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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed February 3, 2026. Claims 4 and 18 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-3, 5-17 and 18-27are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 2, 3,17, and 19-27 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2017/026178 A1) in view of Moskovich (US 5,200,861).
In regard to claim 1¸ Shibata et al. discloses a variable magnification optical system ZL1 (denoted “zoom optical system”, see e.g. paragraph [0200]) comprising a plurality of lens groups G1-G5 or G1, GX GM(+), and GR (see e.g. paragraph [0202], Figure 1 and Table 1),
wherein upon varying magnification the distances between the lens groups G1-G5 or G1, GX GM(+), and GR are varied (see e.g. Figure 1 where the distances between lens groups changes when changing from wide angle to intermediate to telephoto),
the lens groups G1-G5 or G1, GX GM(+), and GR include at least one focusing lens group G4 or GM(+) (denoted “intermediate lens group”, see e.g. paragraph [0200]-[0201] and Figure 1 and note GM(+) comprises at least focusing lens GF) having positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0200]) and configured to move in the direction of an optical axis at focusing (see e.g. Figure 1 for movement between modes),
a final lens group G5 or GR closest to an image side I (denoted “image surface”, see e.g. paragraph [0812]) of the lens groups G1-G5 or G1, GX GM(+), and GR (see e.g. paragraph [0202]), and
the following conditional expression is satisfied:
2.00<TL/fw<10.00 (see e.g. Table 1 and note TL in wide-angle =143.097, fw=24.70, so TL/fw ~ 5.79, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
where TL denotes the shorter of the total optical length in a wide-angle end state and the total optical length in a telephoto end state of the variable magnification optical system (see e.g. Table 1 and note the wide angle total length is the shorter of the two), and fw denotes the focal length of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state (see e.g. Table 1 and note the focal length for a wide angle).
Shibata et al. fails to disclose
the final lens group includes at least one lens surface having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with includes at least one lens surface having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 5, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein one of the at least one focusing lens group G4 or GM(+) is adjacent to the final lens group G5 or GR (see e.g. Figure 1 for proximity of G4 and G5 or GM(+) and GR).
In regard to claim 6, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above,
wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.30<|fF/fR|<5.00 (see e.g. Table 1 and note Ff= 42.13 and fR=-75.22, thus |fF/fR| ~ 0.559, which falls within applicant’s claimed range),
where fF denotes the focal length of the focusing lens group adjacent to the final lens group (i.e. the fourth or focusing lens group G4 or GM(+)), and fR denotes the focal length of the final lens group (i.e. the fifth lens group G5 or GR).
In regard to claim 7, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an aperture stop S (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0270]),
wherein the lens groups G1-G5 or G1, GX GM(+), and GR comprise a front group G1 including one or more lens groups closer to an object side than the aperture stop S;
a rear group G4 or GM(+) placed closer to the image side I than the aperture stop S, including the focusing lens group G4 or GM(+), and having positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0200]); and
the final lens group G5 or GR placed closer to the image side I than the rear group G4 or GM(+) and having negative refractive power (see e.g. Table 1).
In regard to claim 8, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the final lens group G5 or GR comprises a plurality of lenses L51-L54 respectively including lens surfaces M29-M35, of the lens surfaces M29-M35, at least two lens surfaces M33, M34 are adjacent to each other with an air layer in between (see e.g. Figure 1 for space between L53 and L54), and the radii of curvature of the two lens surfaces adjacent to each other with an air layer in between have the same sign on an optical axis (see e.g. Table 1 for surfaces M33 and M34 both being negative).
Shibata et al. fails to disclose
wherein the final lens group comprises a plurality of lenses respectively including lens surfaces having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with the final lens group comprises a plurality of lenses respectively including lens surfaces having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 9, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a final lens in the final lens group closest to the image side includes a lens surface having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with wherein a final lens in the final lens group closest to the image side includes a lens surface having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 10, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.20<|fRI/fw|<5.00 (see e.g. Table 1 with fw=24.70, fRI is calculated from values in Table 1 for L54 to be -35.87, resulting in |fRI/fw| ~ 1.45, which falls within applicant’s claimed range)
where fRI denotes the focal length of a lens in the final lens group (i.e. calculated using the values in Table 1 for L54), and
fw denotes the focal length of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state (see e.g. Table 1 and note the focal length for a wide angle).
Shibata et al. fails to disclose
where fRI denotes the focal length of a lens in the final lens group including a lens surface having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with where fRI denotes the focal length of a lens in the final lens group including a lens surface having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 11, Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein one of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.10 < k/h <1.00
where k denotes the height of the pole from an optical axis, and h denotes the effective radius of the lens surface having a pole.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration that satisfies wherein one of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.10 < k/h <1.00, where k denotes the height of the pole from an optical axis, and h denotes the effective radius of the lens surface having a pole, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, with wherein one of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression: 0.10 < k/h <1.00, where k denotes the height of the pole from an optical axis, and h denotes the effective radius of the lens surface having a pole.
Selecting the ratio of the height of the pole to the effective radius of the lens having a pole would be a matter of routine optimization in order to correct for aberrations in the lens system.
In regard to claim 12, Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a lens surface closest to the image side of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression:
0.40<k/h<1.00.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration that satisfies wherein a lens surface closest to the image side of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression: 0.40<k/h<1.00, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, with wherein a lens surface closest to the image side of the at least one lens surface in the final lens group having a pole satisfies the following conditional expression: 0.40<k/h<1.00.
Selecting the ratio of the height of the pole to the effective radius of the lens having a pole would be a matter of routine optimization in order to correct for aberrations in the lens system.
In regard to claim 13, Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:0.10<BFw/fw<1.00 where BFw denotes the back focus of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state, and fw denotes the focal length of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state.
However, Shibata et al. does disclose BFw/fw ~1.02 (see e.g. Table 1 where BFw = 25.126 and fw=24.7, thus BFw/fw ~1.02), which is close to applicant’s claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, with wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:0.10<BFw/fw<1.00 where BFw denotes the back focus of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state, and fw denotes the focal length of the variable magnification optical system in the wide-angle end state.
Adjusting the ratio of the focal lengths of the lenses within the system would be considered routine optimization for the purpose of improving magnification, providing a clearer image, and reducing aberrations.
In regard to claim 14, Shibata et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
29.00<vR where vR denotes the Abbe number of one of lenses in the final lens group (see e.g. Table 1, where multiple lens in the final group meet the limitation).
Shibata et al. fails to disclose the lens surface having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with the lens surface having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 15, Shibata et al. et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:29.00<vR1 where vR1 denotes the Abbe number of a lens closest to the image side of lenses in the final lens group (see e.g. Table 1 for an Abbe number of 31.3, meeting the limitation).
Shibata et al. fails to disclose the lens surface having a pole.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51). Further, it would have been a matter of design choice to make the lens surfaces having a pole or an aspheric surface that has an inflection point between convex and concave, since such a modification would have been a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shibata et al. with the lens surface having a pole.
Providing an aspheric surface with a pole would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 16, Shibata et al., in view of Moskovich, discloses the limitations, as applied to claim 1 above. Shibata et al. further discloses an optical apparatus equipped with the variable magnification optical system according to claim 1 (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0002]) and rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871