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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
As to claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, the claims recite “assuming that…” which appears to be an optional limitation, however the language/conditions following the phrase appears to be intended as non-optional (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Examiner suggests amending to clarify whether the conditions are optional or not. Examiner will examine the claims such that the limitations/conditions are required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
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)). Thus the calculation of Dexp appears relative/subjective to the arbitrarily located and defined optical member having no refractive power. For purposes of compact prosecution Examiner will consider the art such that so long as the structure and conditions of claim 1 are met, so too is claim 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites “an imaging apparatus comprising the imaging lens of claim 1”, however the imaging lens is itself an imaging apparatus. As such, claim 20 fails to specify a further limitation of the imaging lens of claim 1 (MPEP 608.01(n).III).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Nagami et al. (US 2017/0075089 - Nagami).
As to claim 1, Nagami teaches an imaging lens consisting of, in order from an object side to an image side (Nagami Figs. 1-3), comprising;
a first lens group (Nagami Fig. 1 - G1; Fig. 2 - G1; Fig. 3 - G1);
a stop (Nagami Fig. 1 - St; Fig. 2 - St; Fig. 3 - St);
a second lens group (Nagami Fig. 1 - G2; Fig. 2 - G2; Fig. 3 - G2);
a third lens group (Nagami Fig. 1 - G3; Fig. 2 - G2; Fig. 3 - G3);
wherein at least a spacing between the second lens group and the third lens group changes during focusing (Nagami para. [0024]);
the number of lenses included in the imaging lens is equal to or greater than 7 and equal to or less than 10 (Nagami Fig. 1 - L11-L32 = 7; Fig. 2 - L11-L32 = 7; Fig. 3 - L11-L32 = 7);
and satisfying:
0.6 < TL/(f*tan(w)) < 3 (Nagami Table 13 - TL/(f*tan(w)) = 1.945; 1.830; 1.922)
0.06 < Bf/(f*tan(w)) < 0.9 (Nagami Table 2 - Bf = 5.092; f = 19.129; w = 72.8/2 = 36.4o; thus Bf/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.36; Table 5 - Bf/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.26; Table 8 - Bf/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.35).
As to claim 5, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches 0.85 < TL/(f*tan(w)) < 2.1 (Nagami Table 13 - TL/(f*tan(w)) = 1.945).
As to claim 6, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Nagami further teaches 0.1 < Bf/(f*tan(w)) < 0.51 (Nagami Table 2 - Bf/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.36).
As to claim 7, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches -0.5 < f/f1 < 2.5 (Nagami Table 2 - f = 19.129; as calculated f1 ≈ 21.1).
As to claim 8, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches 0 < TL/f < 1.7 (Nagami Table 2 = TL = 27.405; f = 19.129).
As to claim 9, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches the first lens group consists of a cemented lens in which a negative lens (Nagami Fig. 1 - L11; Fig. 2 - L11) in which an object side surface is convex (Nagami Fig. 1 - L11; Fig. 2 - L11), and a positive lens are cemented in order from the object side (Nagami Fig. 1 - L12; Fig. 2 - L12).
As to claim 10, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches a positive lens at a position closest to the image side in the third lens group (Nagami Fig. 1 - L32).
As to claim 11 (as understood), Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches satisfying 0.8 < Dexp/(f*tan(w)) < 2 (Nagami Table 2 - f = 19.129, w = 72.8/2 = 36.4; as calculated Dexp ≈ 1.5).
As to claim 12, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches satisfying 0.5 < f/f12 < 1.5 (Nagami Table 2 - f = 19.129; Table 1 - as calculated, f12 ≈ 24).
As to claim 13, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches a lens surface closest to the object side in the second lens group is concave (Nagami Fig. 1 - L21), and a lens surface closest to the image side in the second lens group is convex (Nagami Fig. 1 - L23).
As to claim 14, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches the second lens group includes an aphserical lens at a position closest to the image side (Nagami Fig. 1 - L23; Table 1 - surfaces 8, 9; Table 3; Fig. 3 - L23; Table 7 - surfaces 8, 9; Table 9) and satisfying 0.5 < dS2r/(f*tan(w)) < 1.5 (Nagami Tables 1, 2 - dS2r = ∑d4-d8 ≈ 7.73; dS2r/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.55; Table 7, 8 - dS2r = ∑d4-d8 ≈ 7.8; dS2r/(f*tan(w)) ≈ 0.55).
As to claim 15, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches satisfying -0.5 < dS2f/R2f < 0 (Nagami Table 7 - R2f = -19.11103; dS2f ≈ 7.8).
As to claim 17, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches the third lens group consists of, in order from the object side to the image side, a negative lens and a positive lens (Nagami Fig. 1 - L31, L32).
As to claim 18, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches -11 < f1/f3 < 7.5 (Nagami Table 13 - f1/f3 = 0.165).
As to claim 19, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches satisfying 0.5 < DG12/(f*tan(w)) < 2 (Nagami Table 1 - DG12 = ∑d1-d8 ≈ 11.65; Table 2 - f = 19.129, w = 72.8/2 = 36.4; DG12/(f*tan(w) ≈ 0.83).
As to claim 20, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches an imaging apparatus (Nagami Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagami (cited above).
As to claim 16, Nagami teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Nagami further teaches satisfying
0 < N1p - N1n < 0.25 (Nagami Fig 2 - L11, L12; Table 4 - N1n = 1.65985; N1p = 1.89725);
0 < v1p - v1n < 40 (Nagami Fig. 2 - L11, L12; Table 4 - v1n = 32.88; v1p = 40.09).
Nagami doesn’t provide the partial dispersion ratios of the lens materials of L11, L12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy -0.07 < θgF1p - θfF1n < 0 since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945). As taught by Nagami, the materials satisfy the index and abbe conditions (10) and (11), thus such properties appear to be implicit to the same materials (MPEP 2112.01).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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:
As to claims 2-4, although the prior art teaches the imaging lens of claim 1, the prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of claim(s) 2, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 would be proper, including all the numerical and structural limitations recited together in combination of claims 1 and 2 with the totality of particular features/limitations recited therein.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nagami et al. (US 10,1010,565); Kondo et al. (US 11,828,923; 2021/0255442); Kondo (US 11,262,563; 2020/0333569); Miyagishima (US 10,996,445; 2019/0391368); Sashima et al. (US 12,386,162; 2021/0231928); Masugi et al. (US 12,455,430; 2021/0247596); Kobayshi (US 11,609,410; 2018/0172964); Suzuki (US 9,606,330; 2016/0011404); Lee (US 9,541,742; 2014/0313395); Souma (US 8,797,659; 2013/0271851); Saori (US 9,001,440; 2013/0265648); Morooka et al. (US 8,654,448; 2013/0162886); Sunaga et al. (US 8,810,931; 2013/0033768); Muratani et al. (US 8,411,369; 2012/0026590); Uemura (US 8,390,943; 2012/0075729); Sato et al. (US 8,625,209; 2011/0211263); Mouri et al. (US 9,007,703; 2011/0176215); Sugita (US 8,179,617; 2010/0208367); Yamamoto (US 7,777,974; 2009/0153980); Harada (US 7,551,367; 2009/0015938); Kato (US 7,715,118; 2008/0247058); Yamamoto (US 7,656,591; 2007/0223114); Matsui (US 5,831,775); Oshikiri et al. (US 5,592,334); Mukai et al. (US 4,806,003); Sugiyama (US 4,772,108) are cited as additional examples of imaging lenses consisting of three-groups.
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 February 11, 2026x