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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6 and 13 were mistakenly absent from Group 1 in the Requirement for Restriction filed on 10/23/2025. Claims 6 and 13 are included in Group 1 and will be examined accordingly, with the rest of the Claims in Group 1.
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) 1-3, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (US 20180017775 A1) in view of Ito (WO-2020045559-A1, See Attached Espacent, Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Hirose discloses, on Fig 1, a finder comprising, in order from an object side to an eye point side along an optical path: an objective optical system (objective system LO) that includes at least one lens (multiple lenses across groups Gr1-Gr3) and forms an intermediate image (intermediate image IM); and an ocular optical system (eyepiece system LE) [Par 21-30] that includes at least one lens (multiple lenses across Gr4-Gr5) and is provided for observation of the intermediate image (eyepiece system LE allows a human eye to observe real image surface IM)[Par 27], wherein the intermediate image is positioned on the optical path between the objective optical system and the ocular optical system (See Fig. 1), the finder includes a plurality of reflecting surfaces (prism P1 and P2 of inverted optical system PR) for forming an erect image, in a case where the objective optical system is a variable magnification optical system (objective system LO has lens group Gr 3 which moves during zooming) [Par 26].
But Hirose does not explicitly disclose wherein, each of the objective optical system and the ocular optical system has at least one of the plurality of reflecting surfaces, assuming that a focal length of the objective optical system in a state in which an infinite distance object is observed is fo, , fo is a value at a telephoto end, and a focal length of the ocular optical system in a state in which diopter is −1 is fe. Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by 2<fo/fe<8 (1).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in imaging lenses to include wherein, each of the objective optical system (ME1 in RS1) and the ocular optical system (ME2 in RS2), has at least one of the plurality of reflecting surfaces (system RS1 has mirror ME1 and system RS2 has ME2) [Par 16]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Hirose with Ito in order to provide, a lens system with a compact arrangement, as taught by Ito [Par 16].
But Hirose in view of Ito does not explicitly disclose wherein, assuming that a focal length of the objective optical system in a state in which an infinite distance object is observed is fo, in a case where the objective optical system is a variable magnification optical system, fo is a value at a telephoto end, and a focal length of the ocular optical system in a state in which diopter is −1 is fe. Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by 2<fo/fe<8 (1).
Optimizing the focal length of the ocular optical system is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover 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, Hirose teaches the explicit control of the focal length of the ocular optical system in a state in which diopter is −1 is fe (focal distance of the eyepiece system LE) [Par 36] as a variable which achieves a recognized result, reduced total length[Par 34].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, the ratio of the focal length of the objective optical system at a telephoto arrangement to the focal length of the ocular optical system, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 2, Hirose in view of Ito discloses, the finder according to claim 1, and Hirose further discloses on Table 2 and 3, wherein, assuming that a distance from a most object-side lens surface of the objective optical system to the intermediate image on an optical axis in a state in which the infinite distance object is observed is do (Sum of lens thickness from surface 1 to 11 is 61.6 mm), in a case where the objective optical system is the variable magnification optical system, do is a value at the telephoto end (using high magnification variable distances), and a distance from the intermediate image to a most eye point-side lens surface of the ocular optical system on the optical axis in a state in which the infinite distance object is observed and the diopter is −1 is de (sum of thicknesses from surface 12 to 20 is 23.44 mm), Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.8<do/de<6 (2) (61.6/23.44=2.63)
Re Claim 3, Hirose in view of Ito discloses, the finder according to claim 1, and Ito further discloses on Fig. 2-3, wherein the objective optical system has a first prism including the reflecting surface, the ocular optical system has a second prism including the reflecting surface (first and second reflective elements or mirrors can be prisms) [Par 8, 14, and 45], and assuming that a distance from a most object-side surface of the first prism to a most eye point-side surface of the first prism on an optical axis is dPo (Fig. 3: Thickness of ME1, 45 mm), and a distance from a most object-side surface of the second prism to a most eye point-side surface of the second prism on the optical axis is dPe (Fig. 3: thickness of Me2, 20 mm), Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
1.1<dPo/dPe<5 (3) (45/20=2.25).
Re Claim 6, Hirose in view of Ito discloses, the finder according to claim 1, and Ito further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein an optical surface having refractive power closest to the intermediate image on the object side of the intermediate image (L21) has positive refractive power (L21 is biconvex and positive) [Par 45].
Re Claim 7, Hoshior in view of Ito discloses, the finder according to claim 6.
But Ito in view of Hirose does not explicitly disclose, wherein assuming that a distance from the optical surface to the intermediate image on an optical axis is di, Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.025<di/fe<0.4 (4).
Optimizing the focal length of the ocular optical system is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover 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, Hirose teaches the explicit control of the focal length of the ocular optical system in a state in which diopter is −1 is fe (focal distance of the eyepiece system LE) [Par 36] as a variable which achieves a recognized result, reduced total length[Par 34].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize, the ratio of the focal length of the objective optical system at a telephoto arrangement to the focal length of the ocular optical system, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 12, Hirose in view of Ito discloses, the finder according to claim 1, and Hirose further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the objective optical system (optical system LO) includes a plurality of lens groups (G2 and G3) in which an interval between adjacent groups changes during zooming (G3 moves during zooming changing the intervals between G2 and G3) [Par 26].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 13, and 23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keiichi (US 20050259157 A1) teaches an optical path changing lens system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872