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 01/14/2025 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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,262,541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a first lens having a positive refractive power”, “a second lens a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof” and “−5.0<f2/f<−2.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens” renders claims 1-12 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,262,541.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,440. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a first lens comprising positive refractive power”, “a second lens comprising negative refractive power” and “−5.0<f2/f<−2.0, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens” renders claims 1-12 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,440.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,038. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a first lens comprising a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface”, “a third lens comprising positive refractive power and a convex object-side surface”, “a fifth lens comprising a refractive power and a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region” and “−5.0<f2/f<−2.0 and 3.0<|f4/f|, where f is a focal length of the optical imaging system, f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens” renders claims 1-12 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,038.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bo et al. (CN 107367257; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Bo discloses, an optical imaging system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first lens (“E1”) comprising a refractive power;
a second lens (“E2”) comprising a refractive power;
a third lens (“E3”) comprising a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (“S5”);
a fourth lens (“E4”) comprising a refractive power;
a fifth lens (“E5”) comprising a concave object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof;
a sixth lens (“E6”) comprising a refractive power; and
a seventh lens (“E7”) comprising a refractive power,
wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order from an object side toward an imaging plane (see Fig. 1),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the seventh lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (see “Table 7”), and
wherein -4.0 < f1/f2, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (see “Table 1”).
Regarding claim 2, Bo discloses, the first lens has a convex object- side surface (“S1”).
Regarding claim 3, Bo discloses, the second lens has a convex object-side surface (“S3”).
Regarding claim 4, Bo discloses, the fourth lens has a concave image-side surface (“S8”).
Regarding claim 5, Bo discloses, the sixth lens has a convex image- side surface (“S12”).
Regarding claim 6, Bo discloses, the seventh lens has a concave image-side surface (“S14”).
Regarding claim 7, Bo discloses, an optical imaging system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first lens (“E1”) comprising a refractive power;
a second lens (“E2”) comprising a refractive power;
a third lens (“E3”) comprising a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (“S5”);
a fourth lens (“E4”) comprising a convex object-side surface in a paraxial region thereof (“S7”);
a fifth lens (“E5”) comprising a refractive power;
a sixth lens (“E6”) comprising a refractive power; and
a seventh lens (“E7”) comprising a refractive power,
wherein the first to seventh lenses are sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order from an object side toward an imaging plane (Fig. 1),
wherein a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the seventh lens is greater than a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the sixth lens (see “Table 7”), and
wherein -4.0 < f1/f2, where f1 is a focal length of the first lens and f2 is a focal length of the second lens (see “Table 1”).
Regarding claim 8, Bo discloses, the first lens has a convex object- side surface (“S1”).
Regarding claim 9, Bo discloses, the second lens has a convex object-side surface (“S3”).
Regarding claim 10, Bo discloses, the third lens has a concave image-side surface (“S6”).
Regarding claim 11, Bo discloses, the sixth lens has a convex image- side surface (“S12”).
Regarding claim 12, Bo discloses, the seventh lens has a concave image-side surface (“S14”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukuya (US 2014/0139719) discloses an optical imaging system that includes first to seventh lenses sequentially disposed in ascending numerical order 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 09/22/2026
Prosecution Insights