DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12 and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (US 2018/0267280 A1).
Re claim 1, Shibata et al. discloses a device comprising a first lens unit (G2) having negative refractive power (paragraph 0202, 0820); a rear group (G3-G5) including two or more lens units, and an aperture stop (SP), wherein the rear group includes an image stabilizing unit (VR) having negative refractive power (paragraph 0820; depicted as G5 having negative refractive power) and configured to move with a component in a direction orthogonal to an optical axis during image stabilization (paragraph 0380), and a focus unit (G4(GF)) disposed on the object side of the image stabilizing unit, wherein a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (paragraph 0200), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.40≤DISw/DSPw≤0.80 (see Table 1, “Lens specifications”, “Variable distance data”),
Where DSPw is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to an image plane at a wide-angle end, and DISw is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to a surface disposed closest to an object in the image stabilizing unit at the wide-angle end. The values using the data in Table 1 equate DISw as 33.55 and DSPw as 81.57, satisfying the claimed inequality.
Re claim 3, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.48≤DLFw/TLw≤0.65 (87.7/143.097) where TLw is an overall optical length of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end, and DLFw is a distance on the optical axis from a surface disposed closest to the object in the zoom lens to a surface disposed closest to the object in the focus unit (Table 1). The values using the data in Table 1 equate DLFw as 87.7 and TLw as 143.097, satisfying the claimed inequality.
Re claim 4, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.04 ≤ Skw/TLw ≤ 0.25 (25.126/143.097) where Skw is a back focus of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end, and TLw is an overall optical length of the zoom lens at the wide-angle end (Table 1). The values calculated using the data in Table 1 equate Skw as 25.126 and TLw as 143.097, therefore satisfying the claimed inequality.
Re claim 5, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -0.45 ≤ fL1/fLF ≤ -0.15 (-18.31/43.13) where fL1 is a focal length of the first lens unit, and fLF is a focal length of the focus unit. The values using the data in Table 1 equate fL1 as -18.31 and fLF as 43.13, satisfying the claimed inequality.
Re claim 6, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.00 < |fL1/fLN| ≤ 0.40 (-18.31/-75.33) where fL1 is a focal length of the first lens unit, and fLN is a focal length of a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane in the zoom lens. The values using the data in Table 1 equate fL1 as -18.31 and fLN as -75.33, satisfying the claimed inequality
Re claim 7, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 ≤ |fLN/fLIS| ≤ 1.60 where fLN is a focal length of a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane in the zoom lens, and fLIS is a focal length of the image stabilizing unit. Shibata et al. disclose the device wherein -1.500<fV/fRF<0.645, wherein fRF is equal to the focal length of the fifth lens group G5 (paragraphs 0382-0384). The fifth lens group GF is the lens unit closest to the image plane in the zoom lens, which has a focal length of -75.33 (Table 1). fV is the focal length of the image stabilizing unit. Given the inequality-1.500<fV/fRF<0.645, an fV value can be 55. Therefore (-75.33/55), would be in the claimed range, satisfying the inequality.
Re claim 12, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-1.60 ≤ Ymax_w/fL1 ≤ -0.40 where Ymax_w is a maximum image height at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity, and fL1 is a focal length of the first lens unit. The values using the data in Table 1 equate Ymax_w as 19.55 and fL1 as -18.31, satisfying the claimed inequality.
Re claim 16, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the first lens unit moves during zoom (paragraph 0253).
Re claim 17, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein a lens unit (G5, not including VR) disposed closest to the image plane in the zoom lens includes three or fewer lens (Fig. 1).
Re claim 18, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein a distance between the first lens unit (G2) and a second lens unit (G3) is maximum among distances between all lens unit included in the zoom lens at the wide-angle end (Fig. 1, (W))
Re claim 19, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the rear lens group includes three or more lens units (G3, G4, G5), distances between which change during zooming (paragraph 0202-0203).
Re claim 20, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane in the zoom lens is fixed during zooming (Fig. 5, ref. G6; paragraph 0870). In Example 2, G6 may be included in the rear group.
Re claim 21, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the aperture stop (S) is disposed on the object side of the focus unit (GF).
Re claim 22, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the two or more lens units included in the rear group include, in order from the object side to the image side: a second lens unit (G3) having positive refractive power; a third lens unit (G4) having positive refractive power, and a fourth lens unit (G6) having positive refractive power (see Table 2, “Group focal length”). In Example 2, the inequality: 0.40≤DISw/DSPw≤0.80 is satisfied (see Table 2, “Lens specifications”, “Variable distance data”).
Re claim 23, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the second lens unit (G3) having positive refractive power; a third lens unit (G4) having positive refractive power; a fourth lens unit (G5) having negative refractive power; and a fifth lens unit (G6) having positive refractive power (see Table 2, “Group focal length”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 8-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al.
Re claim 2, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the focus unit includes a positive lens (L41), but does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
25≤vdGP≤45
Where vdGP is an Abbe number of the positive lens based on d-line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied. Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the Abbe number of a positive lens determines the chromatic aberration of the lens (paragraph 0734). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein 25≤vdGP≤45 to obtain a desired chromatic aberration is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claim 8, Shibata et al. does not disclose the device wherein the focus unit includes a positive lens, and the following inequality is satisfied: 1.60<ndGP<1.91,
wherein ndGP is a refractive index of the positive lens for d-line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the focus unit includes a positive lens, and the following inequality is satisfied: 1.60<ndGP<1.91. Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein ndGP is 1.583 (Table 1). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 9, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the image stabilizing unit includes a negative lens (L52), but does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 35 ≤νdGIS ≤ 60 where νdGIS is an Abbe number of the negative lens for d-line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 35 ≤νdGIS ≤ 60 where νdGIS is an Abbe number of the negative lens for d-line. Shibata et al. discloses that the Abbe number of a negative lens determines the chromatic aberration of the lens (paragraph 0786-0787). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein 35 ≤νdGIS ≤ 60 to obtain a desired aberration of the lens is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art
Re claim 10, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the first lens unit includes at least one positive lens (Fig. 1, ref. L23), but does not disclose the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 22≤νdG1P ≤ 50, where vdG1P is an Abbe number of a positive lens having strongest refractive power among the at least one positive lenses for d-line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 22≤νdG1P ≤ 50, where vdG1P is an Abbe number of a positive lens having strongest refractive power among the at least one positive lenses for d-line. Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the Abbe number of a positive lens determines the chromatic aberration of the lens (paragraph 0734). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein 22≤νdG1P ≤ 50 to obtain a desired chromatic aberration is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claim 13, Shibata et al. discloses the device wherein the Dist_w at a maximum image height at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity (Fig. 2A), but does not disclose wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -20 ≤ Dist_w ≤ -8.0 where Dist_w is a distortion amount at a maximum image height at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -20 ≤ Dist_w ≤ -8.0 where Dist_w is a distortion amount at a maximum image height at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity since it is well known in the art to minimize distortion at a maximum image height at the wide-angle end in an in-focus state at infinity for improved image quality.
Re claim 14, Shibata et al. does not disclose the device further comprising a memory storing correction data to be used to correct distortion of the zoom lens.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to employ the device further comprising a memory storing correction data to be used to correct distortion of the zoom lens since doing so is well known in the art as a process of image correction comparing previous data.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. in view of Bito et al (US 2015/0103211 A1).
Shibata et al. discloses a device comprising a zoom lens (ZL1); wherein the zoom lens comprising, in order from an object side to an image side: first lens unit (G2) having negative refractive power (paragraph 0202, 820); a rear group (G3-G5) including two or more lens units, and an aperture stop (SP), wherein the rear group includes an image stabilizing unit (VR) having negative refractive power (paragraph 0820, depicted as G5 having negative refractive power) and configured to move with a component in a direction orthogonal to an optical axis during image stabilization (paragraph 0380), and a focus unit (G4(GF)) disposed on the object side of the image stabilizing unit, wherein a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (paragraph 0200), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.40≤DISw/DSPw≤0.80 (see Table 1, “Lens specifications”, “Variable distance data”),
Where DSPw is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to an image plane at a wide-angle end, and DISw is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to a surface disposed closest to an object in the image stabilizing unit at the wide-angle end. The values using the data in Table 1 equate DISw as 33.55 and DSPw as 81.57, satisfying the claimed inequality.
Shibata et al. does not disclose the device comprising an image sensor configured to receive an optical image formed by the zoom lens.
Bito et al. discloses a device comprising an image sensor (2) configured to receive an optical image formed by a zoom lens (paragraphs 0189-0194; Fig. 16, ref. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising an image sensor configured to receive an optical image formed by the zoom lens since one would be motivated to convert an optical image to an electrical image signal (paragraph 0061).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. and Bito et al. in view of Mogi (US 2015/0219882 A1).
Shibata et al. as modified by Bito et al. does not disclose the device wherein an effective image circle diameter of the image pickup apparatus on the image sensor at the wide-angle end is small than that at a telephoto end.
Mogi discloses a device wherein an effective circle diameter of an image pickup apparatus at a wide-angle end can be smaller than an effective image circle diameter at a telephoto end (paragraph 0086).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein an effective image circle diameter of the image pickup apparatus on the image sensor at the wide-angle end is small than that at a telephoto end since one would be motivated to correct distortion (paragraph 0086).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. and Boto et al. in view of Kimura (US 2019/0215454 A1).
Shibata et al. does not disclose the device wherein the image sensor moves in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis together with the image stabilizing unit.
Kimura discloses a device wherein the image sensor moves in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the image sensor moves in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis together with the image stabilizing unit since one would be motivated by blur correction (paragraph 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11, 15 and 24-26 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871