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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are now pending in the application. Claims 1, 10-11, 13 have been amended, claim 3 has been canceled and new claims 14-15 have been added by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP 2022-142614, filed 09/08/2022 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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, 4-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIyama et al. (hereafter IIyama, of record) US 20160266350 A1
In regard to independent claim 1, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) an imaging optical system (i.e. as lens system and imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) consisting of :
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(2): 0.5 < |f5/f |< 0.8974 (2) where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens group, and f is a focal length of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (e.g. given lens data, for f, f5 of G5, e.g. values 0.8972, and close values 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
IIyama therefore teaches the invention except that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]), and that |f5/f |< 0.8 (2) (e.g. given that the lens system from lens data for f, f5 of G5, has close values 0.8973, and 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the focal lengths of the fifth group and/or the lens system to the above range of their ratio in order to provide shortened back focus and the overall length of the lens system to be decreased, and reduced image aberration variation at the periphery can be obtained from infinity to the closest object point (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78], and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, focal length of fifth lens group and the lens system and their ratio is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the they affect imaging of the lens system, back focal length, overall length of the lens system, image aberration reduction, while excellent focusing performance can be maintained with less spherical aberration variation due to focusing (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the to adjust the focal lengths of the fifth group and/or the lens system to the above range of their ratio in order to provide excellent imaging of the lens system, shortened back focal length leading to smaller overall length of the lens system, image aberration reduction, while excellent focusing performance can be maintained with less spherical aberration variation due to focusing (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because optimizing focal lengths of lens group and lens system is a routine activity in lens design.
Regarding claim 2, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(1):1.0 < f1/f < 1.5 (1) where f1 is a focal length of the first lens group, and f is a focal length of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (e.g. given lens data, for f, f1 of G1, e.g. value 1.33, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]).
Regarding claim 4, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(3):1.8 < f2/f4 < 3.4 (3) where f2 is a focal length of the second lens group, and f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens group, (e.g. given lens data, for f2, f4 of G2 and G4, e.g. value 2.79, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
Regarding claim 5, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the fifth lens group includes a lens having negative power and located closest to the image plane, and the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(4): 0.1 < BF/Y < 0.5 (4) where BF is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface, facing the image plane, of the lens of the fifth lens group to the image plane, and Y is a maximum image height of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (i.e. given the distance of image side of L11 in G5 to image plane S and image height Y, e.g. value 0.236, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
Regarding claim 6, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality (5):3.0 < TL/Y < 3.8 (5) where TL is a total optical length of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state, and Y is a maximum image height of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (i.e. given overall length of lens system and image height Y, e.g. value 3.219, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
Regarding claim 7, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the second lens group includes a plurality of lenses (G2 with L6, L7, Figs. 1,4,7,10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]), the plurality of lenses includes: a lens having negative power and located closest to the object in the plurality of lenses; and a lens having positive power and located second closest to the object in the plurality of lenses (e.g. as L6 negative and L7 positive in Fig. 10, , and the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality (6): 1.8 < nd2Gp (6) where nd2Gp is a refractive index of the lens having positive power and included in the second lens group (as L7 has n=1.881, see Figs. 10, 26).
Regarding claim 8, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the fourth lens group consists of a single lens (as G4 has one single lens L10, Figs. 1,4,7,10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]), and the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality (7): 50<= vd4G (7) where vd4G is an Abbe number of the single lens of the fourth lens group (i.e. as L10 has e.g. abbe number vd of 50, data tables in Figs. 14-29,).
IIyama discloses the claimed invention except 62<= vd4G (i.e. as L10 in G4 has abbe number of 50. However, IIyama teaches that e.g. L4 in Group 1 has values in the above range e.g. 68.6, 63.4, see tables Figs. 14, 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust, balance and modify Abbe numbers of lenses such that L10 has Abbe number in the above range (as e.g. lens L4), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, Abbe number is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the Abbe number influences lens dispersion and affects chromatic aberrations of the lens system as taught by Ishii at pars. [097-99,104]]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the Abbe number of lens in fourth group and balance abbe numbers in the lens system in order to decrease lateral chromatic aberrations and increase optical performance of the lens system (see pars. [097-99,104]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because optimizing and balancing Abbe numbers of lenses in a lens system is a routine activity in lens design.
Regarding claim 9, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the fifth lens group consists of a single lens (i.e. as G5 has one lens L11, Figs. 1,4,7,10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]), and the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality (8): 31,33<=vd5G (8) where vd5G is an Abbe number of the single lens of the fifth lens group (i.e. as L11 has e.g. abbe number vd of 33, 3, data tables in Figs. 14-29).
IIyama discloses the claimed invention except 50<= vd5G (i.e. as L11 in G5 has abbe number of 33 or 31.1. However, IIyama teaches that e.g. L4, and L10 in Groups 1 and 4 have values in the above range e.g. 68.6, 63.4, 50 see tables Figs. 14-29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust, balance and modify Abbe numbers of lenses such that L11 has Abbe number in the above range (as e.g. lens L4 or L10), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, Abbe number is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the Abbe number influences lens dispersion and affects chromatic aberrations of the lens system as taught by Ishii at pars. [097-99,104]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the Abbe number of lens in fourth group and balance abbe numbers in the lens system in order to decrease lateral chromatic aberrations and increase optical performance of the lens system (see pars. [097-99,104]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because optimizing and balancing Abbe numbers of lenses in a lens system is a routine activity in lens design.
Regarding claim 12, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the first lens group includes a plurality of lenses, the plurality of lenses includes: a lens having negative power and located closest to the object in the plurality of lenses (negative L1, Figs. 1,4,7,10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]); a lens having positive power and located second closest to the object in the plurality of lenses (positive L2, Figs. 1,4,7,10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]); a lens having positive power and located third closest to the object in the plurality of lenses (positive L3, Figs. 10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]); and a lens having negative power and located fourth closest to the object in the plurality of lenses (negative L5, Figs. 10, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75, 125-129]).
Regarding claim 13, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) an image capture device (i.e. imaging device 100 with as lens system 101 for imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86, 108-114], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 13, 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) configured to output an optical image of an object as an electrical image signal (i.e. as imaging device 100 outputs image of object as electrical signal using imaging element 102 e.g. CCD , CMOS, paragraphs [108-114], Fig. 13), the image capture device comprising:
an imaging optical system configured to form the optical image of the object (i.e. as lens optical system 101 forms image of object on image plane S where imaging element is disposed, paragraphs [108-114], Fig. 13); and
an image sensor configured to transform the optical image formed by the imaging optical system into the electrical image signal (i.e. as imaging element 102, CCD , CMOS, paragraphs [108-114], Fig. 13), the imaging optical system (101) consisting of:
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(2): 0.5 < |f5/f |< 0.8974 (2) where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens group, and f is a focal length of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (e.g. given lens data, for f, f5 of G5, e.g. values 0.8973, and close values 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
IIyama therefore teaches the invention except that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]), and that |f5/f |< 0.8 (2) (e.g. given that the lens system from lens data for f, f5 of G5, has close values 0.8972, and 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the focal lengths of the fifth group and/or the lens system to the above range of their ratio in order to provide shortened back focus and the overall length of the lens system to be decreased, and reduced image aberration variation at the periphery can be obtained from infinity to the closest object point (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78], and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, focal length of fifth lens group and the lens system and their ratio is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the they affect imaging of the lens system, back focal length, overall length of the lens system, image aberration reduction, while excellent focusing performance can be maintained with less spherical aberration variation due to focusing (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78]). Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the to adjust the focal lengths of the fifth group and/or the lens system to the above range of their ratio in order to provide excellent imaging of the lens system, shortened back focal length leading to smaller overall length of the lens system, image aberration reduction, while excellent focusing performance can be maintained with less spherical aberration variation due to focusing (see e.g. paragraphs [83,86-87, 76,78]), and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because optimizing focal lengths of lens group and lens system is a routine activity in lens design.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IIyama et al. (hereafter IIyama, of record) US 20160266350 A1 in view of Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007).
Regarding claim 14, IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) that the fourth lens group consists of a convex lens (i.e. as fourth lens group G4 consists of a convex lens i.e. as positive meniscus lens with nearly flat object side surface (very large radius of curvature e.g. R=-1000mm), having nearly planoconvex shape, see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), but is silent that the convex lens is biconvex lens. However, Gross teaches in optical Systems, aberration Theory and correction of optical systems, and teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens 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 bend the lens in fourth group from nearly planoconvex to slightly biconvex shape, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
Regarding independent claim 15, directed towards an imaging optical system, the closes cited prior art of IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) such an imaging optical system (i.e. as lens system and imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) consisting of :
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the fourth lens group including a convex lens (i.e. as fourth lens group G4 consists of a convex lens i.e. as positive meniscus lens with nearly flat object side surface (very large radius of curvature e.g. R=-1000mm), having nearly planoconvex shape, see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29). Iiyama is silent that the convex lens is biconvex lens. However, Gross teaches in optical Systems, aberration Theory and correction of optical systems, and teaches (page 378 section 33.1.4) that bending a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Bending a lens involves modifying the curvatures of the two surfaces while keeping the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that bending a lens 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 bend the lens in fourth group from nearly planoconvex to slightly biconvex shape, because Gross teaches that changing the curvatures of a lens is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross page 378, section 33.1.4). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that bending a lens 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).
Further, IIyama teaches the invention but not that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be improper.
Regarding independent claim 10, directed towards an imaging optical system, the closes cited prior art of IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) such an imaging optical system (i.e. as lens system and imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) consisting of :
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29).
IIyama therefore teaches the invention except that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
However, regarding claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such an imaging lens system including the specific arrangement where the imaging optical system is satisfying following Inequality (9): 0.4<(1-b4x b4) x b4r x b4r< 1.0 (9) where b4 is a lateral magnification of the fourth lens group when the imaging optical system is in the infinity in-focus state; and b4r is a composite lateral magnification of all lenses, located closer to the image plane than the fourth lens group is, of the imaging optical system when the imaging optical system is in the infinity in-focus state, and in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 10.
Regarding independent claim 11, directed towards an imaging optical system, the closes cited prior art of IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) such an imaging optical system (i.e. as lens system and imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) consisting of :
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29).
IIyama therefore teaches the invention except that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
However, regarding claim 11, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest such an imaging lens system including the specific arrangement where the imaging optical system is satisfying following Inequality (10): 0.2 < |(1-b) x br | < 1.0 (9) where b is a lateral magnification of the single image blur compensation lens when the imaging optical system is in the infinity in-focus state; and br is a composite lateral magnification of all lenses, located closer to the image plane than the single image blur compensation lens is, of the imaging optical system when the imaging optical system is in the infinity in-focus state., and in combination with all other claimed limitations of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 11/24/2025 regarding independent claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the Remarks that the cited prior art of Iiyama does not disclose or render obvious the amended conditional expression in claims 1 and 13, because the examples in Iiyama have values just outside the claimed range for the |f5/f| ratio. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the above issue, as noted in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Iiyama teaches and renders obvious all limitations of claims 1 and 13, as IIyama teaches (See Figs. 1-29) an imaging optical system (i.e. as lens system and imaging device 100, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 47-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], numerical examples 1-4 paragraphs [124-130], see e.g. Figs. 1,4,7,10, and lens data tables in Figs. 14-29) consisting of :
a first lens group having positive power (G1 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
an aperture stop (A aperture diaphragm, paragraphs 52-57, Figs. 1,4,7,10,14-29);
a second lens group having positive power (G2 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a third lens group having a negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
a fourth lens group having positive power (G4 positive, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29); and
a fifth lens group having negative power (G5 negative, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29);
the first lens group, the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, and the fifth lens group being arranged in this order (G1,A,G2,G3,G5 in order see paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), such that the first lens group is located closer to an object than the aperture stop, the second lens group, the third lens group, the fourth lens group, or the fifth lens group is (i.e. as G1 is closer to object than A, G2,G3, G4 or G5, as depicted Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29),
the first lens group, the third lens group, and the fifth lens group being located at respectively fixed distances from an image plane in a direction aligned with an optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make a transition from an infinity in-focus state toward a close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G1, G3 and G5 are stationary in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the second lens group and the fourth lens group moving along the optical axis while the imaging optical system is focusing to make the transition from the infinity in-focus state toward the close-object in-focus state (i.e. as G2 and G4 are moving along optical axis in focusing from infinity in focus to close-object in focus, see abstract, paragraphs [06-11, 51-57, 58-75, 76-78, 80-86], Figs. Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29), and
the imaging optical system satisfies the following Inequality
(2): 0.5 < |f5/f |< 0.8974 (2) where f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens group, and f is a focal length of the imaging optical system in the infinity in-focus state (e.g. given lens data, for f, f5 of G5, e.g. values 0.8973, and close values 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
IIyama therefore teaches the invention except that third lens group as a whole has the negative power (G3 with a negative lens L8 having negative power, refractive power, paragraphs [124-130], Figs. 1,4,7,10, data tables in Figs. 14-29, however group G3 is achromat doublet with biconcave eighth lens element L8 and biconvex ninth lens element L9 as a weak power lens group having low optical refractive power e.g. 1/363.44=0.00275 mm-1 , or 1/386.7=0.00258, e.g. 51-57, 58-75, 76-79, 80-86], which is designed to suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]), and that |f5/f |< 0.8 (2) (e.g. given that the lens system from lens data for f, f5 of G5, has close values 0.8972, and 1.027, see data tables in Figs. 14-29, e.g. paragraphs [51-57, 58-75,125-129]).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider similar low optical refractive power that can be negative since the claimed ranges (which is also doublet lens with positive and negative lens with also similar negative refractive powers e.g. -0.0041, -0.0035), and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to adjust the optical power of third lens group of the achromat doublet in order to further suppress aberration caused on two focusing lens groups in focusing from an infinity in-focus condition to a close-object in-focus condition, (see paragraphs [58-75, 76-79]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective f