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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:The phrase "assuming that" throughout the claims are generally not used in customary U.S. patent practice. Please consider revising this phrase throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-12, 15, 18-19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ASAMI et al. (US PUB 2010/0142062; herein after “ASAMI”).
Regarding claim 1, ASAMI teaches an imaging lens (an imaging lens 20, FIG. 1-2) consisting of, in order from an object side to an image side: a first lens group (G1) that has a refractive power; a stop (St); and a second lens group (G2) that has a positive refractive power (see para. [0076]), wherein the first lens group (G1) includes, successively in order from a position closest to the object side to the image side, a negative meniscus lens (L1) and a negative lens (L2) (see para. [0077]), and assuming that a back focal length (Bf=3.68) of the imaging lens in terms of an air-equivalent distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus is Bf, a focal length of the imaging lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is f (f=2.19), and a maximum half angle of view (65º) in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is ω (see para. [0138] and [0207]), Conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.3 < Bf/(f x tanω) < 1.75 (Bf/(f x tanω) = 3.68/(2.19 x tan65º) = 3.68/(2.19 x 2.14) = 3.68/4.68 = 0.78, see para. [0138], Table 1, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 2, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a unit of f is millimeter, and an F number of the imaging lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is FNo, Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.6 < f/FNo < 4.3 (f/F number = 2.19/2.8 = 0.78, see para. [0007] and [0009], Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a focal length of the first lens group is fG1, Conditional Expression (5) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.8<f/fG1<0.6 (e.g., f/f123 = 2.19/(-7.48) = -0.3, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a focal length of the second lens group is fG2, Conditional Expression (6) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.4<f/fG2<1 (e.g., f/f456 = 2.19/4.57 = -0.48, Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches the second lens group (G2) includes a positive lens (L6) at a position closest to the image side (see FIG. 1), and a focal length of the second lens group is fG2, and a focal length of the positive lens closest to the image side in the second lens group is fzp, Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.1<fG2/fzp<1 (f456/L6 = 4.57/8.16 = 0.56, Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches an average value of refractive indexes of all negative lenses (L1+L2) disposed closer to the object side than a positive lens (L3) closest to the object side among positive lenses included in the imaging lens at a d line (see FIG. 1-2) is N1nave, Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.43<N1nave<1.9 (e.g., an average value of refractive indexes Nd1+Nd2 = (1.76+1.58)/2 = 1.67, see Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches an average value of Abbe numbers of all positive lenses included in the imaging lens based on a d line is Vpave (127.1/3 = 42.4), and an average value of Abbe numbers of all negative lenses included in the imaging lens based on the d line is Vnave (130.6/3 = 43.5), Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by -16<Vpave-Vnave<20 (Vpave-Vnave = 42.4 – 43.5 = -1.1, see Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a focal length of the first lens group is denoted by fG1, and a focal length of the second lens group is fG2, Conditional Expression (11) is satisfied, which is represented by -1.3<fG2/fG1<0.9.(11)
Regarding claim 12, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches an Abbe number of a lens (L3) closest to the image side in the first lens group (G1) based on a d line is ν1z, Conditional Expression (12) is satisfied, which is represented by 16<v1z<45 (vd3 = 20.9, Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a sum of the back focal length of the imaging lens in terms of the air-equivalent distance and a distance on an optical axis (Z1) from the stop (St) to a lens surface (S13) closest to the image side in the second lens group (G2) in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is Dst, Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by 2<Dst/(f×tanω)<3.8 (e.g., 9.32/4.68 = 2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches an absolute value of a curvature radius (Ri) of an image side surface (S6) of a lens (L6) closest to the image side in the first lens group (where, Ri6 = 55.34) is greater than an absolute value of a curvature radius (Ri5 = 7.62) of an object side surface thereof (thus Ri6>Ri5, see Table 1).
Regarding claim 19, ASAMI according to claim 1 further teaches a positive lens (L4), which has a larger absolute value of a curvature radius (Ri= 9.56) of an object side surface (S8) than an absolute value of a curvature radius (Ri=3.58) of an image side surface (S9), is disposed on the image side of the stop (St) to be adjacent to the stop with an air spacing (RiS8>RiS9, see Table 1).
Regarding claim 30, ASAMI teaches an imaging apparatus (e.g., an imaging apparatus 100 shown in FIG. 1, para. [0073]) comprising the imaging lens according to claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1 above).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASAMI et al. (US PUB 2010/0142062; herein after “ASAMI”).
Regarding claim 4, ASAMI teaches a distance (Di) on an optical axis (Z1) between a lens closest to the image side (S6) in the first lens group (G1) and a lens closest to the object side (S8) in the second lens group (G2) is DG12 (see para. [0089] and [0203]), and wherein assuming that a sum of the back focal length of the imaging lens in terms of the air-equivalent distance and a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a lens surface closest to the image side in the second lens group in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is TL (L) (see para. [0102]), Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by 0 < DG12/TL < 0.11 (3.0/20.49 = 0.14, Table 1). ASAMI discloses the claimed invention except for explicit teaching of 0 < DG12/TL < 0.11. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have DG12/TL (L) = 1.4 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, it has held that where the general conditions of a claim 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.
Regarding claim 10, ASAMI teaches a sum of the back focal length of the imaging lens in terms of the air-equivalent distance and a distance on an optical axis (Z1) from a lens surface (S1) closest to the object side in the first lens group (G1) to a lens surface (S13) closest to the image side in the second lens group (G2) in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus is TL (see FIG. 1), Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 3<TL/f<6.5 (i.e., a distance from an object-side lens surface S1 of the first lens L1 to the imaging surface S16 of the imaging lens 20 is preferably equal to or smaller than 18 mm (e.g., 14 mm), see para. [0085], thus L/f = 14/2.2 = 6.39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance from an object-side lens to the imaging surface such as 14 mm) it has held that where the general conditions of a claim 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.
Regarding claim 20, ASAMI teaches assuming that an angle formed between an axis line parallel to an optical axis (Z1) and a principal ray incident onto an image plane with a maximum half angle of view is CRA, and a unit of CRA is degrees, Conditional Expression (17) is satisfied, which is represented by 0≤|CRA|<12 (i.e., the sixth lens (L6) is a lens having positive power (see para. [0078]), so the entrance angle of marginal rays to the imaging surface of the imaging lens can be made small (e.g., <12º, as shown in FIG. 1, para. [0061]).
ASAMI discloses the claimed invention except for explicit teaching of 0≤|CRA|<12.
However, ASAMI further teaches the lens system is configured so as to satisfy the following conditional expression (9'): 2.0<|f6/f|<4.5. If the lens system is configured so as to satisfy the upper limit of the conditional expression (9'), the entrance angle of marginal rays to the imaging surface can be more easily reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a lens system, wherein the entrance angle of marginal rays to the imaging surface can be more easily reduced to a desired maximum half angle of view.
Furthermore, it has held that where the general conditions of a claim 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.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASAMI et al. (US PUB 2010/0142062; herein after “ASAMI”) in view of MORI (US PUB 2015/0002946).
Regarding claim 16, ASAMI fails to teach the first lens group consists of three or four negative lenses and two positive lenses.
However, in a related field of endeavor MORI teaches the first lens group G1 consists of a positive lens L11, a negative meniscus lens L12 with a convex surface toward the object side, a biconcave negative lens L13, a negative meniscus lens L14 with a convex surface toward the object side, a cemented lens constituted by two lenses, which are a positive lens L15 and a negative lens L16, and a cemented lens constituted by two lenses, which are a positive lens L17 and a negative lens L18, in this order from the object side, para. [0061], FIG. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of MORI, where the first lens group may have three or four negative lenses and two positive lenses in the device of ASAMI for the purpose of reducing the fluctuation in spherical aberration and to reduce ghost light, and the like when using the lenses.
Regarding claim 17, ASAMI fails to teach the second lens group consists of two or three negative lenses and three positive lenses.
However, in a related field of endeavor MORI teaches the second lens group G2 consists of a positive lens L21, a negative lens L22 and a positive lens L23, a positive lens L24, a negative lens L25, and a positive lens L26 in this order from the object side., as shown in FIG. 2, para. [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of MORI, where the first lens group second lens group may have of two or three negative lenses and three positive lenses in the device of ASAMI for the purpose of reducing the fluctuation in spherical aberration and to reduce ghost light, and the like when using the lenses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13 and 14 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 3, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the first lens group includes a cemented lens consisting of one positive lens and one negative lens, the second lens group includes a cemented lens consisting of one positive lens and one negative lens, and assuming that an Abbe number of the positive lens of the cemented lens of the first lens group based on a d line is ν1cp, an Abbe number of the negative lens of the cemented lens of the first lens group based on the d line is ν1cn, an Abbe number of the positive lens of the cemented lens of the second lens group based on the d line is ν2cp, and an Abbe number of the negative lens of the cemented lens of the second lens group based on the d line is ν2cn, Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by
52 < (v2cp-v2cn)-(v1cp-v1cn) < 170.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the first lens group includes a cemented lens consisting of one positive lens and one negative lens, and assuming that a refractive index of the positive lens of the cemented lens of the first lens group at a d line is N1cp, a temperature coefficient of the refractive index of the positive lens of the cemented lens of the first lens group at 50° C. at the d line is dN1cp/dT, and a unit of dN1cp/dT is °C..sup.−1, Conditional Expressions are satisfied, which are represented by
1.7<N1cp<2.1, (13) and
-0.5×10-6<dN1cp/dT<6.5×10-6 (14).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding a lens closest to the image side in the first lens group is a single lens that has a positive refractive power, and assuming that a temperature coefficient of a refractive index of the single lens at a d line at 50° C. is dN1s/dT, and a unit of dN1s/dT is °C..sup.−1, Conditional Expression is satisfied, which is represented by
-0.5×10-6<dN1s/dT<9×10-6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken either singularly or in a combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in independent claim 21, for example an imaging lens comprising: a plurality of lenses in combination, wherein assuming that a refractive index of a positive lens, which is included in the imaging lens, at a d line is Np, an Abbe number of the positive lens based on the d line is νp, a temperature coefficient of the refractive index of the positive lens at the d line at 50°C is dNp/dT, and
a unit of dNp/dT is °Cˉ1,
the imaging lens includes at least one first positive lens that satisfies Conditional Expressions, which are represented by
1.72 <Np <1.9, (18);
30 < vp < 42, (19), and
dNp/dT<4.3×10ˉ6.
Claims 22-29 depend from allowable claim 21 are also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ida (US PUB 2015/0015966) teaches “a zoom lens and an optical apparatus including the zoom lens, for example, to a zoom lens suitable for an optical apparatus such as a silver halide film camera, a digital still camera, a video camera etc.”, paragraph 0002.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 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.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
February 14, 2026