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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
In light of the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 set forth below, it is not yet clear as to which claim(s) apply to the elected device recited in Figure 1.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new rejections set forth below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re: claim 1, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units” in line 6 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the first lens unit, the second lens unit, the third lens unit, or some other lens unit is being referred to.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units that includes a fourth lens unit which is disposed adjacent to the image side of the third lens unit” in lines 6-7 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the rear group includes, in addition to the fourth lens unit, the first, second, and/or third lens units. If technically accurate, it is respectfully suggested that the limitation be amended as follows: “a rear lens unit in addition to the first, second, and third lens units, where the rear lens unit comprises at least a fourth lens unit” or a similar such recitation.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “rear groups” in line 9 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether this limitation refers to the same rear group [in the singular] as recited in line 6 of the claim or whether different, additional rear groups are being referred to.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “each distance between adjacent lens units in the first, second, third lens units, and rear groups changes during zooming” in lines 8-9 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the “rear groups” are considered to be an adjacent lens unit where a distance between the third lens unit and the “rear groups” would change during zooming.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “wherein the positive group A includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first cemented lens having a negative refractive power and a second cemented lens having a positive refractive power, the second cemented lens being disposed adjacent to the image side of the first cemented lens” in lines 20-23 is unclear. In the case where the fourth lens unit has a positive refractive power, it is not clear as to whether it is the third lens unit or the fourth lens unit that is comprised of first and second cemented lenses.
Re: claims 3-19, because they depend upon claim 1, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 2, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units” in line 6 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the first lens unit, the second lens unit, the third lens unit, or some other lens unit is being referred to.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units that includes a fourth lens unit which is disposed adjacent to the image side of the third lens unit” in lines 6-7 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the rear group includes, in addition to the fourth lens unit, the first, second, and/or third lens units.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “each distance between adjacent lens units in the first, second, third lens units, and rear group changes during zooming” in lines 8-9 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the “rear group” is considered to be an adjacent lens unit where a distance between the third lens unit and the rear group would change during zooming.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “wherein the positive group A includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first cemented lens having a negative refractive power and a second cemented lens having a positive refractive power, the second cemented lens being disposed adjacent to the image side of the first cemented lens” in lines 19-22 is unclear. In the case where the fourth lens unit has a positive refractive power, it is not clear as to whether it is the third lens unit or the fourth lens unit that is comprised of first and second cemented lenses.
Re: claim 16, the meaning of the limitation “the third lens unit includes a single lens” is unclear. Claim 1, upon which claim 16 depends, states that the third lens / positive group A comprises a first cemented lens and a second cemented lens. It is not clear as to whether the claimed single lens is part of the first cemented lens or the second cemented lens, or if the single lens is in addition to both of the first and second cemented lenses.
Re: claim 20, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units” in line 8 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the first lens unit, the second lens unit, the third lens unit, or some other lens unit is being referred to.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “a rear group including one or more lens units that includes a fourth lens unit which is disposed adjacent to the image side of the third lens unit” in lines 8-9 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the rear group includes, in addition to the fourth lens unit, the first, second, and/or third lens units.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “each distance between adjacent lens units in the first, second, third lens units, and rear groups changes during zooming” in lines 10-11 is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the rear group is considered to be an adjacent lens unit where a distance between the third lens unit and the rear group would change during zooming.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “wherein the positive group A includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first cemented lens having a negative refractive power and a second cemented lens having a positive refractive power, the second cemented lens being disposed adjacent to the image side of the first cemented lens” in lines 21-24 is unclear. In the case where the fourth lens unit has a positive refractive power, it is not clear as to whether it is the third lens unit or the fourth lens unit that is comprised of first and second cemented lenses.
Although the examiner has attempted to identify and recognize the claimed invention, the claims are replete with indefinite limitations that prevent a thorough search of the prior art based upon any recognizable technical features and limitations in the art. Further, "where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art," (MPEP 2173.06(II)). From what can be understood of the claimed invention, the following prior art, either alone or in combination, appears to disclose the claimed invention: Saito (US 2018/0164558), of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights