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
This office action is in response to the communication filed 9/22/2025.
Cancellation of claims 4-5 and 21, filed 9/22/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to claim 1, filed 9/22/2025, is acknowledged and accepted.
Withdrawal of claims 11-16, filed 5/8/2025, remains in effect.
Examiner notes that the issues raised in the objection to the specification have not been fully addressed. Various parts of the specification (as cited in the previous Non-Final Office Action, filed 6/27/2025 – see item 6A) provide (G1R2 + G2R1)/(G1R2 - G2R1) inequalities/ values which continue to contradict the rest of the disclosure – and which are apparently incorrect/obsolete, based on Applicant’s most recently filed specification amendments and claim cancellations. Accordingly, previous objections to the specification are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/22/2025 with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 9 of the remarks, Applicant appears to argue that the cited art does not disclose the range of D1/fw values claimed in the newly amended claim 1 or the previous claim 5 (now cancelled). But the argument is improper as it fails to address the actual evidence made of record. As explicitly detailed in the Non-Final Rejection, filed 6/27/2025 (see ¶s 13.D, 22), Examiner cites a value fw ≃12.515 that is computed in the standard way – using ray optics and transfer matrix analysis of Table 10’s actual raw lens data. Examiner has already shown how this fw value properly satisfies the claimed range (see also the claim 1 rejection below). Despite this, Applicant neglects the actual evidence and instead argues Table 11’s fw = 32.473 value, which Examiner does not rely on – and which simple calculations would reveal to be incompatible with the raw lens data of Nagami’s Example 4 (Table 10).
On pgs. 9-10, Applicant attempts to make preemptive arguments against obviousness for the above-mentioned D1/fw range – alleging that “increasing the thickness of a lens unit contradicts Nagami's goal of a compact and lightweight zoom lens, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Nagami”. Examiner finds such obviousness arguments to be neither necessary to make nor relevant to current matters – given that Applicant has not properly addressed or overcome the anticipatory grounds of rejection as discussed above. Nonetheless, Examiner also notes the argument to be unpersuasive, because weighing competing design considerations (size, weight, performance, etc.) is a routine part of ordinary engineering judgment – and Applicant is not in a position to dictate what trade-offs a person of ordinary skill would or would not consider, nor what one of ordinary skill would be willing to pursue or compromise on. Moreover, Applicant’s argument apparently overlooks the numerous ways one can tune overall focusing power (and hence D1/fw) without significantly affecting the overall weight/size of the system (e.g. changing lens materials, shapes, relative displacement between subgroups of lenses without affecting overall track length) – all of which follows from standard and basic knowledge at the level introductory optics.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagami (US 20220236544 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagami discloses (see FIG. 12, ¶s 159-162, and Tables 10-11 detailing Example 4) a zoom lens comprising, in order from an object side to an image side, a first lens unit (first lens group G1) having negative refractive power, a second lens unit (second lens group G2) having positive refractive power,
wherein a distance (D(9) = DD[9] in Tables 10-11) between adjacent lens units (lens groups G1-G4) changes during zooming from a wide-angle end to a telephoto end,
wherein during zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end, the first lens unit (first lens group G1) moves to the image side and then to the object side (as denoted by arrows drawn beneath different lenses and lens groups in FIG. 12 – particularly the curved arrow below first lens group G1; see also ¶s 73-74 which describe each arrow as a “rough movement locus during zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end”),
wherein the first lens unit (G1) includes four lenses or more (L11-L15), the four lenses or more (L11-L15) including, in order from the object side to the image side, a first negative meniscus lens (L11) with a convex surface facing the object side and a second negative meniscus lens (L12) with a convex surface facing the object side (see also ¶s 20-21, 109-110), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.9 < G1R2/D1 (= 26.38035/24.899 ≃ 1.06) < 2.0
-9.0 < fa/fw (≃ -67.34/12.515 ≃ -5.38) < -2.0
1.8 < N1 < (= 1.91082) 2.1
1.2 < D1/fw (≃ 24.899/12.515 ≃ 1.99) < 2.0
where G1R2 (= R(2) = 26.38035) is a radius of curvature of a lens surface (Sn = 2) on the image side of the first negative meniscus lens (L11), D1 (= D(1) + D(2) + … + D(8) = 1.25 + 2.904 + … + 1.031 = 24.899) is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface (Sn = 1) closest to an object to a lens surface (Sn = 9) closest to an image plane (Sim) of the first lens unit (first lens group G1), fa (≃ -67.34) is a focal length of an air lens between the first negative meniscus lens (L11) and the second negative meniscus lens (L12), fw (≃ 12.515) is a focal length of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end, and N1 (= Nd(1) = 1.91082) is a refractive index of the first negative meniscus lens (L11). (See Tables 10-11. Note fa and fw are computed using the lens data provided on curvature radii R, spacings D, and refractive indices Nd for different lens surfaces Sn. Standard techniques involving surface power calculations and Gullstrand’s equation are used to determine fa, while fw is computed using ray transfer matrices.)
Regarding claim 2, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses wherein during zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end, the first lens unit (first lens group G1) and the second lens unit (second lens group G2) move so as to narrow a distance (D(9) = DD[9]) between the first lens unit (first lens group G1) and the second lens unit (second lens group G2). (See Tables 10-11; distance D(9) = DD[9] between the first and second lens groups decreases from 22.978 (wide angle) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1.487 (telephoto).)
Regarding claim 3, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses (see FIG. 12) wherein the first lens unit (first lens group G1) includes a negative lens (L13) and a positive lens (L14) disposed on the image side of the first negative meniscus lens (L11) and the second negative meniscus lens (L12).
Regarding claim 8, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses (see ¶ 159) the zoom lens comprising, in order from the object side to the image side, the first lens unit (first lens group G1), the second lens unit (second lens group G2), a third lens unit (third lens group G3) having negative refractive power, and a fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4) having positive refractive power.
Regarding claim 10, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 8.
Nagami further discloses wherein the third lens unit (third lens group G3) moves toward the image side during focusing from infinity to close. (See Tables 10-11; distance D(21) = DD[21] between the second and third lens groups increases from (note: magnification β = -0.1 corresponds to “close”):
DD[21] = 1 (wide angle, infinity) to DD[21] = 2.539 (wide angle, β = -0.1), and
DD[21] = 5.950 (telephoto, infinity) to DD[21] = 7.791 (telephoto, β = -0.1),
while distance D(9) = DD[9] between the first and second lens groups remain fixed; thus the third lens group moves towards the image side.)
Regarding claim 19, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-2.5 < f1/fw < -1.5
where f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (first lens group G1) (see ¶ 113; Nagami discloses a preference for the range:
0.3 < fw/|f1| < 1.5 ↔ (0.3-1 = 3.333…) > |f1|/fw > (0.666… = 1.5-1). When also including the first lens group’s negative refractive power f1 < 0, as established in regards to claim 1 above, we are left with:
-3.333... < f1/fw < -0.666…, which encompasses the claimed range.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami, in the embodiment cited above, further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
dg12/fw (≃ 2.904/12.515 = 0.232) < 0.6
where dg12 (= D(2) = 2.904) is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface (Sn = 2) on the image side of the first negative meniscus lens (L11) to a lens surface (Sn = 3) on the object side of the second negative meniscus lens (L12). (See Tables 10-11 and also the fw value established in regards to claim 1 above.)
Nagami thus discloses a dg12/fw value that is close to, but does not explicitly overlap with, the claim range where 0.3 < dg12/fw is also satisfied. Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for the lower end (dg12/fw = 0.3) of this range.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to slightly modify Nagami’s zoom lens (e.g. by increasing inter-lens spacing dg12 to fall within the claimed range), so that other minor adjustments which improve performance can be made (e.g. an increased curvature radius G1R2 of the first lens, corresponding to Nagami’s R1f, is tuned for suppression of astigmatism; see ¶s 110-111) while preserving focusing powers in the zoom lens – since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Synopsys (NPL entitled “Ghost Image Reduction in Lens Systems…”).
Regarding claim 7, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses that Lw (= D(1) + D(2) + … + D(29) = 1.25 + 2.904 + … + 1.125 = 120.005) is an overall optical length of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end (see Tables 10-11) .
Nagami does not disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.1 < fgho/Lw < 1.5
where fgho is a focal length of the first lens unit in a case where a light ray incident on the first lens unit is reflected by a lens surface on the object side of the second negative meniscus lens, is reflected on a lens surface on the image side of the first lens unit, and exits the first lens unit.
Nagami and Synopsys are related as being directed towards wide-angle lens systems.
Synopsys discloses where fgho (effective focal length EFL) is a focal length of the first lens unit in a case where a light ray incident on the first lens unit is reflected by a lens surface on the object side of the second negative meniscus lens, is reflected on a lens surface on the image side of the first lens unit, and exits the first lens unit. (Synopsys discloses software for analyzing light that experiences multiple reflections and forms ghost images in lens systems. It performs ray-tracing simulations to determine where the ghost images are formed, and lists EFLs corresponding to all different pairs of reflection surfaces within the lens system; see pg. 8, slide 12 to pg. 11, slide 17. This analysis allows for reflections which cause problematic ghost images to be analyzed and addressed, e.g. by texturing lens surfaces to selectively suppress/prevent problematic ghost images from forming in undesirable locations such as near the image plane; see also pg. 27 slides 49-50).
Nagami in view of Synopsys thus disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but do not explicitly disclose a claimed range where 0.1 < fgho/Lw < 1.5 (i.e. where 0.1*Lw < fgho < 1.5*Lw). Examiner finds, however, that no criticality has been established for either end of this broad range of (fgho) values.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagami’s zoom lens using the teachings of Synopsys, in order to analyze ghosting phenomena caused by multiple-reflected light and to suppress any problematic ghost images that may form.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure the combined teachings of Nagami and Synopsys are optimized to produce fgho(/Lw) values which are consistent with the broad range of values claimed, in order to prevent problematic ghost images from forming in undesirable locations – 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami, as applied respectively to claims 8 and 1 above, and further in view of Kuwashiro (US 20180129025 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 8.
Nagami further discloses wherein during zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end, the third lens unit (third lens group G3) moves toward the object side (as denoted by the (lowermost) arrow drawn beneath the third lens group G3 in FIG. 12) so that a distance between the second lens unit (second lens group G2) and the third lens unit (third lens group G3) increases and a distance between the third lens unit (third lens group G3) and the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4) increases. (See Tables 10-11; distance D(21) = DD[21] between the second and third lens groups increases from 1 (wide angle) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 5.950 (telephoto), while distance D(25) = DD[25] between the third and fourth lens groups increases from 4.759 (wide angle) [Wingdings font/0xE0] 21.3 (telephoto).)
Nagami does not disclose wherein the fourth lens unit moves toward the image side.
Nagami and Kuwashiro are related as being directed towards zoom lenses for camera modules having four lens groups/units positioned in a negative-positive-negative-positive power arrangement from the object to image side, where the first lens group closest to the object side includes two negative meniscus lenses for suppressing optical aberrations.
Kuwashiro discloses wherein the fourth lens unit (L4, also referred to as lens unit LP) moves toward the image side. (As denoted by the arrow drawn beneath lens unit LP in FIG. 5. Refer also to ¶s 46-47 – Kuwashiro discusses how focusing may be performed together with zooming, such that fourth lens unit L4 can have bidirectional movement along the optical axis to correct for image plane variations during zooming. Kuwashiro also discloses how the path of motion for resolving an object at infinity may further be retracted towards the image side to resolve an object at closer distances.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagami by enabling the movement of the fourth lens unit towards the image side, as taught by Kuwashiro, in order to address various focusing needs (image plane variations during zooming, focusing of near vs. far objects, etc.) when zooming (Kuwashiro ¶s 46-47).
Regarding claim 20, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-1.5 < f1/f2 (≃ -41.358/18.092 ≃ -2.286) < -0.5
where f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (first lens group G1), and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit (second lens group G2). (See Tables 10-11; f1 and f2 is computed with standard ray transfer matrix analysis and using the lens data provided on curvature radii R, spacings D, and refractive indices Nd for different lens surfaces Sn.)
Nagami (in the embodiment cited above), thus discloses the invention substantially as claimed, though they do not disclose that
-1.5 < f1/f2.
(Examiner notes, however, that in other embodiments, Nagami does disclose f1/f2 values which satisfy the claimed range – with f1/f2 ≃ -1.494 for Example 5 (FIG. 14, Tables 13-14), and f1/f2 ≃ -1.227 for Example 9 (FIG. 23, Tables 25-26).)
Nagami and Kuwashiro are related as being directed towards zoom lenses for camera modules having four lens groups/units positioned in a negative-positive-negative-positive power arrangement from the object to image side, where the first lens group closest to the object side includes two negative meniscus lenses for suppressing optical aberrations.
Kuwashiro discloses that -1.5 < f1/f2 < -0.5 (see ¶s 61 and 68; Kuwashiro discloses a preferred range of values (-1.2 < f1/f2 < 0.4), which overlaps considerably with the claimed range and provides favorable optical performance across an entire zoom range of the zoom lens.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagami’s zoom lens design by taking Kuwashiro’s desired f1/f2 values into consideration, in order to provide favorable optical performance over an entire zoom range (Kuwashiro ¶s 61 and 68).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross (NPL entitled “Handbook of Optical Systems”).
Regarding claim 17, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Nagami does not disclose wherein the first lens unit includes an aspherical lens.
Nagami and Gross are related as being directed towards lens system optics.
Gross discloses wherein the first lens unit includes an aspherical lens. (See page 378, section 33.1.4; Gross teaches that making a lens surface aspheric with negligible expansion constants is among the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance. Making lens surfaces aspheric with negligible expansion constants involve modifying the curvatures of the lens surfaces while keeping its focal power the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that making a lens surface aspheric can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup.)
It would have been therefore obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagami by making any lens in the first lens unit aspheric, 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).
Regarding claim 18, Nagami discloses the zoom lens according to claim 17.
Gross further discloses wherein at least one lens surface of the second negative meniscus lens is aspheric. (As established in regards to claim 17 above, Gross teaches that making a lens surfaces aspheric would be an obvious operation for one of ordinary skill in the art to find a lens design with better performance.)
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872