Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/628,959

ZOOM LENS AND IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
DUDEK, JAMES A
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1105 granted / 1347 resolved
+14.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1365
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.5%
+18.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1347 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 (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. 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) 1-5, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013221976 A (Imoto yu) PNG media_image1.png 517 975 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 174 470 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 568 464 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 406 622 media_image4.png Greyscale Per claim 1, Imoto teaches an image pickup device comprising an image sensor configured to capture an image formed through the zoom lens [1], and a zoom lens [see figure 1] comprising, in order from an object side [left side] to an image side [right side]: a first lens unit having positive refractive power and fixed for zooming [see machine translation and figure 1 above: “U1 is a first lens unit having a positive refractive power including a focusing lens unit”]; a second lens unit having negative refractive power and configured to move during zooming [see the machine translation: “U2 is a second lens unit having a negative refractive power including a zooming lens unit, and performs zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end by monotonically moving the optical axis toward the image plane side”] at least two lens units configured to move during zooming [see the machine translation: “U3 is a third lens unit having a positive refractive power that corrects image plane fluctuations associated with zooming, and moves non-linearly on the optical axis to the image side during zooming from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end.”]; a final lens unit having positive refractive power, disposed closest to an image plane, and fixed for zooming [see the machine translation: “U4 is a fourth lens unit having positive refractive power for image formation that does not move for zooming”]; and an aperture stop [SP] disposed between a lens surface closest to the image plane of the second lens unit and a lens surface closest to an object of the final lens unit [SP], wherein the first lens unit includes a sub-lens unit disposed closest to the object in the first lens unit and fixed for focusing [U11], and a sub-lens unit configured to move for focusing [U12], wherein the second lens unit [U2] includes a first negative lens closest to the object in the second lens unit [see the second object side lens], at least one negative lens other than the first negative lens [see the fourth lens from the object side], and at least one positive lens [see the third lens from the object side], and wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 60 ≤νd21 ≤ 105 [see table 1, line 20: Vd is 81.54] 30 ≤νd2Nave ≤ 65 [see table 1, line 23: vd is 37.16] where νd21 is an Abbe number of a material of the first negative lens based on d-line, and νd2Nave is an average Abbe number of a material of the at least one negative lens other than the first negative lens in the second lens unit. Imoto lacks the aperture configured to move during zooming, and located closer to the image plane at a telephoto end than at a wide-angle end. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been common knowledge to configure the aperture to move during zooming to maintain a consistent, optimized f-number across the entire zoom range, and thus, preventing unwanted exposure shifts for producing optimal image brightness and reduced aberration. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Per claim 2, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0 <θgF21+0.001×νd21-0.603 [0.5374 (see table 1) + 0.001 x 81.54 – 0.603 = 0.01594] where θgF21 is a partial dispersion ratio for g-line and F-line of the material of the first negative lens. Per claim 3, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the second lens unit includes at least three negative lenses including the first negative lens [see figure 1, lens unit U2 has a first plano-concave lens structure, a second plano-concave lens structure, and a third concave-plano lens structure]. Per claim 4, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, but lacks a single first negative lens. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been common knowledge to substitute a dual lens structure for an equivalent single lens structure in order to simplify manufacturing. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Per claim 5, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: νd2Pmin ≤ 28 [see line 1, Vd is 26.29] where νd2Pmin is a minimum Abbe number among Abbe numbers based on the d-line of a material of the at least one positive lens of the second lens unit [see table 1]. Per claim 7, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the first lens unit includes, in order from the object side to the image side, a first sub-lens unit fixed for focusing [U11], a second sub-lens unit configured to move for focusing [U12], and a third sub-lens unit fixed for focusing [U13[. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 and 8-10 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: Per claim 6, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: f21/f2 = 0.6136 where f21 is a focal length of the first negative lens [-43.569, see table 1, last column, line 20], and f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit [-71.8371(calculated with lens calculator)]. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach 1.5 ≤ f21/f2 ≤ 5.0. Per claim 8, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the at least two lens units configured to move during zooming include, in order from the object side to the image side, a third lens unit having negative refractive power, and at least one lens unit. Per claim 9, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the at least two lens units configured to move during zooming include, in order from the object side to the image side, a third lens unit having negative refractive power, and a fourth lens unit having positive refractive power. Per claim 10, Imoto teaches the zoom lens according to claim 1. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the final lens unit is a fifth lens unit counted from the object side. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT. 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, 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 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. /JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591134
LENS ASSEMBLY, CAMERA MODULE HAVING A LENS ASSEMBLY FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, AND A METHOD FOR MAKING LENS ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591142
METHOD FOR ADJUSTING HEAD-MOUNTED DEVICE AND HEAD-MOUNTED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591119
CAMERA MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585086
CAMERA OPTICAL LENS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576669
VEHICLE WHEEL COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+3.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1347 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month