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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 06/13/2022. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended and claims 22-25 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (US 20200264413 A1) in view of in view of Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems”.
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka discloses in at least embodiment 9 (figure 33, tables 41-47), a zoom lens (zoom lens according to a ninth embodiment paragraph [0277]) including a first lens unit having negative refractive power (a first lens group G1 having negative refractive power paragraph [0278]), a second lens unit having positive refractive power (a second lens group G2 having positive refractive power paragraph [0278]), and a rear lens group including one lens unit or more lens units (third lens group G3 and fourth lens group G4 are on the image side of the aperture stop fig. 33), all of which are sequentially arranged from an object side to an image side (G1-G4 are sequentially arranged from the object to the image side fig. 33) in the zoom lens (zoom lens according to a ninth embodiment paragraph [0277]), the first lens unit is moved for zooming (In zooming from a wide-angle end to a telephoto end, the first lens group G1 is moved to an image side paragraph [0283]), and an interval between each of adjacent lens units is changed for zooming (groups G1-G4 all move during zooming paragraph [0283], resulting in a change in interval between adjacent lens groups fig. 33), the zoom lens (zoom lens according to a ninth embodiment paragraph [0277]) comprising:
an aperture stop (an aperture stop S is disposed in the second lens group G2 paragraph [0278]),
wherein the rear lens group (third lens group G3 and fourth lens group G4 are on the image side of the aperture stop fig. 33) includes a focus lens unit (the third lens group G3 corresponds to a lens group GF paragraph [0278]) having negative refractive power (a third lens group G3 having negative refractive power paragraph [0278]) that is moved to the image side in focusing from an infinite to a close distance (focusing on an object in a close region from an object at infinity is obtained by movement of the third lens group G3 to an image side along an optical axis paragraph [0284]) and at least one lens unit arranged on an image side of the focus lens unit (G4 is arranged on the image side of G3 fig. 33),
wherein the first lens unit (G1 fig. 33) includes a biconvex lens (double convex lens L4 paragraph [0279]), and includes three or more negative lenses (L1-L3 paragraph [0279]) including a biconcave lens (double concave lens L3 paragraph [0279]) is positioned closest to the object side among lens units arranged in the zoom lens (G1 is positioned closest to the object side of lens groups G1-G4 fig. 33),
wherein the first lens (G1 fig. 33) unit consists of a negative meniscus lens with a convex surface oriented toward the object side (a negative meniscus lens L1 having a surface which is convex toward an object side paragraph [0279]), a negative meniscus lens with a convex surface oriented toward the object side (a negative meniscus lens L2 having a surface which is convex toward an object side paragraph [0279]), a biconcave lens (double concave lens L3 paragraph [0279]), and a biconvex lens (double convex lens L4 paragraph [0279]) that are sequentially arranged from the object side to the image side (L1-L4 are sequentially arranged from object to image side fig. 33), and
wherein, where a distance from the aperture stop to a surface vertex of the focus lens unit positioned closest to the object side at a wide-angle end is Lfw (Lfw = 15.0527 as a result of the sum of distances from surface 12 to 18 in table 41), a distance from the aperture stop to an image plane at the wide-angle end is Ls (Ls = 49.5393 as a result of the sum of distances from surface 12 to 27 in table 41), a curvature radius of a lens surface of the focus lens unit positioned closest to the object side is Ra (R18 = 351.1231 table 41), and a curvature radius of a lens surface of the focus lens unit positioned closest to the image side is Rb (R19 = 15.963 table 41), inequalities
0.3 < Lfw/Ls < 0.5 (Lfw/Ls = 0.304 as a result of the values above)
(Rb + Ra)/(Rb - Ra) < 2.2 ((Rb + Ra)/(Rb - Ra) = 397.0861/-335.1601 = -1.185 as a result of the values above)
are satisfied.
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose, 0.8 < (Rb + Ra)/(Rb - Ra).
Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4, teaches flipping a lens into reverse orientation is one of the typical operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would employ when trying to find a design with better optical performance. Gross further teaches that flipping a lens into reverse orientation without changing the refractive power. An ordinary skilled artisan would know that “flipping a lens into reverse orientation” corresponds to changing the orientation of the lens so that S19 faces the object side and S18 faces the image side.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the orientation of the object-side and image-side of the tenth lens so that 0.8 < (Rb + Ra)/(Rb - Ra) < 2.2 because Gross teaches that flipping a lens into reverse orientation is amongst the typical zero-power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would employ when trying to find a design with better optical performance (Gross page 378 section 33.1.4).
Regarding claim 2, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein the focus lens unit consists of a single lens (the third lens group G3 is a single lens L10 fig. 33).
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a back focal distance at the wide-angle end is skw (skw = 17.1467 as a result of the distances from S25 to the image plane table 41) and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end is fw (fw = f wide angle = 17.5 table 42),
an inequality 0.6 < skw/fw < 1.4 (skw/fw = 0.98 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where an Abbe number of a negative lens included in the focus lens unit is vdn (S18 vd =70.24).
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose
an inequality 28 < vdn <45
is satisfied.
However, the abbe corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the abbe directly impacts the e.g. the material of the lens. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 abbe number of L10 to be less than 45 such as L4, L5, L8 or L13 for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the material of the lens.
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where an amount of movement of the focus lens unit in focusing from the infinite to the closest distance at the telephoto end is Dt (Dt = 1.07 as a result of the difference in d17 table 43), and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the telephoto end is ft (ft = f telephoto end = 27.5 table 42),
an inequality 0.020 < Dt/ft < 0.12 (Dt/ft = 0.039 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 8, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a focal distance of the focus lens unit is fna (fna = G3 = -34.3283 table 44), and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end is fw (fw = f wide angle = 17.5 table 42),
an inequality -3.5 < fna/fw < -1.0 (fna/fw = -1.96 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 9, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a combined focal distance of all of lenses from the aperture stop to the focus lens unit at the wide-angle end is fs (fs = 23.45 as a result of the focal length of the lenes from surfaces 12-17 table 41), and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end is fw (fw = f wide angle = 17.5 table 42).
an inequality fs/fw < 3.0 (fs/fw = 1.34 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose an inequality fs/fw < 3.0
is satisfied.
However, it is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 1.34 which is so close to the claimed range of 1.4 < fs/fw < 3.0 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose fs/fw such that 1.4 < fs/fw < 3.0 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a distance from the aperture stop to a surface vertex of the lens surface of the focus lens unit positioned closest to the object side at the telephoto end is Lft (Lft = 16.1244 as a result of the sum of distances from surface 12 to 18 in table 41,
an inequality 0.8 < Lft/Lfw < 1.4 ( Lft/Lfw = 1.07 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 11, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a focal distance of the zoom lens at the telephoto end is ft (ft = f telephoto = 27.5 table 42), and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end is fw (fw = f wide angle = 17.5 table 42),
an inequality 1.2 < ft/fw < 2.1 (ft/fw = 1.57 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein the focus lens unit is moved to the object side in zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end (In zooming from a wide-angle end to a telephoto end, the third lens group G3 is moved to an object side paragraph [0283]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein a refractive index of the negative lens included in the focus lens unit (L10 in G3 nd = 1.48749).
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose, the refractive index is greater than or equal to 1.75.
However, the refractive index corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the refractive index directly impacts the e.g. focal length of the focus lens. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 refractive index of L10 to be greater than or equal to 1.75 such as L1, L5, L8 or L13 for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the focal length of the focal lens.
Regarding claim 15, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, an image pickup apparatus (imaging apparatus paragraph [0154]) comprising:
the zoom lens according to claim 1 (zoom lens according to a ninth embodiment paragraph [0277]); and
a sensor configured to receive an image formed by the zoom lens (an image sensor which coverts an optical image which is formed on an image side of the zoom lens by the zoom lens paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein the focus lens unit consists of a single lens (the third lens group G3 is a single lens L10 fig. 33).
Regarding claim 18, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a back focal distance at the wide-angle end is skw (skw = 17.1467 as a result of the distances from S25 to the image plane table 41) and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end is fw (fw = f wide angle = 17.5 table 42),
an inequality 0.6 < skw/fw < 1.4 (skw/fw = 0.98 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 19, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where an Abbe number of a negative lens included in the focus lens unit is vdn (S18 vd =70.24).
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose
an inequality 28 < vdn <45
is satisfied.
However, the abbe corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the abbe directly impacts the e.g. the material of the lens. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 abbe number of L10 to be less than 45 such as L4, L5, L8 or L13 for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the material of the lens.
Regarding claim 20, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where an amount of movement of the focus lens unit in focusing from the infinite to the closest distance at the telephoto end is Dt (Dt = 1.07 as a result of the difference in d17 table 43), and a focal distance of the zoom lens at the telephoto end is ft (ft = f telephoto end = 27.5 table 42),
an inequality 0.020 < Dt/ft < 0.12 (Dt/ft = 0.039 as a result of the values above)
is satisfied.
Regarding claim 21, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses wherein a lens positioned closest to the image side is a negative meniscus lens whose convex surface is oriented toward the image side (a negative meniscus lens L13 having a surface which is convex toward an image side paragraph [0282]).
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose, wherein a lens positioned closest to the image side is a positive meniscus lens whose convex surface is oriented toward the image side.
However, Gross teaches (pages 377) that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (see suggestion 5). As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that flipping a lens or lens group into reverse orientation is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the order of G4 where L11 will be closest to the image side, because Gross teaches that flipping a lens group into reverse order is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross pages 377-378). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that flipping a lens group into reverse order does not introduce any refractive power changes and can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4).
Additionally Gross, page 378, section 33.1.4, teaches that bending a lens is amongst the typical operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would employ when trying to find a design with better optical performance. Gross further teaches that bending a lens can be done without changing the refractive power. An ordinary skilled artisan would know that “bending a lens” corresponds to changing the radii of curvature of the two surfaces of the lens.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the radii of the object-side of L11 to be a concave surface resulting in a positive meniscus lens with a convex surface facing the image side, because Gross teaches that bending a lens is amongst the typical zero-power operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would employ when trying to find a design with better optical performance (Gross page 378 section 33.1.4).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (US 20200264413 A1) in view of in view of Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems” as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and in further view of Takada (US 20170336594 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit at a telephoto end is Pf (βBt represents a synthetic lateral magnification of the lens group GF at a telephoto end paragraph [0099]) and a combined lateral magnification of all of lens units arranged on the image side from the focus lens unit at the telephoto end is Pr (βBt represents a synthetic lateral magnification of the lens group GB at a telephoto end paragraph [0099] )
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose,
an inequality -3.5 < (1 - pf2) x p3r2< -1.3
is satisfied.
However Takada discloses in at least example 1, where a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit at a telephoto end is Bf (Bfct denotes a lateral magnification of the focusing lens unit at telephoto paragraph [0223]) and a combined lateral magnification of all of lens units arranged on the image side from the focus lens unit at the wide angle end is Br (Bt’ denotes a lateral magnification of a lens unit positioned on the image side of the focusing lens unit paragraph [0223]), the expressions,
Bctt = (1 – Bfct * Bfct) x Bt’ x Bt’ (paragraph [0221]),
0.7 <|Bctt | / |Bctw| < 2 paragraph [0220)),
0.55 < IBctwI <5 (paragraph [0148]) and
Bctw = (1 — Bfcw X Bfcw) * Bw’ x Bw’ (paragraph [0148)),
Resulting in the relationship 0.7 < |Bctt| / (0.55 < |Bctw] <5) <2
an inequality -3.5 < (1 — Bf2) x Br2< -1.3 (as a result of the values above - 10 < |Bctt| < - 0.385).
is satisfied.
Takada further teaches (paragraphs [0227]-[0228]): “Conditional expression (11) is a conditional expression related to a ratio of the focusing sensitivity at the telephoto end and the focusing sensitivity at the wide angle end. As mentioned above, the focusing sensitivity is the amount indicating the amount of movement of the image plane with respect to the amount of movement of the focusing lens unit...
a fluctuation in the focusing sensitivity at both of the telephoto end and the wide angle end is suppressed... since the variation in the focusing sensitivity being small, it becomes easy to control the movement of the focusing lens unit”.
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a value for the lateral magnification for the focus lens group as taught by Takada using the equations of Yamanaka. One would have been motivated to obtain a value in the range because Yamanaka and Takada teach the values as results effective variables in conditional expression 2 (paragraph [0099] in Yamanaka) and conditional expression 11 (paragraph [0221] in Takada).
Takada does not explicitly disclose,
an inequality -3.5 < (1 — Bf) x Br2< -1.3
is satisfied.
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (-3.5 < (1 — Bf2) x Br2< -1.3 required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Takada (- 10 < |Bctt | < - 0.385). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the
protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17, Yamanaka in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 15, and Yamanaka further discloses, wherein, where a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit at a telephoto end is Pf (βBt represents a synthetic lateral magnification of the lens group GF at a telephoto end paragraph [0099]) and a combined lateral magnification of all of lens units arranged on the image side from the focus lens unit at the telephoto end is Pr (βBt represents a synthetic lateral magnification of the lens group GB at a telephoto end paragraph [0099] )
Yamanaka does not explicitly disclose,
an inequality -3.5 < (1 - pf2) x p3r2< -1.3
is satisfied.
However Takada discloses in at least example 1, where a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit at a telephoto end is Bf (Bfct denotes a lateral magnification of the focusing lens unit at telephoto paragraph [0223]) and a combined lateral magnification of all of lens units arranged on the image side from the focus lens unit at the wide angle end is Br (Bt’ denotes a lateral magnification of a lens unit positioned on the image side of the focusing lens unit paragraph [0223]), the expressions,
Bctt = (1 – Bfct * Bfct) x Bt’ x Bt’ (paragraph [0221]),
0.7 <|Bctt | / |Bctw| < 2 paragraph [0220)),
0.55 < IBctwI <5 (paragraph [0148]) and
Bctw = (1 — Bfcw X Bfcw) * Bw’ x Bw’ (paragraph [0148)),
Resulting in the relationship 0.7 < |Bctt| / (0.55 < |Bctw] <5) <2
an inequality -3.5 < (1 — Bf2) x Br2< -1.3 (as a result of the values above - 10 < |Bctt| < - 0.385).
is satisfied.
Takada further teaches (paragraphs [0227]-[0228]): “Conditional expression (11) is a conditional expression related to a ratio of the focusing sensitivity at the telephoto end and the focusing sensitivity at the wide angle end. As mentioned above, the focusing sensitivity is the amount indicating the amount of movement of the image plane with respect to the amount of movement of the focusing lens unit...
a fluctuation in the focusing sensitivity at both of the telephoto end and the wide angle end is suppressed... since the variation in the focusing sensitivity being small, it becomes easy to control the movement of the focusing lens unit”.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a value for the lateral magnification for the focus lens group as taught by Takada using the equations of Yamanaka. One would have been motivated to obtain a value in the range because Yamanaka and Takada teach the values as results effective variables in conditional expression 2 (paragraph [0099] in Yamanaka) and conditional expression 11 (paragraph [0221] in Takada).
Takada does not explicitly disclose,
an inequality -3.5 < (1 — Bf) x Br2< -1.3
is satisfied.
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (-3.5 < (1 — Bf2) x Br2< -1.3 required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Takada (- 10 < |Bctt | < - 0.385). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the
protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka (US 20200264413 A1) (embodiment 9) in view of Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yamanaka (US 20200264413 A1) (embodiment 5)
Regarding claim 13, Yamanaka embodiment 9 in view of Gross discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Yamanaka embodiment 9 further discloses, wherein a lens unit having negative refractive power (G4 has a refractive power of -1498.9817 table 44) is arranged at a position closest to the image side (G4 is positioned closed to the image side of the zoom lens fig. 33) in the rear lens group (third lens group G3 and fourth lens group G4 are on the image side of the aperture stop fig. 33).
Yamanaka embodiment 9 does not explicitly disclose, wherein a lens unit having positive refractive power is arranged at a position closest to the image side in the rear lens group.
However, Yamanaka embodiment 5 discloses in at least figure 17, a similar lens group to G4 of the nineth embodiment. The fifth lens group G5 includes sequentially from an object side, a double convex lens L14, a double concave lens L15, and a negative meniscus lens L16 having a surface which is convex toward an image side (paragraph [0232]),
wherein a lens unit having positive refractive power (G5 refractive power = 303.7356 table 24) is arranged at a position closest to the image side (G5 is closest to the image side of groups G1-G5 fig. 17) in the rear lens group (Groups G3-G5 are on the image side of the aperture stop fig. 17).
It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, Yamanaka embodiment 9 teaches a value of G4 having a slightly negative focal length = -1498.9817 which is so close to the claimed range of a lens group shown with a positive refractive power shown by Yamanaka embodiment 9 with G5 having a slightly positive focal length of 303.7356 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the focal length such that it is positive since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25 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:
Claim 22 would be allowable, Yamanaka does not disclose, wherein a total number of the lens units arranged in the zoom lens is five, and the rear lens group consists of a lens unit having negative refractive power, a lens unit having positive refractive power, and a lens unit having positive refractive power that are sequentially arranged from the object side to the image side.
A combination of Yamanaka and another reference fails to teach this limitation because the features claimed affect the focal length of the lens system and cannot be combined from another lens system that does not meet the limitations of the dependent claim.
Claim 23 would be allowable, Yamanaka does not disclose, wherein a lens unit positioned closest to the image side among the lens units arranged in the zoom lens consists of a single positive meniscus lens with a convex surface oriented toward the image side.
A combination of Yamanaka and another reference fails to teach this limitation because the features claimed affect the focal length of the lens system and cannot be combined from another lens system that does not meet the limitations of the dependent claim.
Claims 24-25 would be allowable, for their dependency to claim 23.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawamura (US 20160349505 A1) discloses a zoom lens with a single focal lens in group 3 and a single biconvex positive lens in group 4 closet to the image side.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872