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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Nagahara fails to teach or suggest the structural arrangement where the second to fifth lens groups move specifically along the optical axis while interacting with the designated aperture stop location (between the 4th and 5th groups or within the 5th group) to achieve the high-efficiency F 1.7~2.6 performance. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses a wide angle zoom projection lens as claimed including an aperture diaphragm is moved between the fourth lens group and the fifth lens group during the power-varying to keep Fno constant in the whole power-varying region (see at least abstract). However, Nagahara et al. is silent regarding wherein an aperture is set between the fourth lens group and the fifth lens group, and the F value of the aperture is between 1.7 and 2.6 and 1.3≤Ww/Dw≤2.5. 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 F value of the aperture being between 1.7 and 2.6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance to the screen based on the size of the screen, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.3≤Ww/Dw≤2.5, Ww is the projection screen width of wide angle end, Dw is the projection distance at the wide angle end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In addition, Yamasaki (figure 1) teaches the front lens of the first lens group closest to the magnifying side of the lens is an aspherical lens with negative diopter to achieve a wide angle effect (see at least paragraphs 0034-0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens group as taught by Yamasaki in order to efficiently reduce aberrations.
The limitation, “during the zooming, the first lens group and the sixth lens group are fixed, the second to fifth lens groups move along the optical axis to achieve changes in focal length” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Nagahara et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The applicant should note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject mater but simply what the references make obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman, 165 USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47, (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385.
Furthermore, the claimed range is merely an optimization of the range of voltages taught by the prior art. Where 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).
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahara et al. (US 2009/0135497) in view of Yamasaki (US 2008/0304162).
Regarding claim 1, Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses a wide angle zoom projection lens, which from the magnifying side to the narrowing side of the lens sequentially comprising (figure 1): a first lens group with negative diopter, a second lens group, a third lens group with positive diopter, a fourth lens group with positive diopter, a fifth lens group with positive diopter, a sixth lens group with positive diopter, and an aperture in the lens (see at least abstract); during the zooming, the first lens group and the sixth lens group are fixed, the second to fifth lens groups move along the optical axis to achieve changes in focal length (see at least paragraph 0015); the narrowing side of the lens has telecentric characteristics.
Nagahara et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Nagahara et al. is silent regarding 1.3≤Ww/Dw≤2.5, Ww is the projection screen width of wide angle end, Dw is the projection distance at the wide angle end and the front lens of the first lens group closest to the magnifying side of the lens is an aspherical lens with negative diopter to achieve a wide angle effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance to the screen based on the size of the screen, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.3≤Ww/Dw≤2.5, Ww is the projection screen width of wide angle end, Dw is the projection distance at the wide angle end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses an aperture diaphragm is moved between the fourth lens group and the fifth lens group during the power-varying to keep Fno constant in the whole power-varying region (see at least abstract). However, Nagahara et al. is silent regarding wherein an aperture is set between the fourth lens group and the fifth lens group, and the F value of the aperture is between 1.7 and 2.6. 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 F value of the aperture being between 1.7 and 2.6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Yamasaki (figure 1) teaches the front lens of the first lens group closest to the magnifying side of the lens is an aspherical lens with negative diopter to achieve a wide angle effect (see at least paragraphs 0034-0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first lens group as taught by Yamasaki in order to efficiently reduce aberrations.
The limitation, “during the zooming, the first lens group and the sixth lens group are fixed, the second to fifth lens groups move along the optical axis to achieve changes in focal length” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Nagahara et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein 1.05≤|ft/fw|≤1.7, ft is the focal length of the entire lens at the telephoto end, and fw is the focal length of the entire lens at the wide angle end (1.7 to 3; see at least abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein, the first lens group has at least one glass lens with a refractive index≥1.75 and at least one glass lens with an Abbe number≥55, and the fifth lens group has at least one doublet, at least one glass lens with a refractive index≥1.75 and at least one glass lens with Abbe number≥60 (surface 1 and surface 11; table 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Nagahara et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 1.2≤|f1/fw|≤1.7, 4.5≤|f5/fw|≤35.0, fw is the focal length of the entire lens at the wide angle end, f1 is the focal length of the first lens group, and f5 is the focal length of the fifth lens group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 1.2≤|f1/fw|≤1.7, 4.5≤|f5/fw|≤35.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Nagahara et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the first lens group can be integrated into a group or divided into multiple groups to adjust focus and field curvature (G1).
The limitations "wherein the first lens group can be integrated into a group or divided into multiple groups to adjust focus and field curvature" are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the light source of the display is not claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Nagahara et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein 4.0≤Bf/fw≤5.0, fw is the focal length of the entire lens at the wide angle end, and Bf is the back focal length when converted to air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 4.0≤Bf/fw≤5.0, fw is the focal length of the entire lens at the wide angle end, and Bf is the back focal length when converted to air, 4.5≤|f5/fw|≤35.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Nagahara et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein CA/IHm≤12, CA is the effective diameter of the front lens, and IHm is the maximum image height on the narrowing side of the lens. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have CA/IHm≤12, CA is the effective diameter of the front lens, and IHm is the maximum image height on the narrowing side of the lens, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
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 extension fee 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 LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
