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 .
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.
Claim 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-11,13,14 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 is obvious over Claims 1,2, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 2 is obvious over Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 3 is obvious over Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 4 is obvious over Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 5 is obvious over Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 6 is obvious over Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 7 is obvious over Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 8 is obvious over Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 9 is obvious over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 10 is obvious over Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 11 is obvious over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 12 is obvious over Claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 13 is obvious over Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim 14 is obvious over Claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12216337.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10,12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 109358416 A) in view of Tsai et al (US 20160341937)
Regarding Claim 1,
Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) an optical imaging system (ABSTRACT) comprising: a first lens having a positive refractive power, a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof, and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof E1); a second lens having a negative refractive power (E2), a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof, and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof; a third lens having a positive refractive power (E3); a fourth lens having a negative refractive power and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (E4); a fifth lens having a refractive power and a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (E5); a sixth lens having a refractive power (E6); and a seventh lens having a negative refractive power (E7), wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order along an optical axis of the optical imaging system from an object side of the optical imaging system toward an imaging surface of an image sensor (ABSTRACT and Figure 1), the optical imaging system has a total of seven lenses having a refractive power, and IMG HT is one half of a diagonal length of the imaging surface of the image sensor, and a conditional expression n2+n3+n4 > 4.85 is satisfied, where n2 is a refractive index of the second lens, n3 a refractive index of the third lens, and n4 is a refractive index of the fourth lens (see table value equal to 2.325 and see table 3 example value = 4.86). Also, the conditional expression TTL/(2xIMG HT) < 0.69 is satisfied (TTL/ImgH-1.35)(Example 1, Tables 1 and 3), where TTL is a distance along the optical axis from the object-side surface of the first lens to the imaging surface of the image sensor.
Wang et al does not disclose the fifth lens has a concave object side surface.
Tsai et al discloses the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Claim 9, embodiment 3, fifth lens 350 and surface 351)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang et al to include Tsai et al’s fifth lens having a concave object side surface motivated by the desire to improve image quality.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Tsai et al discloses wherein a conditional expression v1-v2 > 30 is satisfied, where v1 is an Abbe number of the first lens, and v2 is an Abbe number of the second lens (claims 12 and 26 overlap the ranges)
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression n2+n3 > 3.15 is satisfied (see TABLE 1).
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression 0.15 < BFL/f < 0.25 is satisfied, where BFL is a distance along the optical axis from an image-side surface of the seventh lens to the imaging surface of the image sensor, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (see TABLE 1).
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression 0.005 < D1/f < 0.04 is satisfied, where D1 is a distance along the optical axis between the image-side surface of the first lens and the object-side surface of the second lens, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system (see TABLE 1).
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression Fno < 2.3 is satisfied, where Fno is a F-number of the optical imaging system (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression f/f2+f/f3 < -0.4 is satisfied, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens (f=5.39 mm, f2=-5.74 mm, f3=14.29)(Example 1, Table 3).
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression 0.30 < R1/f < 0.40 is satisfied, where R1 is a radius of curvature of the object-side surface of the first lens, and f is a focal length of the optical imaging system.(Example 1 and Tables 1 and 3)
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a conditional expression 1.4 < |f23|/f1< 2.8 is satisfied, where f23 is a composite focal length of the second lens and the third lens, and f1 is a focal length of the first lens (example 1).
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (Example 1, third lens E3 and surface S5).
Regarding Claim 12,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Wang et al discloses (Fig. 1) wherein the seventh lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Tsai et al discloses wherein each of an object-side surface and an image-side surface of each of the first lens to the seventh lens is aspherical (Example 1, Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding Claim 14,
In addition to Wang et al and Tsai et al, Tsai et al discloses (Embodiment 3)wherein at least one inflection point is formed on either one or both of an object-side surface and an image-side surface (372) of the seventh lens (370)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 109358416 A) and of Tsai et al (US 20160341937) in view of Dai et al (WO 2016109938)
Regarding Claim 11,
Wang et al and Tsai et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Wang et al and Tsai et al do not disclose wherein the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof.
Dai et al discloses the sixth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (First embodiment, sixth lens 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang et al and Tsai et al to include Dai et al’s sixth lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof motivated by the desire to improve aberration correction and image quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST M-F.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights