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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 04/22/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 18 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First Applicant argues on page 10, that the combination of Yamashita and Takato does not disclose the amended limitation of claims 1 and 18, “wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-0.69 < f2/f < -0.50
where f is a focal length of the optical system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit”, because Yamashita discloses a value of f2/f = -0.44 and the titanium metals case law is non-analogous art directed toward chemical compositions and that one skilled in the art would not expect an optical system with a value of f2/f = -0.44 to have the same properties as an optical system with a range of -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Yamashita to teach the value of f2/f = -0.44, and case law to teach that the value is close to the claimed range to would have the same properties as the claimed range. The titanium metals case law is analogous art because it is related to the range of values that can be applied to lens parameters and is not limited to chemical compositions. The current application discloses a range of -0.8 < f2/f < -0.4 in paragraph [0052] and that “it becomes easy to satisfactorily correct aberrations over a wide object distance range while miniaturization of the focus lens unit is achieved” in current application paragraph [0053], which shows that a value of f2/f of -0.44 as cited in example 4 of Yamashita would have the same properties as the claimed range of -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50. Example 4 of Yamashita also corrects various aberrations and achieves excellent image forming performance (paragraph [0124]). Ishikawa is also cited to discloses a value of f2/f = -0.586 to show that it would be obvious for a similar lens system to be in the range of -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 and “various aberrations are satisfactorily corrected in each focal length state from the wide-angle end state to the telephoto end state, demonstrating excellent optical performance” (paragraph [0079]).
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 f2/f = -0.44 which is so close to the claimed
range of-0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 f2/f such that -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 of0.75% 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.
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 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita
(US 20210026133 A1) example 4 in view of Takato (JP 2019086678) example 1 and Ishikawa (US 20150036225 A1) example 1.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses in at least example 4 (fig. 7, table 4) an optical system
comprising (optical system of the fourth embodiment paragraph [0118]), in order from an object side to
an image side (sequentially from an object side paragraph [0118]), a first lens unit having positive
refractive power (G1 having a positive refractive power paragraph [0118]), a second lens unit having
negative refractive power (G2 having a negative refractive power paragraph [0118]), a third lens unit
having positive refractive power (G3 having a positive refractive power paragraph [0118]), and a fourth
lens unit having positive refractive power (G14 having a positive refractive power paragraph [0118]),
wherein during focusing (upon focusing from an infinite distant object to a short-distance
paragraph [0121]), the third lens unit is moved (the entire third lens group G3 moves toward the object
along the optical axis paragraph [0121]),
wherein the first lens unit includes (first lens group G1 paragraph [0119]), in order from an
object side to an image side (sequentially from an object side paragraph [0119]), a first positive lens
having a positive refractive power (biconvex positive lens L11 paragraph [0119]), and a second positive
lens having a positive refractive power (positive meniscus lens Ll3 paragraph [0119]),
wherein the second positive lens has a meniscus shape with a convex surface directed to the
object side (positive meniscus lens Ll3 having a convex surface facing the object paragraph [0119]),
wherein the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G1 paragraph [0122]) includes a negative lens
disposed closest to an image plane (he negative meniscus lens L47 of the fourth lens group G4
corresponds to the image-side lens paragraph [0122]), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-0.69 < f2/f (as a result of the values below f2/f = -0.44) where f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1 at W general data table 4), and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit (f2 = G2 = -31.532 lens group data table 4)
Yamashita does not explicitly disclose, wherein during focusing, the first lens unit and the fourth
lens unit are fixed, and the second lens unit and the third lens unit are moved, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
f2/f < -0.50
where f is a focal length of the optical system, and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit.
However Takata discloses in example 1 the first lens unit and the fourth lens unit are fixed (the
first and fourth lens units are in a fixed frame paragraph [0046]), and the second lens unit and the third
lens unit are moved (during focusing, the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 move
paragraph [0160]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have the first and the fourth lens units of Yamashita fixed, while the second and
third units move for focusing as taught by Takata. By moving the second lens group and the third lens
group, focusing can be performed regardless of where the object point is located between the long
distance and the short distance. Normal observation can be performed when focusing on a far distance
object point, and magnified observation can be performed when focusing on a near distance object
point (paragraph [0041]).
Additionally, 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 f2/f = -0.44 which is so close to the claimed
range of-0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 f2/f such that -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 of0.75% 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.
Further, Ishikawa discloses in at least example 1 (figs. 1-3 and table 1), an optical system comprising (Zoom lens ZL 1), in order from an object side to an image side (in order from an object paragraph [0068]), a first lens unit having positive refractive power (a first lens group G1 having positive refractive power paragraph [0068]), a second lens unit having negative refractive power (a second lens group G2 having negative refractive power paragraph [0068]), a third lens unit having positive refractive power (a third lens group G3 having positive refractive power paragraph [0068]), and a fourth lens unit having positive refractive power (a fourth lens group G4 having positive refractive power paragraph [0068]),
wherein the first lens unit includes (first lens group G1 paragraph [0069]), in order from an object side to an image side (in order from the object paragraph [0069]), a first positive lens having a positive refractive power (biconvex positive lens L12 paragraph [0069]), and a second positive lens having a positive refractive power (a positive meniscus lens L13 paragraph [0069]),
wherein the second positive lens (a positive meniscus lens L13 paragraph [0069]) has a meniscus shape with a convex surface directed to the object side (having a convex surface facing the object paragraph [0069]),
wherein the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 paragraph [0072]) includes a negative lens disposed closest to an image plane (biconcave negative lens L42 paragraph [0072] is closest to the image fig. 1)
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 (as a result of the values below f2/f = -0.586)
where f is a focal length of the optical system (intermediate position 1 f = 4.40980 table 1), and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit (G2 = -8.63242 table 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a focal length for the system and second lens group as taught by Ishikawa in the optical system of Yamashita. In Example 1 various aberrations are satisfactorily corrected in each focal length state from the wide-angle end state to the telephoto end state, demonstrating excellent optical performance (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.4 < f1/f <1.5 (as a result of the values below f1/f = 0.94)
where f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 135.0 at M general data table 4), and fl is a
focal length of the first lens unit (f1= G1 = 127.677 lens group data table 4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.8 < f3/f < 5.0 (as a result of the values below f3/f = 0.98)
where f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1 at W general data table 4), and f3 is a
focal length of the third lens unit (f3 = G3 = 70.494 lens group data table 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 < f4/f < 4.0 (as a result of the values below f4/f = 2.05)
where f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1 at W general data table 4), and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit (f4 = g4 = 147.512 lens group data table 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Yamashita does not disclose, wherein the second lens unit is moved toward the image side
during focusing from infinity to the shortest distance.
However Takata further discloses, wherein the second lens unit is moved toward the image side
during focusing from infinity to the shortest distance (the second lens group G2 moves to the image side
when focusing on a near distance object point after focusing on a far distance object point paragraph
[0142]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to move the second lens group toward the image side while focusing as taught by Takata in the zoom lens of Yamashita. By moving the second lens group and the third lens group, focusing can be performed regardless of where the object point is located between the long distance
and the short distance. Normal observation can be performed when focusing on a far distance object
point, and magnified observation can be performed when focusing on a near distance object point
(paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the third lens unit is moved toward the object side during focusing from infinity to the shortest distance (the entire third lens group G3 moves toward the object along the optical axis upon focusing from an infinite distant object to a short-distance paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-1.5< M3/M2 < 0.0 (as a result of the values below M3/M2 = - 0.62)
where a direction moving from the object side to the image side is set positive (the distance the
second lens group moves away from the object side is the difference in the value of D5 T-W and the
distance the third lens group moves away from the image plane is the difference D10 T-W as shown in
variable distance data on zoom photography table 4), M2 is a moving amount of the second lens unit
relative to the image plane during focusing from infinity to the shortest distance (as a result of the
values in table 4 M2 = 51.599 - 2.306 = 49.293), and M3 is a moving amount of the third lens unit
relative to the image plane during focusing from infinity to the shortest distance (as a result of the
values in table 1 M3 = 2.157- 32.727 = -30.57).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 < (rf+rr)/(rf-rr) (as a result of the values below (rf+rr)/(rf-rr) = -406.48/-71.59 = 5.68)
where rf is a radius of curvature of a lens surface on the object side of a lens disposed closest to
the object in the second lens unit (rf = R6 = -239.035 Lens data table 4), and rr is a radius of curvature of
a lens surface on the image side of a lens disposed closest to the image plane in the second lens unit (rr
= R10 = -167.445 table 1).
Yamashita does not disclose, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
(rf+rr)/(rf-rr) <1.5.
However, (rf+rr)/(rf-rr) corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves
a recognized result, in the instant case (rf+rr)/(rf-rr) directly impacts the e.g. the focal power of the lens
group. 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 (rf+rr)/(rf-rr) for the purpose of e.g. optimize the focal power of the lens group.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein a distance on an optical axis between the second lens unit and the third lens unit (D10 = 32.727 at W variable distance on zoom photographing table 4) is the longest distance of all distances on the optical axis between adjacent lens units in the optical system (D5 between the first and second units= 2.306 and D12 between third and fourth units= 10.112 are less than D12 variable distance on zoom photographing table 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 < D23/sk < 3.0 (as a result of the values below D23/sk = 0.76)
where skis a back focus of the optical system in an in-focus state at infinity (sk = BF at W =
43.294 general data table 4), and D23 is a distance on an optical axis between the second lens unit and
the third lens unit in in the in-focus state at infinity (D23 = D10 at W = 32.727 variable distance data on
zoom photography table 4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
3.0 < f4/sk < 40.0 (as a result of the values below f4/sk = 3.4)
where skis a back focus of the optical system in an in-focus state at infinity (sk = BF at W =
43.294), and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit (f4 = G4 = 147.512 lens group data table 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
fno x f2/f3 < 0.0 (as a result of the values below fno x f2/f3 = -2.1)
where fno is an F-number of the optical system (fno = 4.707 general data table 4), f2 is a focal
length of the second lens unit (f2 = G2 = -31.532 lens group data table 4), and f3 is a focal length of the
third lens unit (f3 = G3 = 70.494 lens group data table 4).
Yamashita does not explicitly disclose, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-2.0 < fno x f2/f3.
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
M PEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of fno x f2/f3 = -2.1 which is so close to the
claimed range of-2.0 < fno x f2/f3 < 0.0 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 fno x f2/f3 such that -2.0 < fno x f2/f3
< 0.0 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 14, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the second lens unit consists of three lenses or fewer (the second lens group G2 consists of L21, L22 and L23 paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the third lens unit consists of three lenses or fewer (the third lens group G3 consists of a biconvex positive lens L31 paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the fourth lens unit includes two negative lenses or
more (the fourth lens group G4 consists of a biconcave negative lens L42, a biconcave negative lens L45
and a negative meniscus lens L47 paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yamashita, Takata and Ishikawa discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 and Yamashita further discloses, wherein the optical system (optical system according to a
fourth embodiment paragraph [0118]) consists of, in order from the object side to the image side
(sequentially from an object side paragraph [0118]), the first lens unit (first lens group Gl paragraph
[0118]), the second lens unit (second lens group G2 paragraph [0118]), the third lens unit (third lens
group G3 paragraph [0118]), and the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 18, Yamashita discloses in at least example 4 (fig. 7, table 4), an image pickup
apparatus (camera 1 fig. 15) comprising:
an optical system comprising (optical system of the fourth embodiment paragraph [0118]); and
an image sensor (imaging element 3 fig. 15) configured to receive an image formed by (light
from an object (subject), not shown, is condensed by the photographic lens 2 and reaches an imaging
element 3 paragraph [0025]) the optical system (photographic lens 2 fig. 15 can be the optical system of
the fourth embodiment paragraph [0025]),
wherein the optical system comprising (optical system of the fourth embodiment paragraph
[0118]) includes, in order from an object side to an image side (sequentially from an object side
paragraph [0118]), a first lens unit having positive refractive power (Gl having a positive refractive
power paragraph [0118]), a second lens unit having negative refractive power (G2 having a negative
refractive power paragraph [0118]), a third lens unit having positive refractive power (G3 having a
positive refractive power paragraph [0118]), and a fourth lens unit having positive refractive power (G14
having a positive refractive power paragraph [0118]),
wherein during focusing (upon focusing from an infinite distant object to a short-distance
paragraph [0121]), the third lens unit is moved (the entire third lens group G3 moves toward the object
along the optical axis paragraph [0121]),
wherein the first lens unit includes (first lens group G1 paragraph [0119]), in order from an
object side to an image side (sequentially from an object side paragraph [0119]), a first positive lens
having a positive refractive power (biconvex positive lens L11 paragraph [0119]), and a second positive
lens having a positive refractive power (positive meniscus lens Ll3 paragraph [0119]),
wherein the second positive lens has a meniscus shape with a convex surface directed to the
object side (positive meniscus lens Ll3 having a convex surface facing the object paragraph [0119]),
wherein the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group Gl paragraph [0122]) includes a negative lens
disposed closest to an image plane (he negative meniscus lens L47 of the fourth lens group G4
corresponds to the image-side lens paragraph [0122]), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-0.69 < f2/f (as a result of the values below f2/f = -0.44)
where f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1 at W general data table 4), and f2 is a
focal length of the second lens unit (f2 = G2 = -31.532 lens group data table 4).
Yamashita does not explicitly disclose, wherein during focusing, the first lens unit and the fourth
lens unit are fixed, and the second lens unit and the third lens unit are moved, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
f2/f < -0.50 (as a result of the values below f2/f = -0.44).
However Takata discloses in example 1 the first lens unit and the fourth lens unit are fixed (the
first and fourth lens units are in a fixed frame paragraph [0046]), and the second lens unit and the third
lens unit are moved (during focusing, the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 move
paragraph [0160]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have the first and the fourth lens units of Yamashita fixed, while the second and
third units move for focusing as taught by Takata. By moving the second lens group and the third lens
group, focusing can be performed regardless of where the object point is located between the long
distance and the short distance. Normal observation can be performed when focusing on a far distance
object point, and magnified observation can be performed when focusing on a near distance object
point (paragraph [0041]).
Additionally, 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 f2/f = -0.44 which is so close to the claimed
range of-0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 f2/f such that -0.69 < f2/f < -0.50 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 of0.75% 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (US 20220342187 A1) discloses a telephoto lens with a range of -0.9<= f2/f <= 0.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights