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 .
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 M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on October 30th, 2014 (KR 10-2014-0149640). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated November 18th, 2024, April 9th, 2025, and April 30th, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a thickness along the optical axis of the fourth lens is greater than a thickness along an optical axis of the fourth lens” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear how the first thickness can be greater than the second given that the two thickness are both “a thickness . . . of the fourth lens”.
Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “a thickness of the fourth lens exists”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2015/0131172 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a lens module, comprising:
a first lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 10 in Fig. 1);
a second lens having a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., lens 20 in Fig. 1);
a third lens having a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., lens 30 in Fig. 1);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 40 in Fig. 1);
a fifth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 50 in Fig. 1); and
a sixth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 60 in Fig. 1),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane (See, e.g., Fig. 1), and
wherein a thickness along an optical axis of the fifth lens is greater than a thickness along an optical axis of the fourth lens (See, e.g., the data of Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the sixth lens has a concave image-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches a lens module, comprising:
a first lens having a concave image-side surface (See, e.g., lens 10 in Fig. 1);
a second lens having refractive power (See, e.g., lens 20 in Fig. 1);
a third lens having a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., lens 30 in Fig. 1);
a fourth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 40 in Fig. 1);
a fifth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 50 in Fig. 1); and
a sixth lens having a refractive power (See, e.g., lens 60 in Fig. 1),
wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side to an imaging plane (See, e.g., Fig. 1), and
wherein a thickness along an optical axis of the fourth lens is greater than a thickness along an optical axis of the fourth lens (See, e.g., the 112 rejection above and note this limitation is met as there is a thickness).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the sixth lens has a concave image-side surface (See, e.g., Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the second lens has a concave image-side surface.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the third lens has a convex image-side surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights