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 statements (IDS) submitted on January 22, 2025, April 21, 2026 and May 29, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The extensive drawings have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 7 and 8 “a lens” and line 9 “a negative lens”, claim 2 “the fifth lens”, claim 3 “the seventh lens”, claim 5 “the third lens”, claim 6 “the fifth lens”, claim 7 “the seventh lens”, claim 9 “the third lens” have antecedent issues. It is unclear if they are referring to elements previously introduced or are new elements. To obviate this rejection the examiner respectfully suggests and for purposes of examination will use:
1. An imaging lens comprising exactly thirteen lenses including a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth lens, a nineth lens, a tenth lens, an eleventh lens, a twelfth lens, and a thirteenth lens in consecutive order from a position closest to the object side to an image side :
wherein the first lens is a positive meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward an object side, the second lens is a negative meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side, and the third lens is a positive lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side
wherein the thirteenth lens has the twelfth lens is a negative lens having a concave surface facing toward the object side, the eleventh lens has the tenth lens has the ninth lens is a biconvex lens, and the eighth lens is a negative lens having a concave surface facing toward the image side
wherein the imaging lens is a. fixed focal point optical system.
2. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the fifth lens
3. The imaging lens according to claim 2, wherein the seventh lens
4. The imaging lens according to claim 3,
wherein the imaging lens includes a stop, and
exactly one cemented lens, in which a negative lens and a biconvex lens are cemented in this order from the object side to the image side, is disposed closer to the object side than the stop.
5. The imaging lens according to claim 4, wherein the third lens
6. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the fifth lens
7. The imaging lens according to claim 6, wherein the seventh lens
8. The imaging lens according to claim 1,
wherein the imaging lens includes a stop, and
exactly one cemented lens, in which a negative lens and a biconvex lens are cemented in this order from the object side to the image side, is disposed closer to the object side than the stop.
9. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein the third lens
10. The imaging lens according to claim 1, wherein assuming that
a back focal length of the imaging lens at an air conversion distance in a state in which an infinite distance object is in focus is Bf, and
a focal length of the imaging lens in a state in which the infinite distance object is in focus is f,
Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.1<Bf/f≤1.2 (1).
11. The imaging lens according to claim 10, wherein Conditional Expression (1-6) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.1<Bf/f≤0.388 (1-6).
12. The imaging lens according to claim 1,
wherein the imaging lens includes a stop, and
assuming that a back focal length of the imaging lens at an air conversion distance in a state in which an infinite distance object is in focus is Bf,
a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from the stop to a lens surface closest to the image side in the imaging lens in a state in which the infinite distance object is in focus is StI, and
a sum of Bf and a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the imaging lens to the lens surface closest to the image side in the imaging lens in a state in which the infinite distance object is in focus is TTL,
Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.3<StI/TTL<0.85 (9).
13. An imaging apparatus comprising:
the imaging lens according to claim 1: and
an imaging element configured to output a captured image signal based on a subject image which is formed by the imaging lens.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 2 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 3 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 6 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,803,030. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices claimed in ‘496 the instant application are coextensive such that there exist devices which could simultaneously be claimed under both. In the instant application claims 1-13 are directed to examples 5-6. In ‘030 the numerical examples 2-3 are identical to the instant application examples 5-6. Since ‘030 and the instant application are cover identical devices (including examples 5-6), which would open the application to unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,312. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices claimed in ‘496 the instant application are coextensive such that there exist devices which could simultaneously be claimed under both. In the instant application claims 1-13 are directed to examples 5-6. In ‘312 the numerical examples 5-6 are identical to the instant application examples 5-6. Since ‘312 and the instant application are cover identical devices (including examples 5-6), which would open the application to unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 19/034989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the devices claimed in ‘989 the instant application are coextensive such that there exist devices which could simultaneously be claimed under both. In the instant application claims 1-13 are directed to examples 5-6. ‘989 shares the same parent as the instant application and ‘989 claims 1-7 are directed to numerical examples 4-6. Since ‘989 and the instant application are cover identical devices (including examples 5-6), which would open the application to unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Comments
Upon filing a terminal disclaimer claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, with respect to claim 1 (and therefore its dependents) none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed imaging lens or the imaging apparatus including said imaging lens specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, the imaging lens being a fixed focal point system with exactly thirteen lenses; including, in order from the object side to an image side, a first positive meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward an object side, the second negative meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side, and the third positive lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side, a fourth lens, a fifth lens, a sixth lens, a seventh lens, an eighth negative lens having a concave surface facing toward the image side, a ninth biconvex lens, a tenth lens having a lens having a concave surface facing toward the object side, an eleventh lens having a convex surface facing toward the image side, a twelfth negative lens having a concave surface facing toward the object side, and a thirteenth lens has a lens having a convex surface facing toward the image side.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomioka US Patent Application Publication 2020/0033562; in regards to a device with some similarities, e.g. example 1, see figure 1, including a first positive meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward an object side (e.g. L11), however it at least fails to have exactly thirteen lenses.
Iwamoto US Patent Application Publication 2020/0341248; in regards to a device with some similarities, e.g. example 3, see figure 7, including exactly thirteen lenses, however it at least fails to have first positive meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward an object side, the second negative meniscus lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side, and the third positive lens having a convex surface facing toward the object side.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights