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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et. al US 20200132974 (hereinafter “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a zoom lens comprising:
in order from an object side,
a first lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L1) having positive refractive power (Kimura para. 0054);
a second lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L2) having negative refractive power (Kimura para. 0054);
a third lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L3-L4) having positive refractive power (Kimura para. 0054);
a fourth lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L5) having negative refractive power (Kimura para. 0054); and
a fifth lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L6) having negative refractive power (Kimura para. 0054), wherein
magnification varies by changing an interval on an optical axis between adjacent lens groups (Kimura para. 0045),
the third lens group (L3-L4) consists of, in order from the object side, an object side portion group (Kimura fig. 5 – L3) arranged on an object side with a widest air interval in the third lens group (Kimura fig. 5 – L3 proceeds air gap), and an image side portion group (Kimura fig. 5 – L4) arranged on an image side with the air interval (Kimura fig. 5 – L4 is on the image side of an air gap),
the second lens group (L2) moves along an optical axis at a time of magnification change (Kimura fig. 5 – arrow below L2 indicates movement toward the object side, see also para. 0045 and 0055), and
the object side portion group (L3) and the image side portion group (L4) each include a positive lens, a positive lens, and a negative lens arranged in order from an object side (Kimura fig. 5 – L3 and L4 each have these lenses in the claimed order),
a following expression is satisfied:
(1) 2.38<f1/fw<3.34 (Kimura teaches a range of 2.0<f1/fw<10.0 – which is an overlapping range made prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05)) for the purpose of making it easier to ensure a desired image pickup angle of view (Kimura para. 0076). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of 2.38<f1/fw<3.34 in order to make it easier to ensure a desired image pickup angle of view (Kimura para. 0076).)
where,
f1 is a focal length of the first lens group; and
fw is a focal length of the zoom lens at a wide-angle end.
Regarding claim 5, Kimura teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, and Kimura further teaches wherein the fourth lens group (L5) is moved in an optical axis direction to focus on a near-distance object from infinity (Kimura fig. 5 – arrow below L5 indicates movement).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Kimura does not specify wherein a following expression is satisfied: (7) -1.5<β2t<-0.96 where, β2t is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a telephoto end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have (7) -1.5<β2t<-0.96 where, β2t is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a telephoto end, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches the zoom lens according to claim 5.
Kimura does not specify wherein a following expression is satisfied: (8) -11.01<(1-β4
t
2
)×β5
t
2
<-6.89 where, β4t is a lateral magnification of the fourth lens group at a telephoto end; and β5t is a lateral magnification of the fifth lens group at a telephoto end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have (8) -11.01<(1-β4
t
2
)×β5
t
2
<-6.89 where, β4t is a lateral magnification of the fourth lens group at a telephoto end; and β5t is a lateral magnification of the fifth lens group at a telephoto end, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1.
Kimura does not specify wherein a following expression is satisfied: (9) 3.15<β2t/β2w<4.51 where, β2t is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a telephoto end; and β2w is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a wide-angle end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have (9) 3.15<β2t/β2w<4.51 where, β2t is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a telephoto end; and β2w is a lateral magnification of the second lens group at a wide-angle end, since it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches an imaging device (Kimura fig. 11 – 10, see also para. 0102) comprising:
the zoom lens according to claim 1 (see Kimura rejection of claim 1 above); and
an image sensor that is provided on an image side of the zoom lens and converts an optical image formed by the zoom lens into an electrical signal (Kimura para. 0041 – CCD or CMOS sensor).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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 2, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the positive lenses included in the image side portion group satisfies following Expressions (2) and (3):
(2) 0.565<(ng-nF)/(nF-nC)<0.600
(3) 33.00<vd3B<41.00
where,
ng is a refractive index of a positive lens included in the image side portion group with respect to a g-line;
nF is a refractive index of a positive lens included in the image side portion group with respect to an F-line;
nC is a refractive index of a positive lens included in the image side portion group with respect to a C-line; and
νd3B is Abbe number of positive lens included in the image side portion group with respect to d-line” in combination with all the limitations of claim 1. In particular, Kimura does not teach a positive lens in the image side portion group which meets expression (3).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach “the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the second lens group includes a vibration-compensation group that moves in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis to correct image blurring, and satisfies following Expression (4):
(4) 1.75<f2V/f2<2.82
where,
f2V is a focal length of the vibration-compensation group; and
f2 is a focal length of the second lens group” in combination with all the limitations of claim 1. In particular, Kimura does not disclose a vibration-compensation group within the second lens group.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights