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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Claims are not rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10838168, 11921352, 12228794. The claims therein are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of conditions of f1/f3 and BFL/EFL are non-obvious modifications of the prior inventions.
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, 5, 6, 9, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 9952404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US Pat. 404 claims the limitations therein (Claims 6-9 and 13) and only remove limitations on the TL/(ImgH*2) condition.
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)(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, 10-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014163983 to Hashimoto (hereinafter Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses an optical system (EX2 of Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]) comprising: a first lens having negative refractive power (EX2 of L2, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]); a second lens having positive refractive power (EX2 of L3, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]); a third lens having refractive power (EX2 of L4, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]); a fourth lens having negative refractive power (EX2 of L5, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]); a fifth lens having positive refractive power (EX2 of L6, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]); and a sixth lens having refractive power (EX2 of L7, Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]), wherein the first to sixth lenses are sequentially disposed from an object side of the optical system, wherein the optical system has a total of six lenses, wherein 2.3 < f1/f3 < 2.6 is satisfied (f1 = -44.371mm, f3 = -19.34; f1/f3 = 2.3; Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]), where f1 is a focal length of the first lens, and f3 is a focal length of the third lens, and wherein BFL/EFL < 0.31 is satisfied (BFL = 19.5584mm, EFL = 69.213mm; BFL/EFL = 0.28; Fig. 3; [0075],[0084]), where BFL is a distance from an image-side surface of the sixth lens to an image plane of an image sensor, and EFL is an entire focal length of the optical system.
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto discloses the first lens has a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (L2 of Fig. 3; [0075]).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto discloses the second lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (L3 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto discloses the second lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (L3 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto discloses the fourth lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (L5 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto discloses the fifth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (L6 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Hashimoto discloses the fifth lens has a convex image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (S12 of L6 of Fig. 3; [0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9, 12-13, 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 of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests:
wherein TTL/(ImgH*2) s 0.75 is satisfied, where TTL is a distance from an object-side surface of the first lens to the image plane, and ImgH is half of a diagonal length of the image plane. (Claim 2)
wherein TTL/(ImgH*2) s 0.68 is satisfied. (Claim 3)
wherein -5 < f1/EFL < -4.6 is satisfied. (Claim 4)
wherein 0.95 < ER1/ER6 < 1.05 is satisfied, where ER1 is an effective radius of an object-side surface of the first lens, and ER6 is an effective radius of an image-side surface of the third lens. (Claim 5)
wherein 79 degrees < FOV < 83 degrees is satisfied, where FOV is a field of view of the optical system. (Claim 6)
wherein |r4/r3| > 20 is satisfied, where r3 is a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the second lens, and r4 is a radius of curvature of an image- side surface of the second lens. (Claim 7)
wherein the first lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. (Claim 9)
The optical system of claim 1, wherein the third lens has a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof and a concave image-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. (Claim 12)
The optical system of claim 1, wherein the fourth lens has a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof. (Caim 13)
The optical system of claim 1, 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. (Claim 17)
The optical system of claim 1, wherein the sixth lens comprises at least one inflection point on at least one of an object-side surface or an image-side surface thereof. (Claim 18)
The optical system of claim 1, wherein a gap between the first and second lenses and a gap between the second and third lenses in a paraxial region are each narrower than all gaps between lenses, among the third to sixth lenses, in the paraxial region. (Claim 19)
The optical system of claim 1, wherein a sum of a gap between the first and second lenses in a paraxial region and a gap between the second and third lenses in the paraxial region is less than a gap between lenses, among the third to sixth lenses, in the paraxial region. (Claim 20)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights