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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on January 10, 2025; September 5, 2025; November 25, 2025; January 26, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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 1-18 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 claim(s) 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.
As to claim 1, the claim is drawn to the genus of a 9-lens system having 4th lens positive power, and 7th lens positive power, leaving seven lenses with either positive, negative, or zero power. Such genus having 128 (128 = 27) combinations for positive and negative powers or 2187 (2187 = 37) combinations for positive, negative, zero powers. Applicant has only disclosed two (2) power combinations:
Embodiment 1: (+ - + + + - + + -)
Embodiments 2, 3, 4: (+ - - + + - + + -)
As is consistent with the MPEP (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.a.ii) the written description is satisfied when a representative number of species are disclosed by Applicant (MPEP 2163 - A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG V. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Here, Applicant’s two (2) species falls far short of the 128 or 2187 species of the claimed genus. For example, Applicant’s specification provides no support for all positive lenses, yet Applicant’s claims purport to possess such features.
MPEP 2163 - Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As disclosed, it appears the possess powers for the 9-lens system is either (+ - + + + - + + -) or (+ - - + + - + + -).
Claims 2-8 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1 and do not resolve the issues of claim 1.
As to claim 9, the claim is drawn to the genus of a 9-lens system having a 7th lens of positive power, leaving eight lenses with either positive, negative, or zero power. Such genus having 256 (256 = 28) combinations for positive and negative powers or 6561 (6561 = 38) combinations for positive, negative, zero powers. Applicant has only disclosed two (2) power combinations:
Embodiment 1: (+ - + + + - + + -)
Embodiments 2, 3, 4: (+ - - + + - + + -)
As is consistent with the MPEP (MPEP 2163.II.A.3.a.ii) the written description is satisfied when a representative number of species are disclosed by Applicant (MPEP 2163 - A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG V. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Here, Applicant’s two (2) species falls far short of the 256 or 6561 species of the claimed genus. For example, Applicant’s specification provides no support for all positive lenses, yet Applicant’s claims purport to possess such features.
MPEP 2163 - Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As disclosed, it appears the possess powers for the 9-lens system is either (+ - + + + - + + -) or (+ - - + + - + + -).
Claims 10-11, 13, 16-18 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1 and do not resolve the issues of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the fourth lens and fifth lens have positive refractive power which reduces the genus to 64 (26) or 729 (36) species. Applicant’s two (2) species continues to fall short to evidence possession of all 64 or 729 species.
Claim 14 recites the sixth lens has negative refractive power which reduces the genus to 128 (27) or 2187 (37) species. Applicant’s two (2) species continues to fall short to evidence possession of all 128 or 2187 species.
Claim 15 recites the third lens has positive refractive power which reduces the genus to 128 (27) or 2187 (37) species. Applicant’s two (2) species continues to fall short to evidence possession of all 128 or 2187 species.
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.
(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 9-10, 12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Sin (KR 10-2023-0105259; cited by Applicant; text references made to the accompanying machine translation).
As to claim 9, Sin teaches an optical imaging system (Sin Fig. 1; Fig. 7), comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens, eighth lens, and ninth lens disposed in order from an object side (Sin Fig. 1 - 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190; Fig. 7 - 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190), the seventh lens has positive refractive power (Sin Table 5 - f7 > 0; Table 11 - f7 > 0), and the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Sin Fig. 1 - S16; Fig. 7 - S16).
As to claim 10, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches the second, third, and sixth lenses have refractive index equal to or greater than 1.60 (Sin Table 1 - n2 = 1.6480; n3 = 1.6691; n6 = 1.6683; Table 7 - n2 = 1.6671; n3 = 1.6710; n6 = 1.6710).
As to claim 12, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches the fourth lens and fifth lenses have positive refractive power (Sin Table 5 - f4 > 0, f5 > 0; Table 11 - f4 > 0; f5 > 0).
As to claim 14, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches the sixth lens has a negative refractive power (Sin Table 11 - f6 < 0) and a concave image side surface (Sin para. [0073] - The above-mentioned sixth lens (160) may include a 11th surface (S11) defined as an object side surface and a 12th surface (S12) defined as a sensor side surface… The above 11th surface (S11) may have a convex shape on the optical axis (OA), and the above 12th surface (S12) may have a concave shape on the optical axis (OA)).
As to claim 15, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches the third lens has positive refractive power (Sin Table 5 - f3 > 0; table 11 - f3 > 0).
As to claim 16, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches the sixth lens has a convex object side surface (Sin para. [0073] - The above-mentioned sixth lens (160) may include a 11th surface (S11) defined as an object side surface and a 12th surface (S12) defined as a sensor side surface… The above 11th surface (S11) may have a convex shape on the optical axis (OA), ).
As to claim 17, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches satisfying 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Sin para. [0336]-[0338] - teaching 0.1 < F/TTL < 1 which is 1 < TTL/F < 10 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 18, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Sin Table 5 - TTL = 5.8211mm; Imght = 4.009mm).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kuo (US 2020/0393652).
As to claim 1, Kuo teaches an optical imaging system (Kuo Fig. 17) comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens having positive refractive power, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens having positive refractive power, eighth lens, and ninth lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 910, 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, 970, 980, 990; Table 17 - f4 > 0; f7 > 0)
the first to ninth lenses are disposed in order from an object side (Kuo Fig. 17);
and satisfying
1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Kuo para. [0052] - teaching 0.80 < f/EPD < 2.40 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03));
1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Kuo para. [0063] - teaching 0.70 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 2, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches both an image side surface of the third lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 932) and an object side surface of the fourth lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 941) are concave (Kuo para. [0285]-[0286] - teaching (932) concave in paraxial region and (941) being concave off-axis with inflection points).
As to claim 3, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 951; para. [0287]).
As to claim 4, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the sixth lens has a concave image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 962; para. [0288]).
As to claim 5, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the seventh and eighth lenses include and inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 971, 972, 981, 982; para. [0289], [0290]).
As to claim 6, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - surface (982) convex off-axis).
As to claim 8, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Kuo para. [0053] - teaching 0.40 < TL/ImgH < 5.00 which is 0.20 < TL/(2*ImgH) < 2.50, which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 9, Kuo teaches an optical imaging system (Kuo Fig. 7), comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens, eighth lens, and ninth lens disposed in order from an object side (Kuo Fig. 7 - 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, 460, 470, 480, 490), the seventh lens has positive refractive power (Kuo Fig. 7 - 470; Table 7 - f7 > 0), and the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Kuo Fig. 7 - 482).
As to claim 11, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches the seventh lens and the eighth lens comprise an inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Kuo Fig. 7 - 471, 472, 481, 482; para. [0219], [0220]).
As to claim 13, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Kuo para. [0052] - teaching 0.80 < f/EPD < 2.40 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 14, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches the sixth lens has negative refractive power (Kuo Fig. 7 - 460; Table 7 - f6 < 0) and a concave image side surface (Kuo Fig. 7 - 462; para. [0218]).
As to claim 15, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches the third lens has positive refractive power (Kuo Table 7 - f3 > 0).
As to claim 17, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Kuo para. [0063] - teaching 0.70 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 18, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Kuo para. [0255] - TL/ImgH = 1.48, thus TL/(2*Imgh) = 0.74).
Claims 9-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2020/0393653).
As to claim 9, Chen teaches an optical imaging system (Chen Fig. 19), comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens, eighth lens, and ninth lens disposed in order from an object side (Chen Fig. 19 - 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040, 1050, 1060, 1070, 1080, 1090), the seventh lens has positive refractive power (Chen Fig. 19 - 1070; Table 19 - f7 > 0), and the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Chen Fig. 19 - 1082).
As to claim 10, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches the second, third, sixth lenses have a refractive index equal to or greater than 1.60 (Chen Table 19 - n2 = 1.639, n3 - 1.639, n6 = 1.705).
As to claim 13, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Chen para. [0068] - teaching 1.20 < Fno < 2.10 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 14, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches the sixth lens has a negative refractive power (Chen Table 19 - f6 < 0) and a concave image side surface (Chen Fig. 19 - 1062; para. [0286]).
As to claim 15, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches the third lens has positive refractive power (Chen Table 19 - f3 > 0).
As to claim 16, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches the sixth lens has convex object side surface (Chen Fig. 19 - 1061; para. [0286]).
As to claim 17, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Chen para. [0061] - teaching 0.80 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 18, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Chen para. [0056] - teaching TL/ImgH < 1.60 which is TL/(2*ImgH) < 0.80 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Seo (KR 10-2023-0172309; cited by Applicant; text references made to accompanying machine translation).
As to claim 1, Seo teaches an optical imaging system (Seo Fig. 1) comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens having positive refractive power, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens having positive refractive power, eighth lens, and ninth lens (Seo Fig. 1 - 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109; Table 6 - f4 = 33.445; f7 = 508.717)
the first to ninth lenses are disposed in order from an object side (Seo Fig. 1);
and satisfying
1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Seo para. [0437]-[0438]- teaching 1 < F/EPD < 5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03));
1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Seo Table 7 - TTL = 9.289; F = 7.099).
As to claim 2, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches both an image side surface of the third lens (Seo Fig. 1 - s6) and an object side surface of the fourth lens (Seo Fig. 1 - s7) are concave (Seo para. [0068], [0070]).
As to claim 3, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s9; Table 1 - s9 < 0).
As to claim 4, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the sixth lens has a concave image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s12; para. [0076]).
As to claim 5, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the seventh lens and the eighth lens include an inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s13, s14, s15, s16).
As to claim 6, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s16; para. [0080]).
As to claim 7, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the first to ninth lenses comprise three or more lenses with refractive index equal to or greater than 1.60 (Seo Table 1 - n2 = 1.684; n5 = 1.689; n7 = 1.603).
As to claim 8, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Seo para. [0411], [0412] - teaching 0.5 < TTL/ImgH < 3 which is 0.25 < TTL/(2*ImgH) < 1.5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 9, Seo teaches an optical imaging system (Seo Fig. 1), comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens, eighth lens, and ninth lens disposed in order from an object side (Seo Fig. 1 - 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109), the seventh lens has positive refractive power (Seo Table 6 - f7 > 0), and the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s16 being convex off-axis).
As to claim 11, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches the seventh lens and the eighth lens include an inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s13, s14, s15, s16).
As to claim 13, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Seo para. [0437]-[0438]- teaching 1 < F/EPD < 5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 15, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches the third lens has a positive refractive power (Seo Table 6 - f3 > 0).
As to claim 16, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches the sixth lens has a convex object side surface (Seo para. [0076]).
As to claim 17, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Seo Table 7 - TTL = 9.289; F = 7.099).
As to claim 18, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Seo para. [0411], [0412] - teaching 0.5 < TTL/ImgH < 3 which is 0.25 < TTL/(2*ImgH) < 1.5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sin (cited above).
As to claim 17, Sin teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Sin further teaches satisfying 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Sin para. [0336]-[0338] - teaching 0.1 < F/TTL < 1 which is 1 < TTL/F < 10 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 since, as taught by Sin, such features allow for providing a slim and compact optical system (Sin para. [0338]).
Claims 1-6, 8, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (cited above).
As to claim 1, Kuo teaches an optical imaging system (Kuo Fig. 17) comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens having positive refractive power, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens having positive refractive power, eighth lens, and ninth lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 910, 920, 930, 940, 950, 960, 970, 980, 990; Table 17 - f4 > 0; f7 > 0)
the first to ninth lenses are disposed in order from an object side (Kuo Fig. 17);
and satisfying
1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Kuo para. [0052] - teaching 0.80 < f/EPD < 2.40 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05));
1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Kuo para. [0063] - teaching 0.70 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.0 < F-number < 1.4; 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 since, as taught by Kuo, such features allow for balancing aperture size and field of view (Kuo para. [0052]) and balancing total track length and field of view (Kuo para. [0063]).
As to claim 2, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches both an image side surface of the third lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 932) and an object side surface of the fourth lens (Kuo Fig. 17 - 941) are concave (Kuo para. [0285]-[0286] - teaching (932) concave in paraxial region and (941) being concave off-axis with inflection points).
As to claim 3, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 951; para. [0287]).
As to claim 4, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the sixth lens has a concave image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 962; para. [0288]).
As to claim 5, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the seventh and eighth lenses include and inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - 971, 972, 981, 982; para. [0289], [0290]).
As to claim 6, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Kuo Fig. 17 - surface (982) convex off-axis).
As to claim 8, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Kuo further teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Kuo para. [0053] - teaching 0.40 < TL/ImgH < 5.00 which is 0.20 < TL/(2*ImgH) < 2.50, which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 since, as taught by Kuo, such features allow for balancing total track length and increasing the image surface (Kuo para. [0053]).
As to claim 13, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Kuo para. [0052] - teaching 0.80 < f/EPD < 2.40 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 since, as taught by Kuo, such features allow for balancing aperture size and field of view (Kuo para. [0052]).
As to claim 17, Kuo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Kuo further teaches 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Kuo para. [0063] - teaching 0.70 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 since, as taught by Kuo, such features allow for balancing total track length and field of view (Kuo para. [0063]).
Claims 13, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (cited above).
As to claim 13, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Chen para. [0068] - teaching 1.20 < Fno < 2.10 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 since, as taught by Chen, such features allow for allowing a large aperture of the optical system (Chen para. [0068]).
As to claim 17, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Chen para. [0061] - teaching 0.80 < TL/f < 2.0 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 since, as taught by Chen, such features allow for increasing the flexibility of the size of the lens system (Chen para. [0061]).
As to claim 18, Chen teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Chen further teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Chen para. [0056] - teaching TL/ImgH < 1.60 which is TL/(2*ImgH) < 0.80 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 since, as taught by Chen, such features allow for balancing the miniaturization of the optical lens system (Chen para. [0056]).
Claims 1-8, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (cited above).
As to claim 1, Seo teaches an optical imaging system (Seo Fig. 1) comprising
a first lens, second lens, third lens, fourth lens having positive refractive power, fifth lens, sixth lens, seventh lens having positive refractive power, eighth lens, and ninth lens (Seo Fig. 1 - 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109; Table 6 - f4 = 33.445; f7 = 508.717)
the first to ninth lenses are disposed in order from an object side (Seo Fig. 1);
and satisfying
1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Seo para. [0437]-[0438]- teaching 1 < F/EPD < 5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05));
1.30 ≤ TTL/f < 1.40 (Seo Table 7 - TTL = 9.289; F = 7.099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 since, as taught by Seo, such features allow for controlling the overall brightness (Seo para. [0438]).
As to claim 2, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches both an image side surface of the third lens (Seo Fig. 1 - s6) and an object side surface of the fourth lens (Seo Fig. 1 - s7) are concave (Seo para. [0068], [0070]).
As to claim 3, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the fifth lens has a concave object side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s9; Table 1 - s9 < 0).
As to claim 4, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the sixth lens has a concave image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s12; para. [0076]).
As to claim 5, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the seventh lens and the eighth lens include an inflection point on at least one of an object side surface and an image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s13, s14, s15, s16).
As to claim 6, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the eighth lens has a convex image side surface (Seo Fig. 1 - s16; para. [0080]).
As to claim 7, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches the first to ninth lenses comprise three or more lenses with refractive index equal to or greater than 1.60 (Seo Table 1 - n2 = 1.684; n5 = 1.689; n7 = 1.603).
As to claim 8, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seo teaches satisfying 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Seo para. [0411], [0412] - teaching 0.5 < TTL/ImgH < 3 which is 0.25 < TTL/(2*ImgH) < 1.5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 since, as taught by Seo, such features allow for securing a back focal length to apply a large image sensor size (Seo para. [0412]).
As to claim 13, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 (Seo para. [0437]-[0438]- teaching 1 < F/EPD < 5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 1.0 < F-number < 1.4 since, as taught by Seo, such features allow for controlling the overall brightness (Seo para. [0438]).
As to claim 18, Seo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Seo teaches 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 (Seo para. [0411], [0412] - teaching 0.5 < TTL/ImgH < 3 which is 0.25 < TTL/(2*ImgH) < 1.5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 0.70 ≤ TTL/(2*Imght) < 0.80 since, as taught by Seo, such features allow for securing a back focal length to apply a large image sensor size (Seo para. [0412]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Documents: The following documents are cited for showing 9-lens optical systems having various claimed and disclosed features such as lens curvatures, Fno, index of refraction of lenses, and TTL/f ratios:
Jang et al. (US 12,571,992; 2022/0171162); Sun (US 11,914,107; 2022/0082799); Hirano (US 12,117,670; 2020/0285028); Hirano (US 11,619,803; 2020/0241243); Hirano (US 11,016,272; 2020/0209594; 2020/0209593); Zhou et al. (US 2022/0146793); Yang et al. (US 2021/0396968); Chen (US 2022/0075149); Li (US 2022/0075145); Jeong et al. (WO 2024/136387).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights