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 01/08/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,001,623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “first lens comprising a positive refractive power”, “a third lens comprising a negative refractive power, an object-side surface of the third lens being convex” and “a seventh lens comprising a negative refractive power and comprising an inflection point formed on an image-side surface thereof” renders claims 1-14 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,001,623.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,444,469. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “ a seventh lens comprising a negative refractive power and comprising an inflection point formed on an image-side surface thereof” renders claims 1-14 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,444,469.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,761,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a seventh lens comprising a negative refractive power and comprising an inflection point formed on an image-side surface thereof” renders claims 1-14 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,761,299.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,428,899. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a seventh lens comprising a negative refractive power and comprising an inflection point formed on an image-side surface thereof” renders claims 1-14 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,428,899.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine (US 2015/0316751).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine discloses, an optical imaging system (Fig. 7), comprising:
a first lens (L1) comprising a concave image-side surface (Para. 0112, lines 7-8);
a second lens (L2) comprising a refractive power (Para. 0113);
a third lens (L3) comprising a refractive power (Para. 0114);
a fourth lens (L4) comprising a refractive power (Para. 0115);
a fifth lens (L5) comprising a refractive power (Para. 0116);
a sixth lens (L6) comprising a convex object-side surface (Para. 0117; note, discloses a meniscus with concave image side) and a concave image-side surface (Para. 0117; note, discloses a meniscus with concave image side); and
a seventh lens (L7) comprising a negative refractive power (Para. 0118),
wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (Para. 0112-0118 and Fig. 7),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens (see “Table 4”).
Regarding claim 2, Sekine discloses, the first lens has a convex object-side surface (Para. 0112).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine discloses, the second lens has a convex object-side surface (see L2 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Sekine discloses, the third lens has a convex object-side surface (Para. 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Sekine discloses, the third lens has a concave image-side surface (see L3).
Regarding claim 6, Sekine discloses, the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (see L4 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Sekine discloses, the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (see L4 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Sekine discloses, the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (Para. 0116 and see L5 of Fig. 7; note, the Examiner interprets the object-side surface is concave outside of the paraxial portion).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 9,766,433).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses, an optical imaging system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first lens (110) comprising a concave image-side surface (112);
a second lens (120) comprising positive refractive power (Col. 8, lines 4-5);
a third lens (130) comprising a refractive power;
a fourth lens (140) comprising a refractive power;
a fifth lens (150) comprising a refractive power;
a sixth lens (160) comprising a convex object-side surface (see 161 periphery); and
a seventh lens (170) comprising a negative refractive power (Col. 8, lines 40-41),
wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane (Col. 7, lines 48-64),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the third lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the third lens (see “Table 1”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses, the second lens has a convex object-side surface (121).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses, the third lens has a convex object-side surface (131).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses, the fourth lens has a convex object-side surface (see periphery of 141).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses, the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface (142).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses, the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface (see periphery of 151).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsai (US 2014/0009843) discloses an optical imaging system comprising first to seventh lenses that are sequentially disposed from an object side toward an imaging plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/08/2026
Prosecution Insights