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 amendments have resolved the USC 112(d) issue and the USC 112(b) issues regarding “assuming that”.
Applicant’s amendments have not resolved USC 112(b) issue regarding claim 11 and “Dexp”. Specifically, it appears Applicant focuses on the meaning of an optical element having not refractive power, but this isn’t the issue. In other words, it isn’t unclear what such elements are - i.e. prisms, IR filters, etc.
The issue is how to calculate Dexp given what Applicant’s specification shows and describes and the claimed definition. As in Figure 2, Dexp is shown as a linear distance between Pexp and Sim. However Dexp includes several lenses. In calculating Dexp, what distances/values are used for the lenses? The physical distances? Or the air-equivalent? As Figure 2 shows, Dexp would be the physical distance, not the air-equivalent.
Similarly, Figure 2 does not include/show an element with no power, thus how is Dexp calculated “using an air-equivalent distance” for a member that isn’t present? In other words, if there are no filters, prisms, etc. can Dexp still be calculated given the requirement “using an air-equivalent distance” for such unpowered member.
Lastly, if a filter were inserted in the space of Bf in Figure 2, does Dexp change? As per Figure 2, Dexp shouldn’t change since the physical distance from Pexp to Sim wouldn’t change, yet as per Applicant’s remarks, maybe Dexp would change?
In summary, Applicant’s specification and definition of Dexp fail to provide an understanding of how to calculate Dexp and thus infringement is unclear to those of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2173 - The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “Dexp is calculated using an air-equivalent distance for an optical member having no refractive power in a case where the optical member is disposed between the image plane and the paraxial exit pupil position” is unclear. As per Applicant’s specification (Fig. 2), Dexp is shown as a linear distance from Pexp to Sim, however there does not appear to be any “optical member having no refractive power…disposed between the image plane and the paraxial exit pupil position”. The metes and bounds are unclear since what such optical member with no refractive power is, appears to be a relative/subjective element (MPEP 2173.05(b)). In other words, without an unpowered optical element, how is Dexp calculated?
If a filter were inserted in the space of Bf in Figure 2, does Dexp change? As per Figure 2, Dexp shouldn’t change since the physical distance from Pexp to Sim wouldn’t change, yet as per Applicant’s remarks, maybe Dexp would change?
Thus the calculation of Dexp appears relative/subjective to the arbitrarily located and defined optical member having no refractive power.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (US 2021/0255442 - Kondo; of record).
Examiner’s note: the USC 102 rejection is based on an overlapping range of sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03).
As to claim 21, Kondo teaches an imaging lens (Kondo Fig. 3) consisting of, in order from an object to an image side
a first lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G1);
a stop (Kondo Fig. 3 - St);
a second lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G2);
a third lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G3);
wherein at least a spacing between the second lens group and third lens group changes during focusing (Kondo Fig. 3 - focusing movement arrow (G2); para. [0047]);
the number of lenses included in the imaging lens is equal to or greater than 7 and equal to or less than 10 (Kondo Fig. 3 - L11-L32 = 10);
and satisfying:
0.6 < TL/(f*tan(w)) < 3 (Kondo Tables 4, 5 - TL = ∑d + Bf ≈ 72.9; f = 35.913; w = 83.0/2 = 41.5);
0.06 < Bf/(f*tan(w)) < 0.9 (Kondo Tables 4, 5 - Bf = 21.162; f = 35.913; w = 83.0/2 = 41.5);
0.95 < f/f1 < 2 (Kondo para. [0067] - teaching -0.6 < f/f1 < 1.5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity and thus the claimed range is anticipated (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 22, Kondo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kondo further teaches satisfying 0.95 < f/f1 < 1.8 (Kondo para. [0067] - teaching -0.6 < f/f1 < 1.5 which is an overlapping range of sufficient specificity and thus the claimed range is anticipated (MPEP 2131.03)).
As to claim 23, Kondo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kondo further teaches an imaging apparatus with an imaging element that outputs a captured image signal based on a subject image formed by the imaging lens (Kondo Fig. 3; Fig. 16).
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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (cited above).
Examiner’s note: the USC 103 rejection is based on overlapping ranges being prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 21, Kondo teaches an imaging lens (Kondo Fig. 3) consisting of, in order from an object to an image side
a first lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G1);
a stop (Kondo Fig. 3 - St);
a second lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G2);
a third lens group (Kondo Fig. 3 - G3);
wherein at least a spacing between the second lens group and third lens group changes during focusing (Kondo Fig. 3 - focusing movement arrow (G2); para. [0047]);
the number of lenses included in the imaging lens is equal to or greater than 7 and equal to or less than 10 (Kondo Fig. 3 - L11-L32 = 10);
and satisfying:
0.6 < TL/(f*tan(w)) < 3 (Kondo Tables 4, 5 - TL = ∑d + Bf ≈ 72.9; f = 35.913; w = 83.0/2 = 41.5);
0.06 < Bf/(f*tan(w)) < 0.9 (Kondo Tables 4, 5 - Bf = 21.162; f = 35.913; w = 83.0/2 = 41.5);
0.95 < f/f1 < 2 (Kondo para. [0067] - teaching -0.6 < f/f1 < 1.5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facia obvious (MPEP 2144.05)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 0.95 < f/f1 < 2 since, as taught by Kondo, such condition allows for reducing the total length of the system (Kondo para. [0067]).
As to claim 22, Kondo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kondo further teaches satisfying 0.95 < f/f1 < 1.8 (Kondo para. [0067] - teaching -0.6 < f/f1 < 1.5 which is an overlapping range and thus prima facia obvious (MPEP 2144.05)).
As to claim 23, Kondo teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Kondo further teaches an imaging apparatus with an imaging element that outputs a captured image signal based on a subject image formed by the imaging lens (Kondo Fig. 3; Fig. 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: as per Applicant’s amendments filed May 26, 2026, the claims incorporated the allowable subject matter as discussed in the Office Action mailed February 24, 2026.
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.”
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights