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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[t]here is thus no reasonable basis for reliance on In re Aller to justify having an Abbe number within the claimed range for the front element of the first lens group in Fujisaki, as suggested by the Examiner”
The Examiner is not required to show that the prior art expressly discloses the claimed range when the claimed range results from routine optimization of a known result-effective variable. Ikemori evidences that Abbe number is a known optical-design/material-selection parameter that affects aberration correction. Thus, Abbe number is a recognized result-effective variable. Selecting a suitable lens material for Fujisaki’s front lens element of the first lens group having an Abbe number within a workable range, including 36.00 < G1vd < 48.00, would have been within routine optical design optimization. Applicant has not shown that the claimed range is critical, produces unexpected results, or that the prior art teaches away from using such an Abbe number for the claimed lens element. Accordingly, the claimed range does not patentably distinguish over Fujisaki in view of Ikemori and the rejection is maintained.
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 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisaki (US 2010/0302650, of record) in view of Ikemori (US 4,206,973, of record).
Regarding claim 42, Fujisaki discloses a zoom lens comprising, in order from an object, a first lens group ([0034] discloses: L1, first lens unit) having positive refractive power (in at least abstract discloses: first lens unit, having positive refractive power), a second lens group ([0031] discloses: L2, second lens group) having negative refractive power (in at least abstract discloses: second lens group, having a negative refractive power), a third lens group (Figure 1 depicts: L3, third lens group), a fourth lens group (Figure 1 depicts: L4, fourth lens group), and a fifth lens group ([0029] discloses: L5, fifth lens unit) having positive refractive power ([0029] discloses: L5, fifth lens unit, having a positive refractive power), respective distances between all adjacent lens groups among the first to fifth lens groups being changed upon zooming (Figure 1 depicts: respective distances between all adjacent lens groups being changed upon zooming), the first lens group and the second lens group move upon zooming from a wide angle end state to a telephoto end state (Figure 1 depicts: Lines of movement from wide angle to telephoto; Examiner notes that the first and second lens groups are considered to both move when zooming), the first lens group being composed of three or more lenses ([0036] discloses: L1, first lens group is constituted by three lenses).
Fujisaki fails to expressly disclose the following conditional expression being satisfied:
36.00 < G1vd < 48.00
where G1vd denotes an Abbe number at the d-line of a lens in the first lens group disposed closest to the object side. However, optimizing the Abbe number is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. Ikemori teaches in multiple places, see Col. 5, lines 30-35, that the Abbe number of a lens system is are adjustable to achieve ideal values to adjust for aberrations. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Fujisaki along with Ikemori teaches the Abbe number as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a suitable lens material for Fujisaki’s lens in the first lens group disposed closest to the object side having an Abbe number within a workable range, including 36.00 < G1vd < 48.00, because Ikemori teaches that Abbe number is an adjustable optical design parameter for correcting aberrations.
Regarding claim 43, the modified Fujisaki discloses the zoom lens according to claim 42, wherein the following conditional expression is satisfied:
< D1/ft < 0.15 (using values from “Numerical Embodiment 1” table and “Each kinds of Data” table; D1 is calculated to be 10.3, ft is calculated to be 126, D1/ft is calculated to be 0.08, which falls within the claimed range)
where D1 denotes a distance on an optical axis from an object side surface of the first lens group to an image side surface of the first lens group, and ft denotes a focal length of the zoom lens in the telephoto end state.
Regarding claim 44, the modified Fujisaki discloses the zoom lens according to claim 42, wherein the first lens group is composed of a cemented lens at the most object side ([0036] discloses: L1, first lens unit, is constituted by a cemented lens).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Fujisaki discloses the zoom lens according to claim 44, wherein the cemented lens is composed of a negative lens and a positive lens from the object side ([0036] discloses: L1, first lens unit, is constituted by a cemented lens which is made of negative lens and a positive lens and a negative lens).
Regarding claim 46, Fujisaki discloses an optical apparatus equipped with the zoom lens according to claim 42 ([0002] teaches: zoom lens and image pickup apparatus; therefore considered to be an optical apparatus equipped with the zoom lens).
Regarding claim 47, Fujisaki discloses a method for manufacturing a zoom lens, comprising: arranging, in a lens barrel and in order from an object, a first lens group ([0034] discloses: L1, first lens unit) having positive refractive power (in at least abstract discloses: first lens unit, having positive refractive power), a second lens group ([0031] discloses: L2, second lens group) having negative refractive power (in at least abstract discloses: second lens group, having a negative refractive power), a third lens group (Figure 1 depicts: L3, third lens group), a fourth lens group (Figure 1 depicts: L4, fourth lens group), and a fifth lens group ([0029] discloses: L5, fifth lens unit) having positive refractive power ([0029] discloses: L5, fifth lens unit, having a positive refractive power), the first to fifth lens groups being arranged such that: respective distances between all adjacent lens groups among the first to fifth lens groups are changed upon zooming (Figure 1 depicts: respective distances between all adjacent lens groups being changed upon zooming), the first lens group and the second lens group move upon zooming from a wide angle end state to a telephoto end state (Figure 1 depicts: Lines of movement from wide angle to telephoto; Examiner notes that the first and second lens groups are considered to both move when zooming), the first lens group is composed of three or more lenses ([0036] discloses: L1, first lens group is constituted by three lenses).
Fujisaki fails to disclose the following conditional expression being satisfied:
36.00 < G1vd < 48.00
where G1vd denotes an Abbe number at the d-line of a lens in the first lens group disposed closest to the object side. However, optimizing the Abbe number is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. Ikemori teaches in multiple places, see Col. 5, lines 30-35, that the Abbe number of a lens system is are adjustable to achieve ideal values to adjust for aberrations. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Fujisaki along with Ikemori teaches the Abbe number as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to keep the Abbe number between 36 and 48 since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Expedited Prosecution
To expedite prosecution, Applicant may wish to consider amending the claims to further recite additional interrelated optical conditions from the third embodiment, such as 100.00<D12t/D12w<140.00, and/or 0.04<f3/ft<0.06 to further distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights