DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 01/06/2026) with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
On page 8, applicant argues against the examiner’s previous 103 rejection of claim 2 (whose limitations are now amended into claim 1), in view of Katayose and In re Aller. Applicant suggests that modifying Katayose as proposed by the examiner “would weaken the negative refractive power of Katayose, thus rendering the zoom lens of Katayose unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
However, it has been recognized by the court that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inv., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Applicant should take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Applicant has not fully accounted for modifications beyond change in lens curvature(s). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other, routine, adjustments would be required beyond the simple substitution of lens curvature(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1, 4, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 12228698 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an attachment optical system comprising:
a first optical system consisting of a dome-shaped lens (Fig. 5, E1) attachable to an object side of an imaging optical system (Fig. 5); and
a second optical system (Fig. 5, E4) attachable to an image side of the imaging optical system (Fig. 5),
wherein the dome-shaped lens is a negative lens (Table 5, -3.34),
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.00 < |fd/fc| < 0.11 (Table 5, fd= -3.34 and fc= 321.48, giving 0.0104)
where fd is a focal length of the first optical system, and fc is a focal length of the second optical system.
Li fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 where rdl is a radius of curvature of a surface on the object side of the dome-shaped lens, and rd2 is a radius of curvature of a surface on the image side of the dome-shaped lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radii of curvature of Li such that 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the rd1 and/or rd2 values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 4, modified Li discloses the attachment optical system according to claim 1; and an imaging optical system (Fig. 5, E1-E7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li discloses wherein the imaging optical system consists of, in order from the object side to the image side, a first lens unit having negative refractive power (Table 5, S1-S2, -3.34) and a second lens unit having positive refractive power (Table 5, S3-S11, 1.87).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li discloses wherein the imaging optical system consists of, in order from the object side to the image side, a first lens unit having negative refractive power (Table 5, S1-S2, -3.34), a second lens unit having positive refractive power (Table 5, S3-S11, 1.87), and a third lens unit having positive refractive power (Table 5, S3-S16, 2.81).
Regarding claim 11, modified Li discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising: the attachment optical system according to claim 1; the imaging optical system; and an image sensor configured to receive image light formed by the imaging optical system (column 8 lines 8-16).
5. Claims 1, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 9897785 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses an attachment optical system comprising:
a first optical system consisting of a dome-shaped lens (Table 1, Lens 1) attachable to an object side of an imaging optical system (Fig. 1); and
a second optical system (Table 1, Lens 3) attachable to an image side of the imaging optical system (Fig. 1),
wherein the dome-shaped lens is a negative lens (Table 1, -3.38),
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.00 < |fd/fc| < 0.11 (Table 1, fd= -3.38 and fc= 628.92, giving)
where fd is a focal length of the first optical system, and fc is a focal length of the second optical system.
Lin fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 where rdl is a radius of curvature of a surface on the object side of the dome-shaped lens, and rd2 is a radius of curvature of a surface on the image side of the dome-shaped lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radii of curvature of Lin such that 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the rd1 and/or rd2 values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lin discloses the attachment optical system according to claim 1; and an imaging optical system (Table 1, surfaces 1-13).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied 110 < 2ω ≤ 180 (Table 1, 2ω= 140°) where ω is an atmospheric half angle of view of the imaging optical system.
6. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Katayose (US 20180372993 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Katayose discloses an attachment optical system comprising:
a first optical system consisting of a dome-shaped lens (Fig. 5, G11) attachable to an object side of an imaging optical system (Fig. 5); and
a second optical system (Fig. 5, L6) attachable to an image side of the imaging optical system (Fig. 5),
wherein the dome-shaped lens is a negative lens ([0100], -84.322; the examiner has just identified and calculated this value for the first time),
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.00 < |fd/fc| < 0.11 ([0100], Zoom lens unit data, fd= -84.322 and fc= 820.88, giving 0.10272)
where fd is a focal length of the first optical system, and fc is a focal length of the second optical system.
Katayose fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 where rdl is a radius of curvature of a surface on the object side of the dome-shaped lens, and rd2 is a radius of curvature of a surface on the image side of the dome-shaped lens.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radii of curvature of Katayose such that 10 < |(rd2+rdl)/(rd2-rdl)| < 60 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the rd1 and/or rd2 values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Katayose fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.7 < |(rd1–rd2)/Dd| ≤ 1.0 where Dd is a thickness of the dome-shaped lens on the optical axis.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the radii of curvature of modified Katayose such that 0.7 < |(rd1–rd2)/Dd| ≤ 1.0 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the rd1 and/or rd2 values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 4, Katayose discloses the attachment optical system according to claim 1; and an imaging optical system (Fig. 5, L1-L6).
Regarding claim 5, modified Katayose fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.5 < tkw/rd1 < 1.0 where tkw is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object of the first optical system at a wide-angle end to an entrance pupil position of an optical system including all lenses from a lens closest to an object of the first optical system to a lens closest to an image side of the second optical system.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the curvature of the object-side of modified Katayose’s dome-shaped lens such that 0.5 < tkw/rd1 < 1.0 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the rd1 value of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
Regarding claim 6, modified Katayose fails to disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 1.0 < |skcw/skmw| < 1.2 where skcw is an underwater distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to an image plane of the imaging optical system to which the attachment optical system is attached at the wide-angle end to the image plane, and skmw is an atmospheric distance on the optical axis from the lens surface closest to the image plane of the imaging optical system to which the attachment optical system is attached at the wide-angle end to the image plane.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the distances within modified Katayose such that 1.0 < |skcw/skmw| < 1.2 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the skcw and/or skmw values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by optimizing the size of the system.
Regarding claim 7, modified Katayose fails to disclose wherein the imaging optical system includes a focus lens unit, and the following inequality is satisfied: 0.3 < dxw/dxt < 1.0 where dxw is an underwater moving amount of the focus lens unit at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity relative to an atmospheric position, and dxt is an underwater moving amount of the focus lens unit at a telephoto end in the in-focus state at infinity relative to an atmospheric position.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of lens design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, lens thickness, lens distances, and other shape concerns, in order to allow a lens system to meet its particular utility (usually based on focal length, but also on aberration elimination). This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the dxw and/or dxt values of modified Katayose such that 0.3 < dxw/dxt < 1.0 was satisfied, 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 this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the dxw and/or dxt values of the system such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by improving image aberration correction.
7. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Katayose in view of Mori et al. (US 20210231931 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Katayose discloses an image pickup system comprising: an optical system comprising the attachment optical system according to claim 1 and an imaging optical system (Fig. 5, G11-G62).
Modified Katayose fails to disclose a control unit configured to control the optical system during zooming.
However, Mori disclose a similar optical system (Fig. 5), and discloses a control unit configured to control the optical system during zooming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Katayose and Mori such that a control unit was configured to control the optical system, motivated by controlling zoom.
Regarding claim 13, modified Katayose discloses wherein the control unit is separate from the optical system (Mori - claim 14), and includes a transmission unit configured to transmit a control signal for controlling the optical system (Mori - claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, modified Katayose discloses wherein the control unit is separate from the optical system (Mori - claim 15), and includes an operation unit for operating the optical system (Mori - claim 15).
Regarding claim 15, modified Katayose discloses further comprising a display unit (Mori - claim 16) configured to display information about zoom of the optical system (Mori - claim 16).
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights