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 .
Response to Amendments
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 06/29/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changed to the abstract, the specification and the claims. There was not any change being made to the drawings.
A) Regarding the abstract, applicant has submitted a new abstract in a separated sheet;
B) Regarding the specification, applicant has made changes to paragraphs [0007], [0051], [0059] and [0064]; and
C) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 27 and 40.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the abstract, the specification and the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026 and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 17-24, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are still claims 27-40 (Note that claims 1-26 were canceled in the pre-amendment of 03/27/2024) in which claims 27-31 and 38-40 are examined in the present office action, and claims 32-37 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to none-elected inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 32-37 will be rejoined if the linking claim 27 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the objections to the drawings set forth in the office action of 03/03/2026, applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 17-18, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the objections to the abstract and the specification set forth in the office action of 03/03/2026, the submission of a new abstract and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 17-18, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the abstract and the specification set forth in the mentioned office action.
However, the new abstract is subjected to an objection as set forth in the present office action.
D) Regarding the rejections of claims 27-31 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 03/03/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 19-21, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions:
D1) the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 19-21, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 27-31 and 38-40 for the reasons numbered as a2), b) and c); and
D2) the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 19-21, have been fully considered and but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 27-31 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the reasons numbered as a1) and d) set forth in the mentioned office action.
Applicant’s argued that “It is well known … the metes and bounds of the claim” (Amendment in page 20, lines 3-14). While applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the claim recites an open range for the Abbe number of a negative lens at a d-line.
Applicant should note that a value of 125 or 354 or 1,200 or … is a value which is inside the range claimed and the specification does not provide/support for a magnification-variable optical system having lenses with such large values for their Abbe numbers. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the specification in which it discloses only two values of v1n, i.e., 95.23 for each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and tenth embodiments and 82.57 for each of sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth embodiments. As a result, those claimed features make the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the metes and bounds of the range governing the Abbe number of v1n as claimed. Applicant should note that claim must be analyzed to determine its mete and bound so that it is clear from claimed language what subject matter the claim encompass. The definiteness of the claim is important to allow others who wish to enter the market place to ascertain the boundaries of protection that are provided by the claims.
E) Regarding the rejection of claims 27-31 and 38-39 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-10, 16 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,998 set forth in the office action of 03/03/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 19-21, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
F) Regarding the rejection of claims 27-29, 31 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the zoom lens of the Example 1 provided by Shomura (US Publication No. 2019/0302409), the rejection of claims 27, 29-30 and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the zoom lens of the second embodiment as provided by Noda et al (US Publication No. 2016/0124181) and the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shomura set forth in the office action of 03/03/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the amendment of 06/29/2026, pages 19-21, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference/embodiment applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirty two sheets of figures 1, 2(a)-2(b), 3, 4(a)-4(b), 5, 6(a)-6(b), 7, 8(a)-8(b), 9, 10(a)-10(b), 11, 12(a)-12(b), 13, 14(a)-14(b), 15, 16(a)-16(b), 17, 18(a)-18(b), 19, 20(a)-20(b) and 21-22 were received on 03/27/2024. These drawings are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure as filed on 06/29/2026 is objected to because it contains at least a grammatical error. In particular, the sentence thereof “A magnification-variable optical system … are provided” (lines 1-5) has a grammatical error with the terms thereof “high optical performance, an optical apparatus” (lines 2-3). Should the mentioned terms be changed to --high optical performance. An optical apparatus--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 04/01/2024 and the amendment of 06/29/2026 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because there are so numerous changes to the specification as provided in the pre-amendment of 04/01/2024 and the amendment of 06/29/2026 that they render the specification difficult to consider or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 27-31 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the features thereof “80.00 < v1n” (line 17) and “v1n: Abbe number … a d line” (lines 21-22) make the claim indefinite because the claim recites an open range for the Abbe number of v1n.
Applicant should note that a value of 125 or 354 or 1,200 or … is a value which is inside the range claimed and the specification does not provide/support for a magnification-variable optical system having lenses with such large values for their Abbe numbers. Applicant is respectfully invited to review the specification in which it discloses only two values of v1n, i.e., 95.23 for each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and tenth embodiments and 82.57 for each of sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth embodiments. As a result, those claimed features make the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the metes and bounds of the range governing the Abbe number of v1n as claimed. Applicant should note that claim must be analyzed to determine its mete and bound so that it is clear from claimed language what subject matter the claim encompass. The definiteness of the claim is important to allow others who wish to enter the market place to ascertain the boundaries of protection that are provided by the claims.
b) Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reasons as set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
12. Claims 27-31 and 38-39, as best as understood, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-10, 16 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,998, hereafter, Pat. ‘998., in view of Shomura (US Publication No. 2019/0302409, of record).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all features recited in present claims 27-31 and 38-39 are read from features recited in claims 1-2, 6-10, 16 and 22 of Pat. ‘998.
In particular, the features recited in present claim 27 are read from feature recited in claims 1-2 and 6 of Pat. ‘998; the features recited in present claim 28 are read from features recited in claim 7 of Pat. ‘998; the features recited in present claim 29 are read from features recited in claim 8 of Pat. ‘998; the features recited in present claim 30 are read from features recited in claim 9 of Pat. ‘998; the features recited in present claim 31 are read from features recited in claim 10 of Pat. ‘998; the features recited in present claim 38 are read from features recited in claim 16 of Pat. ‘998; and the features recited in present claim 39 are read from features recited in claim 22 of Pat. ‘998.
The only feature recited in present claims 27 and 40 which is missing from the claims 1-2, 6-10, 16 and 22 of Pat. ‘998 is that the Patent claims do not disclose that the first lens group has only three negative lenses. However, a zoom lens having a negative lens group and a rear lens having group wherein the first negative lens group having a first negative lens, a second negative lens, a third negative lens and a fourth positive lens which first negative lens group has only three negative lens is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura.
In particular, the zoom lens of the Example 2 as described in paragraphs [0297]-[0304] and [0399] and shown in fig. 2 comprises the following features:
a1) a first negative lens group (G1) and a rear lens group disposed after the first negative lens group wherein the rear lens group comprises a plurality of lens groups (G2-G4) wherein each lens groups is movable along an optical axis for varying the distance between two adjacent lens groups, see paragraphs [0297]-[0304] and fig. 1;
a2) the first negative lens group (G1) comprises sequentially from an object side a first negative lens (L1), a second negative lens (L2), a third negative lens (L3) and a positive lens (L4). Thus, the first negative lens group (G1) comprises only three negative lenses and a positive lens.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the zoom lens as recited in claims 1-2, 6-10, 16 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,998 by limiting the number of negative lens(es) of the first negative lens group to three as suggested by Shomura for meeting a particular application/design.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
14. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
15. Claims 27 and 38-40, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katou et al (US Publication No. 2019/0369371).
Katou et al discloses a zoom lens for use in image pickup apparatus, see paragraph [0079]-[0089] and fig. 21
a) Regarding present claims 27, 39 and 40, the zoom lens of the Numerical Working Example 1 as described in paragraphs [0094]-[0105] and [0399] and shown in fig. 1 comprises the following features:
a1) a first negative lens group (G1) and a rear lens group disposed after the first negative lens group wherein the rear lens group comprises a plurality of lens groups (G2-G5) wherein each lens groups is movable along an optical axis for varying the distance between two adjacent lens groups, see paragraphs [0105], Tables 1-4 and fig. 2;
a2) the first negative lens group (G1) comprises sequentially from an object side a first negative lens (L1), a second negative lens (L2), a third negative lens (L3) and a positive lens (L4). Thus, the first negative lens group (G1) comprises only three negative lenses;
a3) the Abbe number of the third negative lens (L3) of the first negative lens group (G1) is 81.6 which is inside the range as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40; and
a4) from the optical data as provided in Table 1, the total length, TLw, of the zoom lens in a wide-angle stage is 142.48 mm, and the distance, STLw, from the object-side lens surface (1) of the first negative lens (L1) of the first lens group (G1) to the aperture stop (S) of the zoom lens is 71.04 mm thus the value of the ratio of STLw/TLw is 0.50 which is inside the range of (0.40; 0.58) as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
b) Regarding present claim 38, the lens groups (G2-G5) constituted the rear lens group comprises at least one aspheric lens surfaces, see Table 1, lens surfaces numbered 19, 25 and 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
17. Claims 27-31 and 38-40, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shomura (US Publication No. 2019/0302409, of record).
Shomura discloses a zoom lens for use in image pickup apparatus, see paragraph [0002].
a) Regarding present claims 27, 39 and 40, the zoom lens of the Example 2 as described in paragraphs [0297]-[0304] and [0399] and shown in fig. 2 comprises the following features:
a1) a first negative lens group (G1) and a rear lens group disposed after the first negative lens group wherein the rear lens group comprises a plurality of lens groups (G2-G4) wherein each lens groups is movable along an optical axis for varying the distance between two adjacent lens groups, see paragraphs [0297]-[0304] and fig. 2;
a2) the first negative lens group (G1) comprises sequentially from an object side a first negative lens (L1), a second negative lens (L2), a third negative lens (L3) and a positive lens (L4). Thus, the first negative lens group (G1) comprises only three negative lenses;
a3) the Abbe number of the third negative lens (L3) of the first negative lens group (G1) is 95.10 which is inside the range as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40; and
a4) the total length, TLw, of the zoom lens in a wide-angle stage is 127.26 mm, and the distance, STLw, from the object-side lens surface (r1) of the first negative lens (L1) of the first lens group (G1) to the aperture stop (r10) of the zoom lens is 79.28 mm thus the value of the ratio of STLw/TLw is 0.62 which is closed to the upper limit of 0.58 of the range of (0.40; 0.58) as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40, see paragraph [0399].
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
The only feature missing from the zoom lens of the Example 2 provided by Shomura is that it does not disclose that the value of the ratio of STLw/TLw is inside of the range of (0.40; 0.58) as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40. However, the upper value of 0.58 of the range as claimed in each of claims 27 and 40 is merely that of a preferred embodiment and no criticality has been disclosed. The support for that conclusion is found in the present specification, for example, page 30, in which applicant has clearly disclose that the range governs the ratio of STLw/TLw is (0.40; 0.70) which in this range the value of 0.62 for the ratio of STLw/TLw of the example 2 provided by Shomura is inside such range. Furthermore, there is not any unexpected result or difference in optical performance occurred between a zoom lens having a range of (0.40; 0.70) governing the ratio of STLw/TLw and a zoom lens having a range of (0.40; 0.58) governing the mentioned ratio as admitted/disclosed in the present specification. Because the value of the mentioned ratio of the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura is 0.62 which is inside the range of (0.40; 0.70) thus it is expected that the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura is working fine with the range of (0.40; 0.58) or there is not any unexpected result or difference in optical performance occurred between a zoom lens of the Example 2 with a value of 0.62 for the ratio of STLw/TLw as provided by Shomura and the zoom lens having a range of (0.40; 0.58) governing the mentioned ratio as recited in each of claims 27 and 40 . See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
Thus, the zoom lens with feature related to the ratio of STLw/TLw as recited in each of the present claims 27 and 40 is read from the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura or it would have obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura and adjust the optical characteristics of the lens element(s) constituted the lens groups of the zoom lens so that the value of the ratio of STLw/TLw is inside the ranged claimed or any similar range(s) to meet a particular application. Applicant should further note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
a5) Regarding claim 40, the method steps/limitations are implicitly met by the structure limitations.
b) Regarding present claim 28, from paragraph [0399], the focal length, f1, of the first negative lens group (G1) is -16.35 mm and the focal length, fw, of the zoom lens at its wide-angle state is 8.16 mm then the value of the ratio of (-f1)/fw is 2.00 which is closed to the upper value of the range of (1.00; 2.00).
While the value of the ratio of (-f1)/fw of the example 2 provided by Shomura is not inside the range of (1.00; 2.00); however, the value of 1.99 for the mentioned ratio is so closed to the upper value of 1.9999… of the claimed range thus there is not any unexpected result or difference in optical performance occurred between the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura and the zoom lens having a range of (1:00; 2:00) for the range of (-f1)/fw as claimed in present claim 28. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
Thus, the zoom lens with feature related to the ratio of (-f1)/fw as recited in each of the present claim 28 is read from the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura or it would have obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the zoom lens of the example 2 provided by Shomura and adjust the optical characteristics of the lens element(s) constituted the lens groups of the zoom lens so that the value of the ratio of (-f1)/fw is inside the ranged claimed or any similar range(s) to meet a particular application. Applicant should further note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
c) Regarding present claim 29, from paragraph [0399], the focal length, f1, of the first negative lens group (G1) is -16.35 mm and the focal length, ft, of the zoom lens at its telephoto end state is 24.64 mm then the value of the ratio of (-f1)/ft is 0.66 which is inside the range of (0.65; 1.20).
d) Regarding present claim 30, from paragraph [0399], the focal length, fL1, of the second negative lens (L1) of the negative lens group (G1) is around -26.64 mm and the focal length, f1, of the first negative lens group (G1) of the zoom lens is -16.35 mm then the value of the ratio of fL1/f1 is 1.63 which is inside the range of (1.00; 2.00) as claimed.
e) Regarding present claim 31, from paragraph [0399], the focal length, fL2, of the second negative lens (L2) of the negative lens group (G1) is around -47.06 mm and the focal length, f1, of the first negative lens group (G1) of the zoom lens is -16.35 mm then the value of the ratio of fL2/f1 is 2.88 which is inside the range of (1.00; 4.00) as claimed.
e) Regarding present claim 38, the lens groups (G2-G4) constituted the rear lens group comprises at least one aspheric lens surfaces, see paragraph [0399], lens surfaces numbered as #11, 12, 20 and 21.
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights