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
The Amendment filed September 1st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 27-32 have been canceled. Claim 33 has been added. The amendments to the claims were sufficient to overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 2nd, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Kawamura does not satisfy the newly amended claimed inequality 45.0° < ωw < 90.0°. However, it has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985). In this case, Kawamura discloses ωw = 43° (¶0434) that is just outside the claimed range of 45.0° < ωw < 90.0°. The difference between the prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Kawamura the additional feature of having the ωw value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Kawamura.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not satisfy the claimed inequality 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80. Specifically, applicant argues that if one were to change the position of the aperture stop to be between the first and second lens units, the off-axis rays would not adequately pass through the lenses of the lens units disposed on the image side of the second lens unit, therefore the off-axis rays would be vignetted and the lens system would not achieve the desired wide-angle performance. However, the examiner disagrees. There are multiple ways to adjust the aperture to achieve the desired effects, including changing the aperture size. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to change both the position and the aperture size to achieve the desired optical effects. Applicant is further invited to provide data or evidence that moving the aperture stop in the lenses of Harada, Yamaguchi, and Umeda would necessarily undermine the wide-angle configuration. It is well-known that changing the position of a stop can be done without any great perturbation of the existing setup1. Examiner additionally notes that vignetting can be a desired optical design choice2. Further, one would be motivated to adjust the position of the stop to meet the claimed range for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio, for example see ¶0083-¶0084 of Kawamura.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 14-15, 17-21, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 20200333621 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Harada discloses a zoom lens (Example 1; Fig. 1; Table 1) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side:
a front group (G1-S; Fig. 1) including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2, G3);
an image stabilizing unit (G4; Fig. 1) having negative refractive power (Fig. 1); and
a rear group (G5; Fig. 1) including one or more lens units (Fig. 1),
wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (Fig. 1),
wherein the front group (G1-S) has a focus unit (G2; Fig. 1) and an aperture stop (S; Fig. 1), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 45.0° < ωw < 90.0° (ωw = 57.5°; Table 1).
Harada does not disclose the following inequality is satisfied: 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80. However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such that the inequality 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80 is satisfied for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.1 < ΦIS/ΦR < 0.8 (implicit from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 25 < νdF < 100 (νdF = 70.4; Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 < DLFw/TLw < 0.70 (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.04 < Skw/TLw < 0.40 (Skw/TLw = 0.18; Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of a lens unit having negative refractive power included in the front group (G1) to the aperture stop (S) becomes narrower during zooming from the wide-angle end to a telephoto end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -0.45 < fLN/fLF < -0.15 (fLN/fLF = -0.28; Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 < |fLR/fLIS| < 11.00 (|fLR/fLIS| = 0.70; Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.40 < ndF < 1.91 (ndF = 1.78; Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 20 < νdGIS < 80 (νdGIS = 67; Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -1.60 < Ymax_w/fLN < -0.40 (Ymax_w/fLN = -0.75; Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -40% < Dist_w < 0% (Dist_w ≈ -5%; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-S) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) that includes a plurality of meniscus lenses having convex surfaces toward the object side and arranged in order from the object side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-S) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) that includes, in order from the object side, four or more negative lenses and at least one positive lens (Fig. 1; Table 1; ¶0055).
Regarding claim 19, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-S) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) that moves during zooming (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada does not disclose at the wide-angle end, a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens.
However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 21, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the aperture stop (S) is disposed adjacent to and on the image side of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) included in the front group (G1-S) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G5) has positive refractive power (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 33, Harada discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Harada further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 46.0° < ωw < 90.0° (ωw = 57.5°; Table 1).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, 19-21, 24-26, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20180275381 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kawamura discloses a zoom lens (Example 2; Fig. 2; ¶0434) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side:
a front group (G1-S; Fig. 2) including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2a, G2b; Fig. 2);
an image stabilizing unit (G4; Fig. 2) having negative refractive power (Fig. 2; ¶0367, ¶0434); and
a rear group (G5; Fig. 2) including one or more lens units (G5; Fig. 2),
wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (Fig. 2),
wherein the front group (G1-S) has a focus unit (G2b; Fig. 2; ¶0374) and an aperture stop (S; Fig. 2), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80 (DISw/DSPw = 0.47; ¶0434).
Kawamura does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 45.0° < ωw < 90.0° is satisfied. Kawamura discloses ωw = 43° (¶0434) that is just outside the claimed range of 45.0° < ωw < 90.0°. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Kawamura the additional feature of having the ωw value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Kawamura.
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.1 < ΦIS/ΦR < 0.8 (implicit from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 25 < νdF < 100 (νdF = 82; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 < DLFw/TLw < 0.70 (Fig. 2; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.04 < Skw/TLw < 0.40 (Skw/TLw = 0.12; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of a lens unit having negative refractive power included in the front group (G2b) to the aperture stop (S) becomes narrower during zooming from the wide-angle end to a telephoto end (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 < |fLR/fLIS| < 11.00 (|fLR/fLIS| = 1.70; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 10, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.40 < ndF < 1.91 (ndF = 1.50; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 11, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 20 < νdGIS < 80 (νdGIS = 45.45; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 22 < νdGNP < 50 (νdGNP = 25; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.0 < (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) < 13.0 ((R1+R2)/(R1-R2) = 1.37; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Kawamura does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of -1.60 < Ymax_w/fLN < -0.40 is satisfied. Kawamura discloses Ymax_w/fLN = -0.39 (¶0434) that is just outside the claimed range of -1.60 < Ymax_w/fLN < -0.40. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Kawamura the additional feature of having the Ymax_w/fLN value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Kawamura.
Regarding claim 15, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -40 < Dist_w < 0 (Dist_w ≈ -10%; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses a memory storing distortion correction data for correcting distortion (¶0465).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-S) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G2a) that moves during zooming (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses at the wide-angle end, a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group (last lens surface in G2b) to the aperture stop (S) is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the aperture stop (S) is disposed adjacent to and on the image side of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G2b) included in the front group (G1-S) (Fig, 2).
Regarding claim 23, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G5) is fixed relative to the image plane during zooming (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G5) has positive refractive power (Fig. 2; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 25, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the focus unit (G2b) consists of a single lens (Fig. 2; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 26, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura further discloses the image stabilizing unit (G4) consists of two or less lenses (Fig. 2; ¶0434).
Regarding claim 33, Kawamura discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kawamura does not specifically disclose the following inequality is satisfied: 46.0° < ωw < 90.0°.
Kawamura discloses ωw = 43° (¶0434) that is just outside the claimed range of 46.0° < ωw < 90.0°. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Kawamura the additional feature of having the ωw value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Kawamura.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 19-21, 24, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 20180252903 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a zoom lens (Example 1; Fig. 1; Table 1) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side:
a front group (G1-G3; Fig. 1) including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2, G3);
an image stabilizing unit (G4; Fig. 1) having negative refractive power (Fig. 1); and
a rear group (G5; Fig. 1) including one or more lens units (Fig. 1),
wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (Fig. 1),
wherein the front group (G1-G3) has a focus unit (G2; Fig. 1) and an aperture stop (S; Fig. 1).
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 45.0° < ωw < 90.0° is satisfied. Yamaguchi discloses ωw = 43.24° (Fig. 2; Table 1) that is just outside the claimed range of 45.0° < ωw < 90.0°. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Yamaguchi the additional feature of having the ωw value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Yamaguchi.
Yamaguchi does not disclose the following inequality is satisfied: 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80. However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such that the inequality 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80 is satisfied for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above, Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.1 < ΦIS/ΦR < 0.8 (implicit from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above, Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 25 < νdF < 100 (νdF = 47; Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 < DLFw/TLw < 0.70 (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.04 < Skw/TLw < 0.40 (Skw/TLw = 0.29; Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G2) included in the front group (G1-G3) to the aperture stop (S) becomes narrower during zooming from the wide-angle end to a telephoto end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.00 < |fLN/fLR| < 0.40 (|fLN/fLR| = 0.36; Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 < |fLR/fLIS| < 11.00 (|fLR/fLIS| = 1.03; Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.40 < ndF < 1.91 (ndF = 1.88; Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 20 < νdGIS < 80 (νdGIS = 45; Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 22 < νdGNP < 50 (νdGNP = 46; Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 0.0 < (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) < 13.0 is satisfied. Yamaguchi discloses (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) = -0.18 (Table 1) that is just outside the claimed range of 0.0 < (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) < 13.0. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Yamaguchi the additional feature of having the (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -1.60 < Ymax_w/fLN < -0.40 (Ymax_w/fLN = -1.13; Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -40 < Dist_w < 0 (Dist_w ≈ -5; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-G3) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G2) that moves during zooming (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi does not disclose at the wide-angle end, a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens.
However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 21, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses the aperture stop (S) is disposed adjacent to and on the image side of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G2) included in the front group (G1-G3) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Yamaguchi further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G5) has positive refractive power (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 33, Yamaguchi discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the conditional expression of 46.0° < ωw < 90.0° is satisfied. Yamaguchi discloses ωw = 43.24° (Fig. 2; Table 1) that is just outside the claimed range of 46.0° < ωw < 90.0°. It has been held that where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985).
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value and the claimed range is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the zoom lens system of Yamaguchi the additional feature of having the ωw value within the claimed range since this range closely approximates the suggested value taught by Yamaguchi.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17, 19-24, 26, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda (US 20180196223 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Umeda discloses a zoom lens (Example 1; Fig. 1; Table 1) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side:
a front group (G1-S; Fig. 1) including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2F, G2R);
an image stabilizing unit (G3; Fig. 1) having negative refractive power (Table 1); and
a rear group (G4-G5; Fig. 1) including one or more lens units (G4, G5; Fig. 1),
wherein each distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (Fig. 1),
wherein the front group (G1-S) has a focus unit (G2F; Fig. 1) and an aperture stop (S; Fig. 1), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 45.0° < ωw < 90.0° (ωw = 54.0°; Table 1).
Umeda does not disclose the following inequality is satisfied: 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80. However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such that the inequality 0.40 < DISw/DSPw < 0.80 is satisfied for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.1 < ΦIS/ΦR < 0.8 (implicit from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 25 < νdF < 100 (νdF = 59; Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.20 < DLFw/TLw < 0.70 (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.04 < Skw/TLw < 0.40 (Skw/TLw = 0.11; Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) included in the front group (G1-S) to the aperture stop (S) becomes narrower during zooming from the wide-angle end to a telephoto end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.00 < |fLN/fLR| < 0.40 (|fLN/fLR| = 0.28; Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 < |fLR/fLIS| < 11.00 (|fLR/fLIS| = 1.33; Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 1.40 < ndF < 1.91 (ndF = 1.65; Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 20 < νdGIS < 80 (νdGIS = 45; Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 22 < νdGNP < 50 (νdGNP = 29; Table 1).
Regarding claim 13, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 0.0 < (R1+R2)/(R1-R2) < 13.0 ((R1+R2)/(R1-R2) = 0.54; Table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -1.60 < Ymax_w/fLN < -0.40 (Ymax_w/fLN = -0.82; Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: -40 < Dist_w < 0 (Dist_w ≈ -5; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group (G1-S) include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) that includes a plurality of meniscus lenses having convex surfaces toward the object side and arranged in order from the object side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the plurality of lens units in the front group include a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) that moves during zooming (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda does not disclose at the wide-angle end, a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens.
However, the position of an aperture stop does not affect the functionality of the device. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved the aperture stop such a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the image plane of the plurality of lens units included in the front group to the aperture stop is a maximum distance on the optical axis among lens units included in the zoom lens for the purpose of securing a wide angle of view at the wide angle end and achieving a high zoom ratio.
Regarding claim 21, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the aperture stop is disposed adjacent to and on the image side of a lens unit having negative refractive power (G1) included in the front group (G1-S) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the rear group (G4-G5) includes a plurality of lens units (G4, G5) in which a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G4-G5) is fixed relative to the image plane during zooming (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses a lens unit disposed closest to the image plane (G5) in the rear group (G4-G5) has positive refractive power (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 26, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the image stabilizing unit (G3) consists of two or less lenses (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Regarding claim 33, Umeda discloses the zoom lens according to claim 1, as set forth above. Umeda further discloses the following inequality is satisfied: 46.0° < ωw < 90.0° (ωw = 54.0°; Table 1).
Conclusion
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 15th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Gross et al. "Handbook of Optical Systems Volume 3: Aberration Theory and Correction of Optical Systems" Weinheim Germany, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 377-379 (Year: 2007).
2 King, Maggie. “How You Can Use (or Not Use) Vignetting to Transform Your Photography.” Phlearn, 30 Sept. 2019, https://phlearn.com/magazine/how-you-can-use-or-not-use-vignetting-to-transform-your-photography/.
Prosecution Insights