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
Claims 1 and 17-18 have been amended and claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17-18 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 20190018229 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 20200116985 A1) and Ichimura et al. (US 20200233191 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyagawa discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1, tables 1-3 and 10), an optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side (G1-G6 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), a first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), a second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), a third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), and a fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1),
wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) further comprises:
an aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) disposed on the image side (aperture stop St is on the image side of the third lens group G3 fig. 1) of the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1);
a final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) disposed closest to an image plane (sixth lens group is closest to the image plane fig. 1) in the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1), final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing (the lens group G6 is fixed during focusing fig. 1); and
focus lens units disposed on the object side (the rear side first lens group G1R is on the object side of the aperture stop St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) and the image side (G5 is on the image side of the aperture stops St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) of the aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) and movable during the focusing (the rear side first lens group G1R and the fifth lens group G5 each serve as a focusing lens group paragraph [0109]),
wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a longest imaging distance (Hft denotes a distance from a lens surface positioned closest to the object side to a position of a front side principal point at a time of focusing on infinite at the telephoto end and Ft denotes a focal length of an entire lens system at the telephoto end paragraphs [0062-0063]) to 0.5 times or higher (IHft/FtI = 0.855 table 10),
wherein the final lens unit (sixth lens unit G6 fig. 1) includes a positive lens (positive lens L61 paragraph [0117]) and a negative lens (negative lens L62 paragraph [0117]), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.025 < dF/L (dF/L = 0.11 as a result of the values below)
0.1 <If4/fl < 0.9 (If4/fl = 0.67 as a result of the values below)
0.0 < If1/fLI < 1 (If1/fLI = 0.43 as a result of the values below)
0.1 < |(1-Bf²) x Br² | < 5.1 (|(1-Bt5²) x Bt6² = 4.499 table 10)
where dF is a sum of distances on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object to a lens surface closest to the image plane in each of the focus lens units (df = 23.99 as a result of the sum of the values for the focus groups GR1 d7-d10 and G5 d31-d32 table 1), L is an overall lens length of the optical system (L = 215.1482 table 3), f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit (f4 = 48.74 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 24-30 in table 1), f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1013 table 3), f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (f1 = 84.73 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 1-10 in table 7), fL is a focal length of the final lens unit (fL = 231.52 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 33-42 in table 1), Bf is a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units, and Br is a combined lateral magnification of all lens units disposed on the image side of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units.
Miyagawa does not disclose, wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance,
the first lens unit being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing,
wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units moves toward the image side during the focusing,
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher,
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
dF/L < 0.099.
However Suzuki discloses in at least example 2 (fig. 3A-3B, table [0104]), wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance (an interval between adjacent lens units changes in focusing from an infinite-distance object to a close-distance object paragraph [0030]),
the first lens unit (first lens unit L1 paragraph [0091]) being fixed relative to the image plane (IP fig. 3) during the focusing (L1 is fixed during focusing because it does not have arrows showing focus movement fig. 3A paragraph [0032]),
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (Conditional Expression (11) defines a maximum imaging magnification in each of the exemplary embodiments paragraph [0077]) at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (I Bm I = 2 table1).
Suzuki further discloses (paragraphs [0078]-[0079) " If a value of βm exceeds an upper limit of Conditional Expression (11), a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes insufficient. As a result, it becomes difficult to perform image capturing while sufficiently enlarging a subject, which is undesirable.
If a value of βm falls below a lower limit of Conditional Expression (11), an absolute value of a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes too large. As a result, it becomes difficult to sufficiently shorten the total lens length while maintaining optical performance, which is undesirable".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification as taught by Suzuki in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification because Suzuki teaches that controlling the imaging magnification is necessary to perform image capturing with sufficiently enlarging the subject. (Suzuki paragraph [0078]-[0079]).
Additionally Ichimura discloses in at least figure 1, wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane (B6 fig. 1) among the focus lens units (B6 and B4 fig. 1) moves toward the image side during the focusing (B6 moves to the image side for focusing fig. 1).
Ichimura further discloses (paragraph [0048]-[0049]) "the fourth lens unit B4 and the sixth lens unit B6 can be moved along loci that are different from those of the other lens units moved by the zoom cam 20... the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus.".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to move the focus group closest to the image side toward the image side during focusing as taught by Ichimura in the in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to move the image side focal unit towards the image side because Ichimura teaches that the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus (Ichimura paragraph [0048]-[0049]).
Further It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of dF/L = 0.11 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.025 < dF/L < 0.099 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose dF/L such that .025 < dF/L < 0.099 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.8 < L/f < 2.4 (where f = 117.9816 and L = 215.1482 table 3 L/f = 1.82).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 < f1/f (where f = 72.1013, f1/f = 1.38).
where f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (f1 = 99.8 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 1-10 table 1).
Miyagawa does not explicitly disclose, 0.2 < f1/f < 1.3.
However It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 1.38 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.2 < f1/f < 1.3 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose f1/f such that 0.2 < f1/f < 1.3 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.1 <If2/fl< 2.5 (where f = 72.1013, f2/f = 0.37).
where f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit (f2 = -26.67 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 11-17 table 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 <If3/fl < 0.8 (where f = 117.9861, f3/f = 0.618).
where f3 is a focal length of the third lens unit (f3 = 72.87 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 11-17 table 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein each of the focus lens units (the rear side first lens group G1R and the fifth lens group G5 each serve as a focusing lens group paragraph [0109]) consists of four lenses or less (G1R and G5 have 1 lens fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the first lens unit has positive refractive power (G1 has a focal length of as a focal length of 99.97 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 1-10 table 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the number of focus lens units (G1R and G5 move during focusing fig. 1) disposed on the object side (G1R is on the object side of the stop St fig. 1) of the aperture stop (aperture stop SP fig. 3A) among the focus lens units (G1R and G5 move during focusing fig. 1) is one (G1R fig. 1), and the number of focus lens units (G1R and G5 move during focusing fig. 1) disposed on the image side (G5 is on the image side of the stop St fig. 1) of the aperture stop (aperture stop SP fig. 3A) among the focus lens units (G1R and G5 move during focusing fig. 1) is one (G5 fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein one of focus lens units (the rear side first lens group G1R and the fifth lens group G5 each serve as a focusing lens group paragraph [0109]) disposed on the image side (G5 is on the image side of the stop St fig. 1) of the aperture stop (stop St fig. 1) and closest to the object among the focus lens units (G5 is the only focus group on the image side of the stop St fig. 1) has negative refractive power (G5 has negative refractive power paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the optical system consists of, in order from the object side to the image side (G1-G5 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), the first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), the third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), and the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1), and a fifth lens unit (fifth lens group G5 fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) consists of, in order from the object side to the image side (G1-G6 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), the first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), the third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), the fourth lens (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1), a fifth lens unit (fifth lens group G5 fig. 1), and a sixth lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Miyagawa discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1, tables 1-3 and 10) and fig. 7, an image pickup apparatus (imaging unit 100 fig. 17) comprising:
an optical system (the zoom lenses 1 to 3 of respective configuration examples illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, and 3 are applicable as the imaging lens 11 paragraph [0079]); and
an image sensor (imaging device 12 fig. 7) configured to image an object through (the imaging device 12 converts an optical image formed by the imaging lens 11 into an electric signal to thereby output an imaging signal paragraph [0079]) the optical system (imaging lens 11 fig. 7),
wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) includes, in order from an object side to an image side (G1-G6 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), a first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), a second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), a third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), and a fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1),
wherein the optical system (Zoom lens 1 fig. 1) further comprises:
an aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) disposed on the image side (aperture stop St is on the image side of the third lens group G3 fig. 1) of the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1);
a final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) disposed closest to an image plane (sixth lens group is closest to the image plane fig. 1) in the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1), final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing (the lens group G6 is fixed during focusing fig. 1); and
focus lens units disposed on the object side (the rear side first lens group G1R is on the object side of the aperture stop St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) and the image side (G5 is on the image side of the aperture stops St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) of the aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) and movable during the focusing (the rear side first lens group G1R and the fifth lens group G5 each serve as a focusing lens group paragraph [0109]),
wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a longest imaging distance (Hft denotes a distance from a lens surface positioned closest to the object side to a position of a front side principal point at a time of focusing on infinite at the telephoto end and Ft denotes a focal length of an entire lens system at the telephoto end paragraphs [0062-0063]) to 0.5 times or higher (IHft/FtI = 0.855 table 10),
wherein the final lens unit (sixth lens unit G6 fig. 1) includes a positive lens (positive lens L61 paragraph [0117]) and a negative lens (negative lens L62 paragraph [0117]), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.025 < dF/L (dF/L = 0.11 as a result of the values below)
0.1 <If4/fl < 0.9 (If4/fl = 0.67 as a result of the values below)
0.0 < If1/fLI < 1 (If1/fLI = 0.43 as a result of the values below)
0.1 < |(1-Bf²) x Br² | < 5.1 (|(1-Bt5²) x Bt6² = 4.499 table 10)
where dF is a sum of distances on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object to a lens surface closest to the image plane in each of the focus lens units (df = 23.99 as a result of the sum of the values for the focus groups GR1 d7-d10 and G5 d31-d32 table 1), L is an overall lens length of the optical system (L = 215.1482 table 3), f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit (f4 = 48.74 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 24-30 in table 1), f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1013 table 3), f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (f1 = 84.73 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 1-10 in table 7), fL is a focal length of the final lens unit (fL = 231.52 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 33-42 in table 1), Bf is a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units, and Br is a combined lateral magnification of all lens units disposed on the image side of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units.
Miyagawa does not disclose, wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance,
the first lens unit being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing,
wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units moves toward the image side during the focusing,
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher,
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
dF/L < 0.099.
However Suzuki discloses in at least example 2 (fig. 3A-3B, table [0104]), wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance (an interval between adjacent lens units changes in focusing from an infinite-distance object to a close-distance object paragraph [0030]),
the first lens unit (first lens unit L1 paragraph [0091]) being fixed relative to the image plane (IP fig. 3) during the focusing (L1 is fixed during focusing because it does not have arrows showing focus movement fig. 3A paragraph [0032]),
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (Conditional Expression (11) defines a maximum imaging magnification in each of the exemplary embodiments paragraph [0077]) at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (I Bm I = 2 table1).
Suzuki further discloses (paragraphs [0078]-[0079) " If a value of βm exceeds an upper limit of Conditional Expression (11), a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes insufficient. As a result, it becomes difficult to perform image capturing while sufficiently enlarging a subject, which is undesirable.
If a value of βm falls below a lower limit of Conditional Expression (11), an absolute value of a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes too large. As a result, it becomes difficult to sufficiently shorten the total lens length while maintaining optical performance, which is undesirable".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification as taught by Suzuki in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification because Suzuki teaches that controlling the imaging magnification is necessary to perform image capturing with sufficiently enlarging the subject. (Suzuki paragraph [0078]-[0079]).
Additionally Ichimura discloses in at least figure 1, wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane (B6 fig. 1) among the focus lens units (B6 and B4 fig. 1) moves toward the image side during the focusing (B6 moves to the image side for focusing fig. 1).
Ichimura further discloses (paragraph [0048]-[0049]) "the fourth lens unit B4 and the sixth lens unit B6 can be moved along loci that are different from those of the other lens units moved by the zoom cam 20... the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus.".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to move the focus group closest to the image side toward the image side during focusing as taught by Ichimura in the in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to move the image side focal unit towards the image side because Ichimura teaches that the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus (Ichimura paragraph [0048]-[0049]).
Further It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of dF/L = 0.11 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.025 < dF/L < 0.099 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose dF/L such that .025 < dF/L < 0.099 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 20190018229 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 20200116985 A1) and Ichimura et al. (US 20200233191 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Gross et al. “Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems"
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the final lens unit (sixth lens unit G6 fig. 1) consists of, in order from the object side to the image side (sixth lens unit G6 consists of 2 cemented lens pairs, lenses L61 and 62 and L63 and L64 in order from the object side to the image side paragraph [0117]), a positive subunit (lenses L61 and 62 created a positive unit with a focal length of 83.01 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 33-35 table 1) and a subunit (lenses L63 and 64 created a positive unit with a focal length of 54.69 as a result of matrix calculations from surfaces 36-38 table 1).
Miyagawa does not explicitly disclose, a negative subunit.
However Gross teaches (pages 377) that reversing the order of a cemented doublet is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (see suggestion 5). As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that flipping a lens or lens group into reverse orientation is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations 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 flip the order of the cemented doublet of L63 and L64 to create a positive subunit with a focal length of -78.20 , because Gross teaches that flipping the orientation of a cemented doublet is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross pages 377-378). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that reversing a cemented doublet 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 claim 14, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) consists of, in order from the object side to the image side (G1-G4 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), the first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), the aperture stop (aperture stop ST fig. 1), the third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), and the fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1), and
wherein the aperture stop is fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing (the aperture stop SP is fixed while focusing fig. 1).
Miyagawa does not disclose in order from the object side to the image side the aperture stop between the second and third lens groups.
However Gross teaches (pages 377) that moving the stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (see suggestion 12). As noted on page 378, Gross teaches that moving the stop position is a zero power operation that keeps the focal power of the lens the same (“zero power operations”, “do not introduce any refractive power”). Gross teaches that such zero power operations 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 moving the stop position where the stop will be between G2 and G3, because Gross teaches that moving the stop position is amongst the operations that an ordinary skilled artisan would typically employ in order to find a lens design with better performance (Gross pages 377-378). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Gross teaches that moving the stop position 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 20190018229 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 20200116985 A1) and Ichimura et al. (US 20200233191 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kuribayashi (US 20210208374 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Miyagawa, Suzuki and Ichimura disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Miyagawa further discloses, wherein the first lens unit (first lens unit G1 fig. 1) includes a subunit (rear side first lens group G1R fig. 1).
Miyagawa does not disclose, a subunit configured to move in a direction including a component orthogonal to the optical axis during image stabilization.
However Kuribayashi discloses in at least figure 3, a subunit (vibration proof lens group partial subunit L16 and L17 paragraph [0084]) configured to move in a direction including a component orthogonal to the optical axis (L16 and L17 are movable in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis paragraph [0084]) during image stabilization (L16 and L17 are used for correcting image blur due to camera shake paragraph [0084]).
Kuribayashi further teaches (paragraph [0107]): "the configuration with the vibration-proof function is likewise applicable to other examples with no vibration-proof function".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image stabilization subunit as taught by Kuribayashi which vibration-proof function into the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to add the image stabilization subunit because Kuribayashi teaches that the vibration-proof function can be added to other examples with no vibration-proof function (Kuribayashi paragraph [0107]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagawa et al. (US 20190018229 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 20200116985 A1), Ichimura et al. (US 20200233191 A1) and Kubota (JP 2019164277 A).
Regarding claim 18, Miyagawa discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1, tables 1-3 and 10) and fig. 7, an optical apparatus (camera block 10 fig. 7) comprising an optical system (imaging lens 11 fig. 7),
wherein the optical system (imaging lens 11 fig. 7) includes, in order from an object side to an image side (G1-G6 are in order from the object side to the image side fig. 1), a first lens unit (first lens group G1 fig. 1), a second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1), a third lens unit (third lens group G3 fig. 1), and a fourth lens unit (fourth lens group G4 fig. 1),
wherein the optical system (Zoom lens 1 fig. 1) further comprises:
an aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) disposed on the image side (aperture stop St is on the image side of the third lens group G3 fig. 1) of the second lens unit (second lens group G2 fig. 1);
a final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) disposed closest to an image plane (sixth lens group is closest to the image plane fig. 1) in the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1), final lens unit (sixth lens group G6 fig. 1) being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing (the lens group G6 is fixed during focusing fig. 1); and
focus lens units disposed on the object side (the rear side first lens group G1R is on the object side of the aperture stop St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) and the image side (G5 is on the image side of the aperture stops St fig. 1 and is a focus group paragraph [0109]) of the aperture stop (aperture stop St fig. 1) and movable during the focusing (the rear side first lens group G1R and the fifth lens group G5 each serve as a focusing lens group paragraph [0109]),
wherein the optical system (zoom lens 1 fig. 1) is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a longest imaging distance (Hft denotes a distance from a lens surface positioned closest to the object side to a position of a front side principal point at a time of focusing on infinite at the telephoto end and Ft denotes a focal length of an entire lens system at the telephoto end paragraphs [0062-0063]) to 0.5 times or higher (IHft/FtI = 0.855 table 10),
wherein the final lens unit (sixth lens unit G6 fig. 1) includes a positive lens (positive lens L61 paragraph [0117]) and a negative lens (negative lens L62 paragraph [0117]), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
0.025 < dF/L (dF/L = 0.11 as a result of the values below)
0.1 <If4/fl < 0.9 (If4/fl = 0.67 as a result of the values below)
0.0 < If1/fLI < 1 (If1/fLI = 0.43 as a result of the values below)
0.1 < |(1-Bf²) x Br² | < 5.1 (|(1-Bt5²) x Bt6² = 4.499 table 10)
where dF is a sum of distances on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object to a lens surface closest to the image plane in each of the focus lens units (df = 23.99 as a result of the sum of the values for the focus groups GR1 d7-d10 and G5 d31-d32 table 1), L is an overall lens length of the optical system (L = 215.1482 table 3), f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit (f4 = 48.74 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 24-30 in table 1), f is a focal length of the optical system (f = 72.1013 table 3), f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (f1 = 84.73 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 1-10 in table 7), fL is a focal length of the final lens unit (fL = 231.52 as a result of matrix calculations from the values of surfaces 33-42 in table 1), Bf is a lateral magnification of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units, and Br is a combined lateral magnification of all lens units disposed on the image side of the focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units.
Miyagawa does not disclose, wherein the optical system is attachable to and detachable from an image pickup apparatus,
wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance,
the first lens unit being fixed relative to the image plane during the focusing,
wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane among the focus lens units moves toward the image side during the focusing,
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher,
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
dF/L < 0.099.
However Kubota discloses in at least example 9 (fig. 9 table [0190]), wherein the optical system (macro lens paragraph [0151] of translation) is attachable to and detachable (the mount section 3 enables the photographic optical system 2 to be attached and detached from the body of the single lens mirrorless camera 1 paragraph [0194] of translation) from an image pickup apparatus (mirrorless camera a fig. 23).
Kubota further discloses (paragraphs [00194-00195]) " The mount section 3 enables the photographic optical system 2 to be attached to and detached from the body of the single-lens mirrorless camera 1. The mount 3 may be a screw-type mount or a bayonet-type mount. In this example, a bayonet type mount is used. An image pickup device surface 4 and a back monitor 5 are also arranged on the body of the single-lens mirrorless camera 1. As the imaging element, a small CCD or CMOS is used. The photographing optical system 2 of the single-lens mirrorless camera 1 is, for example, the macro lens shown in the above embodiment".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a detachable lens as taught by Kubota in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to use a detachable lens because Kubota teaches that different embodiments of the lens can be attached to the body of the camera (Kubota paragraphs [0194] – [0195]).
Additionally Suzuki discloses in at least example 2 (fig. 3A-3B, table [0104]), wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during focusing from infinity to a close distance (an interval between adjacent lens units changes in focusing from an infinite-distance object to a close-distance object paragraph [0030]),
the first lens unit (first lens unit L1 paragraph [0091]) being fixed relative to the image plane (IP fig. 3) during the focusing (L1 is fixed during focusing because it does not have arrows showing focus movement fig. 3A paragraph [0032]),
wherein the optical system is configured to increase an absolute value of an imaging magnification at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (Conditional Expression (11) defines a maximum imaging magnification in each of the exemplary embodiments paragraph [0077]) at a shortest imaging distance to 0.5 times or higher (I Bm I = 2 table1).
Suzuki further discloses (paragraphs [0078]-[0079) " If a value of βm exceeds an upper limit of Conditional Expression (11), a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes insufficient. As a result, it becomes difficult to perform image capturing while sufficiently enlarging a subject, which is undesirable.
If a value of βm falls below a lower limit of Conditional Expression (11), an absolute value of a lateral magnification when an imaging magnification becomes maximum becomes too large. As a result, it becomes difficult to sufficiently shorten the total lens length while maintaining optical performance, which is undesirable".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification as taught by Suzuki in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to fix the first lens unit, vary the distances between each adjacent units and use the shortest imaging distance for imaging magnification because Suzuki teaches that controlling the imaging magnification is necessary to perform image capturing with sufficiently enlarging the subject. (Suzuki paragraph [0078]-[0079]).
Further Ichimura discloses in at least figure 1, wherein a focus lens unit closest to the image plane (B6 fig. 1) among the focus lens units (B6 and B4 fig. 1) moves toward the image side during the focusing (B6 moves to the image side for focusing fig. 1).
Ichimura further discloses (paragraph [0048]-[0049]) "the fourth lens unit B4 and the sixth lens unit B6 can be moved along loci that are different from those of the other lens units moved by the zoom cam 20... the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus.".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to move the focus group closest to the image side toward the image side during focusing as taught by Ichimura in the in the zoom lens of Miyagawa. One would have been motivated to move the image side focal unit towards the image side because Ichimura teaches that the number of mechanical zoom cams can be reduced to simplify the structure of the lens apparatus (Ichimura paragraph [0048]-[0049]).
Further It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of dF/L = 0.11 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.025 < dF/L < 0.099 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose dF/L such that .025 < dF/L < 0.099 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakahara et al. (US 20200110242 A1) discloses an optical system with five lens groups where two focus groups are on either side of the aperture stop.
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 ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872