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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka (US 2024/0045185) in view of Gohman et al. (US 2008/0198451) in view of Winterot et al. (US 2014/0313589).
Regarding claim 1, Imaoka discloses a lens (Figure 1) consisting of, in order from a magnification side (left hand side of Figures 1) to a reduction side (right hand side of Figure 1) along an optical path (left hand side to right hand side of Figure 1): a first optical system ([0060] discloses: Op, magnification optical system) that includes at least one lens (Figure 1 depicts: Op, magnification optical system, with at least one lens); and a second optical system ([0060] discloses: O1, relay optical system) that includes a plurality of lenses (Figure 1 depicts: O1, relay optical system, with a plurality of lenses), wherein the first optical system includes an intermediate image ([0062] discloses: MI, intermediate imaging position; Examiner notes that the intermediate image is formed from the lenses of the first optical system, therefore the first optical system is considered to include the intermediate image) wherein the intermediate image is formed at a position conjugate to a magnification side image formation plane ([0009] teaches: intermediate image is conjugate to both subsystems magnification and reduction via position points, including the image plane of the magnification side subsystem; the intermediate image acts like the object for the second optical system, this necessarily makes them conjugate planes).
Imaoka fails to disclose a zoom lens wherein the intermediate image is formed at a position conjugate to a magnification side image formation plane, inside the first optical system and wherein the first optical system includes a reduction side movable lens group, which moves during zooming, at a position closest to the reduction side, the second optical system remains stationary with respect to the magnification side image formation plane during zooming , and a lens adjacent to the magnification side of the intermediate image moves, a lens adjacent to the reduction side of the intermediate image moves, and the intermediate image moves, during zooming. Imaoka and Gohman are related because both disclose imaging optical systems.
Gohman teaches a zoom lens (title teaches: zoom and varifocal lens) wherein the intermediate image is formed, inside the first optical system ([0020] teaches: 20, intermediate image, is contained within 22, front lens group) and wherein the first optical system includes a reduction side movable lens group (Figure 1B depicts: 22, front lens group, is a movable lens group on the reduction side of the zoom lens), which moves during zooming (Examiner notes that all the lens systems are considered to be zoom and varifocal lenses, see [0008]; therefore the front lens group of Figure 1B is considered to move during zooming), at a position closest to the reduction side (Figure 1B depicts: 22, front lens group, at a position closest to the reduction side), the second optical system remains stationary with respect to the magnification side image formation plane during zooming ([0020] discloses: 24, rear lens group, being stationary; Examiner notes that this is considered to be during zooming).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Imaoka to incorporate the teachings of Gohman and provide a zoom lens wherein the intermediate image is formed, inside the first optical system and wherein the first optical system includes a reduction side movable lens group, which moves during zooming, at a position closest to the reduction side, the second optical system remains stationary with respect to the magnification side image formation plane during zooming. Doing so would allow for simplification of zoom mechanisms and improve optical stability while maintaining alignment with the image formation plane.
Winterot teaches a device with a lens adjacent to the magnification side of the intermediate image moves ([0104] teaches: LG2, movable assembly, including all lenses of LG2), a lens adjacent to the reduction side of the intermediate image moves ([0104] teaches: LG3, movable assembly, including all lenses of LG3), and the intermediate image moves, during zooming ([0104] teaches: ZB, movable intermediate image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Imaoka to incorporate the teachings of Winterot and provide a device with a lens adjacent to the magnification side of the intermediate image moves, a lens adjacent to the reduction side of the intermediate image moves. Doing so would allow for enabling of adjustment of magnification and correction of optical aberrations during zoom operation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the first optical system (Winterot: Examiner notes that LG1 and LG2 are considered the first optical system, defined by all the lenses before ZB, intermediate image) consists of a first A optical system (Winterot: [0104] teaches LG1, fixed optical assembly) and a first B optical system (Winterot: [0104] teaches LG2, movable optical assembly), in order from the magnification side to the reduction side along the optical path (left hand side of Figure 1 to right hand side of Figure 1), the first A optical system remains stationary with respect to the magnification side image formation plane during zooming (Winterot: [0104] teaches LG1, fixed optical assembly), and the first B optical system includes a lens group, which moves during zooming (Winterot: [0104] teaches LG2, movable optical assembly), at a position closest to the magnification side (Winterot: Figure 1 depicts: LG2, movable optical assembly, at a position closest to the magnification side in the first optical system; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Imaoka fails to disclose a system wherein the second optical system includes a stop. However, choosing a stop position is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Gohman discusses in [0007] that the position of the stop is selected to improve vignetting and performance. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to place the stop in the second optical system since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that positioning the stop in the second optical system described in the instant application solves any stated problem, is for any particular purpose or produces an unexpected result. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with varying placement of the stop, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a system wherein the second optical system includes a stop represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate image is positioned inside a lens group which moves during zooming (Gohman: Figure 1C depicts: 20, intermediate real image, in 26, moving lens group; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged), and in a case where a group, of which spacing to an adjacent group in an optical axis direction changes during zooming, is one lens group, the zoom lens includes one or more lens groups, which move during zooming, at a position closer to the magnification side than the lens group in which the intermediate image is positioned (Figure 2A depicts: G1, first lens group, that contains the intermediate image, and G2, second lens group, which moves during zooming, closer to the magnification side than the lens group in which the intermediate image is positioned).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 4, wherein the zoom lens includes one or more lens groups, which move during zooming (Figure 2A depicts: G2, second lens group that moves during zooming), at a position closer to the reduction side than the lens group in which the intermediate image is positioned (Figure 2A depicts: G2, second lens group, at a position closer to the reduction side than G1, first lens group, that contains the intermediate image).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein a lens surface adjacent to the reduction side of the intermediate image is a surface having a convex shape facing toward the magnification side (Figure 1 depicts: L12, 12th lens element, adjacent to the reduction side of MI, intermediate image position, having a convex shape facing toward the magnification side, right hand side).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein a second optical path deflecting member, which deflects the optical path, is disposed closer to the reduction side than the first optical system (Figure 1 depicts: p, optical element, disposed closer to the reduction side than Op, optical system, considered the first optical system).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate image is positioned within an air spacing in an entire zoom range (Figure 1 depicts: MI, intermediate image positioned within an air spacing in an entire zoom range; Examiner notes that the intermediate image is in air throughout the entire zoom in and out).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Imaoka discloses the projection type display device comprising the zoom lens according to claim 1 ([0008] discloses: projection apparatus).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Imaoka discloses an imaging apparatus comprising the zoom lens according to claim 1 ([0008] discloses: imaging apparatus).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka (US 2024/0045185) in view of Gohman et al. (US 2008/0198451) in view of Winterot et al. (US 2014/0313589), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Takehana (US 2019/0137853).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Imaoka fails to disclose a device wherein in a case where a group, of which spacing to an adjacent group in an optical axis direction changes during zooming, is one lens group, the first optical system includes three or more lens groups which move during zooming, including the reduction side movable lens group. Imaoka and Takehana are related because both disclose optical image devices.
Takehana teaches a device wherein in a case where a group, of which spacing to an adjacent group in an optical axis direction changes during zooming, is one lens group, the first optical system includes three or more lens groups which move during zooming, including the reduction side movable lens group ([0108] teaches: L1 through L3, lens groups are movable).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Imaoka to incorporate the teachings of Takehana and provide a device wherein in a case where a group, of which spacing to an adjacent group in an optical axis direction changes during zooming, is one lens group, the first optical system includes three or more lens groups which move during zooming, including the reduction side movable lens group. Doing so would allow for improved control of magnification and correction of optical aberrations during zooming while maintaining proper image formation, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the optical system.
Claims 8 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka (US 2024/0045185) in view of Gohman et al. (US 2008/0198451) in view of Winterot et al. (US 2014/0313589), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Mihara (US 2005/0002115).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 2.
Imaoka fails to disclose a device wherein a first optical path deflecting member, which deflects the optical path, is disposed in the first A optical system. Imaoka and Mihara are related because both disclose zoom lenses.
Mihara teaches a device wherein a first optical path deflecting member, which deflects the optical path, is disposed in the first A optical system (Figure 1(a) depicts: P, prims, in G1, first lens group; Examiner notes that G1 and G2 are considered analogous to the first optical system of Imaoka).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Imaoka to incorporate the teachings of Mihara and provide a device wherein a first optical path deflecting member, which deflects the optical path, is disposed in the first A optical system. Doing so would allow for controlled and optimized deflection of the optical path, thereby improving the overall versatility and performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 8, comprising a focusing group that moves during focusing (in at least abstract discloses: GN, lens group, moves in the optical axis direction during focusing), wherein the focusing group is disposed closer to the magnification side than the first optical path deflecting member (Figure 1 depicts: GN, lens group, to the right of GP1, first lens group, where the modified optical path deflecting member of Imaoka from claim 8 is disposed).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 8, wherein a second optical path deflecting member, which deflects the optical path, is disposed closer to the reduction side than the first optical system (Figure 1 depicts: p, optical element, disposed closer to the reduction side than Op, optical system, considered the first optical system; Examiner notes that this is considered the second deflecting member of the modified lens system).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Imaoka (US 2024/0045185) in view of Gohman et al. (US 2008/0198451) in view of Winterot et al. (US 2014/0313589) in view of Mihara (US 2005/0002115) , as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Ivanov et al. (US 2023/0236393).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Imaoka discloses the zoom lens according to claim 13.
Imaoka fails to disclose a device wherein all lens groups, which move during zooming, are disposed on the optical path between the first optical path deflecting member and the second optical path deflecting member. Imaoka and Ivanov are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ivanov teaches a device wherein all lens groups, which move during zooming, are disposed on the optical path between the first optical path deflecting member and the second optical path deflecting member (Figure 1 depicts: entire lens set, analogous to all lens groups that move during zooming, between optical path deflecting members 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Imaoka to incorporate the teachings of Ivanov and provide a device wherein all lens groups, which move during zooming, are disposed on the optical path between the first optical path deflecting member and the second optical path deflecting member. Doing so would allow for consistent optical alignment between optical path deflecting members while the zoom groups move, thereby improving stability of the optical path zooming.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12 and 15-16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach “Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by Dbend1 > (E1f+E1r)/4” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 9, 8 2 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 9 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach “, Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by Dbend2 > (E2f+E2r)/4” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 12, 11 and 1 in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 12 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yanagisawa et al. (US 2023/0367191), Matsuo (US 2023/0305275), Zhao et al. (US 2022/0283412), Masui et al. (US 2019/0129285) and Betensky et al. (US 2004/0021953) all disclose relevant optical systems but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872