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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 9-12, and 19 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-19 are pending in the present application. Claims 6-8 and 13 are remain withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 19 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-5, 9-12, and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular no description is presented or pointed to for “relative illumination” in claims 3-4 and 9-12. Accordingly, the claims include new matter and are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claims 5 and 16-18 depend from claims 3 and 4
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 3-5, 9-12, and 16-18 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.
Claims 3-4 and 9-12, claims 3-4 and 9-12 recite the term "relative illumination". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims as the term “relative illumination” does not appear in the specification and thus renders the claims indefinite.
Given that [0065] describes vignetting (the peripheral portion of an image as being darker than the central portion), Examiner will interpret “peripheral light amount ratio” as referring to relative illumination and a ratio of the light amount at the periphery of the image to the light amount at the center of the image.
Claims 5 and 16-18 inherit indefiniteness from claims 3 and 4.
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0285135) in view of Nakamichi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0073079 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a lens unit (Figure 3) comprising:
a variable magnification optical system ([0003] capability to zoom) provided with a stop (Figure 3 stop ST3, [0109]) that adjusts a light amount (a stop inherently adjust the light amount in an optical system); and
Conditional Expression (1a) represented by
3 < {(Fmax - Fmin)/Fave} × 100 < 7.09 (1a) ([0111] Fmax = 2.05, Fmin = 1.94, Fave calculated to be 1.995, {(Fmax - Fmin)/Fave} × 100 = 5.51)
in a case where a maximum value of an F-Number in an entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is Fmax, a minimum value of the F-Number in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is Fmin, and an average value of an F-Number at a wide angle end and an F-Number at a telephoto end of the variable magnification optical system is Fave.
Sun further teaches the opening amount of the stop is varies with magnification ([0111] focal length at wide-angle end fw = 15.4 mm, Fmin = 1.94, opening diameter Dw = fw/Fmin = 7.94 mm, focal length at telephoto end ft = 18.5 mm, Fmax = 2.05, opening diameter Dt = ft/fmax = 9.02 mm thus the opening amount of the stop changes). Sun fails to teach a processor that controls an opening amount of the stop based on information on a magnification change of the variable magnification optical system. However, Nakamichi teaches a zoom optical system (Figure 1) with a processor (Figure 1 microcomputers 111, 205, [0028], [0032]) that controls an opening amount of the stop ([0028] microcomputer 111 controls opening of stop) based on information on a magnification change of the variable magnification optical system (Figure 2, [0033] aperture position is set based on zoom position). Nakamichi further teaches using a processor to control the aperture in order to improve tracking of the aperture and reduce flickering ([0005]). Therefore, 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 lens unit taught by Sun by adding the processor to control the aperture as taught by Nakamichi in order to improve tracking ability of the aperture and reduce flickering (Nakamichi [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun further teaches in a case where the opening amount is changed ([0111] opening of stop changes), the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (2) represented by 0.05 <|F1 - F0| < 1 (2) ([0111] F1 = 2.05, F0 = 1.94, |F1 - F0| = 0.11) in a case where an F-Number of the variable magnification optical system before the change in the opening amount is F0, and an F-Number of the variable magnification optical system after the change in the opening amount is F1.
Regarding claim 4, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun fails to teach a case where a maximum value and a minimum value of a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system in each variable magnification region in which the opening amount is invariable are respectively Vmax and Vmin, the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (4) represented by Vmax/Vmin < 3.5 (4) in a plurality of variable magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable. However, Nakamichi teaches magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable (Figure 2 solid black line shows several zoom positions where the aperture position (opening is constant). Nakamichi further teaches the need for smooth exposure change and reduced flickering [0004]-[0005] and thus having Vmax/Vmin be close to 1 (which would indicate little to no flickering). Therefore 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 lens system taught by Sun using the teachings of Nakamichi to minimize flickering (Nakamichi [0004]-[0005]) and thus have Vmax/Vmin < 3.5 in a plurality of magnification regions.
Regarding claim 5, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Sun fails to teach the processor changes the opening amount within the range satisfying Conditional Expression (4) represented by Vmax/Vmin < 3.5 (4) in all of the variable magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable. However, Nakamichi teaches magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable (Figure 2 solid black line shows several zoom positions where the aperture position (opening is constant). Nakamichi further teaches the need for smooth exposure change and reduced flickering [0004]-[0005] and thus having Vmax/Vmin be close to 1 (which would indicate little to no flickering). Therefore 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 lens system taught by Sun using the teachings of Nakamichi to minimize flickering (Nakamichi [0004]-[0005]) and thus have Vmax/Vmin < 3.5 in all of the magnification regions.
Regarding claim 11, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun further teaches a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system at the wide angle end of the variable magnification optical system is smaller than 50% ([0114] relative illumination at maximum image height at wide angle end is 48%).
Regarding claim 12, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun further teaches a relative illumination at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system at the wide angle end of the variable magnification optical system is 48% ([0114]) but fails to teach the relative illumination is less than 45%. In this instance, 48% is close to the claimed range of less than 45%, lying only 6.6% away from the claimed range . 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."). As such, the disclosed lens system of Sun would have made the claimed system obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing.
Regarding claim 14, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sun further teaches the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (2-1) represented by 0.05 <|F1 - F0| < 0.75 (2-1) ([0111] F1 = 2.05, F0 = 1.94, |F1 - F0| = 0.11).
Regarding claim 15, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Sun further teaches the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (2-2) represented by 0.05 <|F1 - F0| < 0.5 (2-2) ([0111] F1 = 2.05, F0 = 1.94, |F1 - F0| = 0.11).
Regarding claim 17, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Sun fails to teach the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (4-1) represented by Vmax/Vmin < 3 (4-1) in a plurality of variable magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable. However, Nakamichi teaches magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable (Figure 2 solid black line shows several zoom positions where the aperture position (opening is constant). Nakamichi further teaches the need for smooth exposure change and reduced flickering [0004]-[0005] and thus having Vmax/Vmin be close to 1 (which would indicate little to no flickering). Therefore 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 lens system taught by Sun using the teachings of Nakamichi to minimize flickering (Nakamichi [0004]-[0005]) and thus have Vmax/Vmin < 3 in plurality of the magnification regions.
Regarding claim 18, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 4. Sun fails to teach the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (4-2) represented by Vmax/Vmin < 2 (4-2) in a plurality of variable magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable. However, Nakamichi teaches magnification regions in which the opening amount is invariable (Figure 2 solid black line shows several zoom positions where the aperture position (opening is constant). Nakamichi further teaches the need for smooth exposure change and reduced flickering [0004]-[0005] and thus having Vmax/Vmin be close to 1 (which would indicate little to no flickering). Therefore 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 lens system taught by Sun using the teachings of Nakamichi to minimize flickering (Nakamichi [0004]-[0005]) and thus have Vmax/Vmin < 2 in plurality of the magnification regions.
Regarding claim 19, Sun teaches a camera system (Figure 3) comprising: a variable magnification optical system ([0003] capability to zoom) provided with a stop (Figure 3 stop ST3, [0109]) that adjusts a light amount (a stop inherently adjust the light amount in an optical system); and Conditional Expression (1a) represented by
3 < {(Fmax - Fmin)/Fave} × 100 < 7.09 (1a) ([0111] Fmax = 2.05, Fmin = 1.94, Fave calculated to be 1.995, {(Fmax - Fmin)/Fave} × 100 = 5.51)
in a case where a maximum value of an F-Number in an entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is Fmax, a minimum value of the F-Number in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is Fmin, and an average value of an F-Number at a wide angle end and an F-Number at a telephoto end of the variable magnification optical system is Fave.
Sun further teaches the opening amount of the stop is varies with magnification ([0111] focal length at wide-angle end fw = 15.4 mm, Fmin = 1.94, opening diameter Dw = fw/Fmin = 7.94 mm, focal length at telephoto end ft = 18.5 mm, Fmax = 2.05, opening diameter Dt = ft/fmax = 9.02 mm thus the opening amount of the stop changes). Sun fails to teach a detection unit that detects a variable magnification state of the variable magnification optical system and a processor that controls an opening amount of the stop based on information on a magnification change of the variable magnification optical system. However, Nakamichi teaches a zoom optical system (Figure 1) with a detection unit (Figure 1 zoom position detecting unit 116) that detects a variable magnification state of the variable magnification optical system ([0021] zoom position detecting unit 116 detects a zoom position of the lenses) and a processor (Figure 1 microcomputers 111, 205, [0028], [0032]) that controls an opening amount of the stop ([0028] microcomputer 111 controls opening of stop) based on information on a magnification change of the variable magnification optical system (Figure 2, [0033] aperture position is set based on zoom position). Nakamichi further teaches using and zoom detector and processor to control the aperture in order to improve tracking of the aperture and reduce flickering ([0005]). Therefore, 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 lens unit taught by Sun by adding the zoom detector and processor to control the aperture as taught by Nakamichi in order to improve tracking ability of the aperture and reduce flickering (Nakamichi [0005]).
Claims 3, 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0285135) in view of Nakamichi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0073079) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0193576 – hereinafter referred to as “Yamada”).
Regarding claim 3, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun and Nakamichi fail to teach in a case where the opening amount is changed, the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (3) represented by |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 20 (3) in a case where a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system before the change in the opening amount is V0, and a peripheral light amount ratio at the maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system after the change in the opening amount is V1. However, Yamada teaches a zoom optical system (Figure 1) where in a case where the opening amount is changed (Figures 5A and B, [0119] Various data F-number is constant for wide (5A) and intermediate (5B) so the opening amount changes) the processor changes the opening amount (Figure 1 processor 120, [0028]-[0030] processor controls aperture) within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (3) represented by |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 20 (3) (Figures 5A and 5B dashed lines, V1 is approximately 40% (Figure 5A), V2 is approximately 40% (Figure 5B), |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 = 0). 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 lens system taught by Sun and Nakamichi to satisfy |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 20 to keep the brightness of the image relatively consistent during zooming and further fulfill the teachings of Nakamichi to reduce flickering (Nakamichi [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun and Nakamichi fail to teach a minimum value of a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is smaller than 40%. However, Yamada teaches a minimum value of a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is smaller than 40% (Figure 5B dashed line light amount at intermediate zoom is about 40%). Yamada further teaches increasing relative illumination would require increasing lens diameter which is averse to downsizing, weight reduction, and aberration correction ([0003]-[0004]). Therefore, 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 lens system taught by Sun and Nakamichi such that the minimum peripheral light ratio is less than 40% as taught by Yamada in order to avoid increases in lens diameter that would be detrimental to downsizing, weight reduction, and aberration correction (Yamada [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Sun and Nakamichi teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Sun and Nakamichi fail to teach a minimum value of a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is smaller than 35%. However, Yamada teaches a minimum value of a peripheral light amount ratio at a maximum image height of the variable magnification optical system in the entire variable magnification region of the variable magnification optical system is smaller than 40% (Figure 5B dashed line light amount at intermediate zoom is about 40%). In this instance, 40% is close to the claimed range of less than 35%. 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."). Yamada further teaches increasing relative illumination would require increasing lens diameter which is averse to downsizing, weight reduction, and aberration correction ([0003]-[0004]). Therefore, 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 lens system taught by Sun and Nakamichi such that the minimum peripheral light ratio is less than 35% as taught by Yamada in order to avoid increases in lens diameter that would be detrimental to downsizing, weight reduction, and aberration correction (Yamada [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Sun, Nakamichi, and Yamada teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3. Sun and Nakamichi fail to teach the processor changes the opening amount within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (3-1) represented by |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 15 (3-1). However, Yamada teaches the processor changes the opening amount (Figure 1 processor 120, [0028]-[0030] processor controls aperture) within a range satisfying Conditional Expression (3-1) represented by |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 15 (3-1) (Figures 5A and 5B dashed lines, V1 is approximately 40% (Figure 5A), V2 (Figure 5B) is approximately 40%, |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 = 0). 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 lens system taught by Sun and Nakamichi to satisfy |(V1 - V0)/V0| × 100 < 15 to keep the brightness of the image relatively consistent during zooming and further fulfill the teachings of Nakamichi to reduce flickering (Nakamichi [0005]).
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 ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872