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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Kamo et al. (20160327780).
Re claim 1, Kamo et al. teaches for example in fig. 1a, an objective optical system comprising: a front group (L1, L2, L3); an aperture stop (S); and a rear group (L4, L5, L6) in order from an object side (fig. 1a), wherein the front group includes a first lens (L1) having a negative refractive power (para. 0156) with a concave surface facing an image side (fig. 1a; para. 0156), a meniscus-shaped (fig. 1a; para. 0156) second lens (L2) having a negative refractive power (para. 0156) with a convex surface facing the image side (fig. 1a; para. 0156), and a third lens (L3) having a positive refractive power (para. 0156), the rear group includes a fourth lens (L4) having a positive refractive power (para. 0156) and a fifth lens (L5) having a positive refractive power (para. 0156), the fifth lens is a cemented lens (fig. 1a; para. 0156), and the following Conditional Expression is satisfied: 2.38<f3/f5<20 (para. 0156) where: f3 is a focal length of the third lens, and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens.
Re claim 3, Kamo et al. further teaches for example in fig. 1a, the following Conditional Expression is satisfied: 0.8<|g2/g1|<2.6 (para. 0156) where: g1 is a focal length of the front group, and g2 is a focal length of the rear group.
Re claim 4, Kamo et al. further teaches for example in fig. 1a, the following Conditional Expression is satisfied: 1.0<|g1/f|<4.0 (para. 0156) where: g1 is a focal length of the front group, and f is an overall focal length of the objective optical system.
Re claim 5, Kamo et al. further teaches for example in fig. 1a, the following Conditional Expression is satisfied: f2/f1<100 (para. 0156) where: f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and f1 is a focal length of the first lens.
Re claim 7, Kamo et al. further teaches for example in fig. 1a, an image pickup apparatus comprising: an objective optical system; and an imager disposed on an image plane, wherein the imager has an image pickup surface and converts an image formed on the image pickup surface by the objective optical system into an electrical signal, and the objective optical system is the objective optical system (para. 0122, abstract).
Re claim 8, Kamo et al. further teaches for example in fig. 1a, an endoscope comprising the image pickup apparatus (abstract).
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 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 of this title, 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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo et al. (20160327780).
Re claim 2, Kamo et al. teaches for example in fig. 1a, the lens moves along an optical axis for focus adjustment of the objective optical system (abstract).
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the lens that is movable is the fifth lens.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as moving lens groups, the number of lenses, focal lengths of lenses and lens groups, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, 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). Furthermore, this would provide an image forming optical system where zoom and focus are used, as taught by Kamo et al. (para. 0005).
Re claim 6, supra claim 1.
But, the instant prior art of record fails to explicitly teach satisfying all of the claimed numerical expressions.
However, due to the nature of optics, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as moving lens groups, the number of lenses, focal lengths of lenses and lens groups, the placement of apertures, the surface types of the lenses, the refractive powers of the lenses, the surface parameters of the lens surfaces, the spacings between the lenses, the center thicknesses of the lenses, the index of refraction of the lenses, the lens surface radii, the material of construction of the lenses, and other shape concerns in order to make a lens system meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are well known optics equations at the time the invention was filed (unless the particular range of values meets secondary, specific considerations). Further the court has determined 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to vary the cited limitation, 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). Furthermore, this would provide an image forming optical system where zoom and focus are used, as taught by Kamo et al. (para. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-16-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re applicant’s arguments on p. 5-7, wherein the applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest a structure which satisfies Conditional Expression (1) as recited in amended independent claim 1, in which 2.38≤f3/f5<20 (where f3 is a focal length of the third lens, and f5 is a focal length of the fifth lens), have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument states that “f5 corresponds to a focal length of a cemented lens composed of the fifth lens L5 and the sixth lens L6 (f5 = 4.8838)”. However, prior art Kamo et al. (20160327780) explicitly teaches the focal length of the fifth lens L5 is f5=2.13 (para. 0156), and therefore teaches the claimed limitation.
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 JOSEPH P MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 7pm PACIFIC.
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.
/Joseph P Martinez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11-3-25