, the third lens has the largest effective diameter.
With regard to dependent claims 2-6, claims 2-6 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.
With regard to independent claim 7, although the prior art teaches an optical system, comprising: a first lens to a seventh lens disposed along an optical axis, wherein the first lens has a negative refractive power, wherein a composite refractive power of the second lens to the seventh lens is a positive refractive power, and wherein among the first lens to the seventh lens, an absolute value of a focal length of the fifth lens is the smallest and an absolute value of a focal length of the second lens is the largest, the prior art fails to teach such an optical system wherein: among the first lens to the seventh lens, the third lens has a largest effective diameter.
With regard to dependent claims 8-12, claims 8-12 are allowable as they depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 7 and therefore inherit all of the limitations of the claim from which they depend.
With regard to dependent claims 14, 15 and 17-20, although the prior art teaches an optical system, comprising: an optical system, comprising: a first to a seventh lens disposed along an optical axis, wherein, among the first to seventh lenses, an absolute value of focal length of the second lens is the largest and an absolute value of focal length of the fifth lens is the smallest, and wherein a ratio of the absolute values of the focal lengths of the second lens and the fifth lens is greater than 210 [times] and less than 220 [times], the prior art fails to simultaneously teach such an optical system wherein: wherein a ratio of the absolute values of focal lengths of the second lens and the third lens is greater than 100 [times] and less than 110 [times], as claimed in dependent claim 14; wherein a thickness of the second lens in the optical axis is smaller than thicknesses of the third lens and the fourth lens, as claimed in dependent claim 17; wherein among the first to seventh lenses, an absolute value of radius of curvature of a sensor side of the sixth lens is the largest, and an absolute value of radius of curvature of a sensor side of the fifth lens is the smallest, as claimed in dependent claim 18; wherein the third lens has a convex shape on both sides, as claimed in dependent claim 19; or wherein the first lens, the second lens, the fifth lens, and the seventh lens have a negative refractive power, and the third lens, the fourth lens, and the sixth lens have a positive refractive power, as claimed in dependent claim 20.
With regard to dependent claim 15, claim 15 is allowable as it depends, directly or indirectly, from dependent claim 14 and therefore inherits all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0161138), Wang et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0364743), Zhao et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0209559) and Chen et al (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0196151) all teach optical systems comprising seven lenses.
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
13 July 2026
Prosecution Insights