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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/671,534 filed on May 22, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted June 4, 2026 in response to the office action mailed March 4, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 19-24 are pending and either amended or new. Claims 8 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note that any of the focal lengths that are calculated from the data provided in tables in the prior art, were calculated using a paraxial matrix calculator that encodes the Full Lens Maker’s Equation.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims.
Specification
The amendments to the specification submitted June 4, 2026 contain no new matter, merely correcting an obvious error, and have been entered into the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the following new issues are raised by the amendments to the claims.
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 3-4 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.
Claims 3 and 4 recites the limitation "the P lens component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim now that claims 3 and 4 have been amended to depend from claim 22, which does not introduce the P lens component, rather than from claim 2 which does. For the purpose of considering prior art, the definition of the P lens component will be considered as being present, but not any other limitations of claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada US 20210181462 in view of Huang US 2020/0064595 A1 (hereafter Huang) as evidenced by Maetaki US 2019/0265450 A1 (hereafter Maetaki).
Regarding claim 1, Hatada teaches (Example1, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0063] and Table 1) “An optical system (paragraph [0051]: “An optical system according to Example 1 illustrated in FIG. 1”) comprising:
a plurality of lens components wherein one lens component is one single lens or one cemented lens (there are 11 lens components so defined in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0063]),
wherein an aperture stop (An aperture stop (diaphragm) SP) that has.. [an] opening diameter (the diameter of aperture SP)… and at least one focusing group (second lens unit L2, paragraph [0051]: “During focusing from an object at infinity to a short distance object, the second lens unit L2 moves to the object side.”) that moves during focusing are disposed in the optical system (paragraph [0051]: “During focusing from an object at infinity to a short distance object, the second lens unit L2 moves to the object side.”),
wherein a lens component that is positioned closer to an object side than the aperture stop, that has a negative refractive power, and of which a surface closest to an image side has a concave shape is referred to as a negative concave lens component (the lenses with surfaces 1-2 and 13-15),
the negative concave lens component having a maximum absolute value of an angle between an optical axis and a normal line to a surface of the negative concave lens component closest to the image side at a position of a maximum effective diameter of the surface in a cross section including the optical axis among the negative concave lens components of the optical system is referred to as a first negative concave lens component (As shown in Fig. 14 of Maetaki, the angle α of each of the negative concave lens components can be calculated from the curvature radius and the effective diameter of the image-side surface of each lens which are (26.747,44.84) and (27.192,31.68) for the lens with surfaces 1-2 and 13-15 respectively. As shown in Fig. 14 of Maetaki α=θp=sin-1{(ED/2)/R}. Thus the angle α for the two negative concave lens components are sin-1(-0.838)=-56.95° and sin-1(-0.583)=-35.67° respectively. Therefor the “first negative concave lens component” as defined in the claim is the negative concave lens of surfaces 1 and 2, which has the maximum angle α. Note that although surface 2 is aspheric, its shape does not differ greatly from spherical, such that this calculation should be sufficiently accurate.),
the angle of the first negative concave lens component is denoted by α1, α1 is in degree units, and a sign of α1 is negative (as derived above α1=-56.95°),
an open F-number in a state where an infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by FNo (paragraph [0063] F-NUMBER 1.24),
a back focus of the optical system as an air conversion distance in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Bf (paragraph [0063] Bf 17.05),
a focal length of the optical system in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by f (paragraph [0063] Focal Length 34.00),
a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by ωm (paragraph [0063] Half angle of view 32.47), and Y = f x tanωm (Y=34.00 x tan(32.47)=21.64) is established,
Conditional Expressions (1), (2), and (3) are satisfied, which are represented by
-80 < α1 < -30 (1) (as derived above α1=-56.95°)
0.5 < FNo < 2.3 (2) (paragraph [0063] F-NUMBER 1.24)
0.5 < Bf/Y < 1.7 (3) (given the values above Bf/Y=17.05/21.64=0.79), and
wherein for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and
when ɣ = (1 - βf2) x βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum IMf x ɣ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (there is only one focusing group L2, thus it is the maximum focusing group), and
a combined focal length of all lenses closer to the image side than the maximum focusing group is denoted by ffmR (the combined focal length of all lenses closer to the image side than L2 is the focal length of L3 which in paragraph [0063] is -278.05),
Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by
-0.5 <f/ffmR < 0.1630 (16-10) (given the values above f/ffmR=34.00/(-278.05)=-0.122 which is in the claimed range).”
However, Hatada fails to teach that the aperture stop is “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter and that determines an F-number of the optical system.”
Huang teaches “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter (paragraph [0085]: “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal.”) and that determines an F-number of the optical system (paragraph [0085]: “the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”).”
Huang teaches (paragraph [0085]): “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal. The mechanical part may include moving parts such as blades, shielding sheets, etc. The light moderation part may include shielding materials such as filters, electrochromic materials, liquid crystal layer, etc. The variable aperture apparatus can control the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment. Meanwhile, the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aperture of Hatada a mechanically or electrically variable aperture that changes the f-number of the system as taught by Huang for the purpose of controlling the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment by using a variable aperture that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed as taught by Huang (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 2, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein a lens component closest to the object side among lens components that are positioned closer to the image side than the aperture stop and that have a positive refractive power is referred to as a P lens component (in paragraph [0063], the lens with surfaces 20-21 is the positive lens closest to the object side amongst lenses on the image side of the aperture stop), a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to a surface of the P lens component closest to the object side in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by dStP (dStP is the sum of the d values of surfaces 16-19 in paragraph [0063] thus dStP=7.49+5.52+1.4+0.2=14.61), and a sum of Bf (paragraph [0063] Bf is 17.05) and a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to a lens surface of the optical system closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by dStI (In paragraph [0063] dStI is the sum of the d values of surfaces 16-28 plus Bf, thus dStI=68.58), Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by 0 < dStP/dStI < 0.38 (4) (given the values above, dStP/dStI=14.61/68.58=0.213 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 5, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 2,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein a focal length of the P lens component is denoted by fP (the focal length of the lens with surfaces 20-21 can be calculated from the data of surfaces 20-21 in paragraph [0063] using a matrix calculator to be about 55.8), Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.1 < Y/fP < 0.9 (given the values above Y/fP=21.64/55.8=0.388 which is in the claimed range) (7).”
Regarding claim 10, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and when ɣ = (1 - βf2) x βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum IMf x ɣ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (there is only one focusing group L2, thus it is the maximum focusing group), and a focal length of the maximum focusing group is denoted by ffm (ffm is the focal length of L2 in paragraph [0063] which is 55.88), Conditional Expression (12) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.05 < f/|ffm| < 0.95 (given the values above f/|ffm| = 34.00/55.88=0.61 which is in the claimed range) (12).”
Regarding claim 11, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and when ɣ = (1 - βf2) x βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum IMf x ɣ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (there is only one focusing group L2, thus it is the maximum focusing group), and a combined focal length of all lenses closer to the object side than the maximum focusing group is denoted by ffmF (ffmF is the focal length of L1 in paragraph [0063] which is 209.9), Conditional Expression (13) is satisfied, which is represented by
-0.9 < f/ffmF < 2 (given the values above f/ffmF = 34.00/209.9=0.16 which is in the claimed range) (13).”
Regarding claim 13, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf (an upper limit on the moving amount, Mf, of the focusing group, lens unit L2 that moves to the object side during focusing from an object at infinity to a short distance object, see paragraph [0051], is the space between the last surface of the first lens unit, surface 10, and the first surface of the second lens unit, surface 11. Thus Mf<8.73), a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and when ɣ = (1 - βf2) x βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum IMf x ɣ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (there is only one focusing group L2, thus it is the maximum focusing group), Mf of the maximum focusing group is denoted by Mfm (as explained above Mfm<8.73), and a sum of Bf and a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the optical system closest to the object side to a lens surface of the optical system closest to the image side in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by TL (paragraph [0060] “The overall lens length, which indicates the overall length of the optical system, is a value obtained by adding backfocus to the distance from the first lens surface to the final lens surface.” thus TL is 154.96 in paragraph [0063]), Conditional Expression (15) is satisfied, which is represented by
|Mfm|/TL < 0.15 (15) (given the upper limit of 8.73 for |Mfm| above and TL=154.96 |Mfm|/TL<0.056 which is in the claimed range).”
However, Hatada fails to explicitly teach “0.006 < |Mfm|/TL”.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose |Mfm| such that 0.006 < |Mfm|/TL < 0.15, which overlaps the disclosed range of |Mfm|/TL<0.056, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the moving amount of the second lens is an art recognized results effective variable in that it determines the closest focusing distance of the system. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize Mfm because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because one would usually assume that the moving amount of the second lens unit is at least half of the distance between the first lens unit and the second lens unit, i.e. a ratio of |Mfm|/TL of at least 0.028, which is well within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein a first cemented lens that is obtained by bonding a negative lens and a positive lens to each other in this order from the object side (the lens component with surfaces 3-5 is a cemented lens obtained by bonding the bi-concave negative lens of surfaces 3-4 and biconvex positive lens of surfaces 4-5) and of which a surface closest to the object side has a concave shape (surface 3 is concave) is disposed between (the lens component with surfaces 3-5 is between the first lens and the aperture stop) a surface of the first negative concave lens component closest to the image side (the negative lens component with surfaces 1-2 as identified for claim 1) and the aperture stop (surface 16 of paragraph [0063]).”
Regarding claim 16, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 15,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein a paraxial curvature radius of a surface of the first cemented lens closest to the object side is denoted by Rc1 (paragraph [0063] “r” of surface 3 is -46.592), Conditional Expression (17) is satisfied, which is represented by -2 < f/Rc1< -0.025 (given the values above f/Rc1=34.00/(-46.592)=-0.73 which is in the claimed range) (17).”
Regarding claim 20, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “An optical apparatus (paragraph [0001]: “an optical system suitable for an imaging optical system used for an image pickup apparatus, such as a digital camera.”) comprising: the optical system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).”
Regarding claim 21, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein the optical system comprises three lens groups of a first lens group (first lens unit L1), a second lens group (second lens unit L2), and a third lens group (third lens unit L3) in consecutive order from a position closest to the object side to the image side (paragraph [0051]: “in order from the object side to the image side”) using spacings that change during focusing as the boundaries for each lens group (paragraph [0051]: “During focusing from an object at infinity to a short distance object, the second lens unit L2 moves to the object side”), wherein a focal length of the third lens group is denoted by f3 (paragraph [0063] the Focal length of unit 3 is -278.05), Conditional Expression (26- 3) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.5 < f/f3 < 0 (given the values above f/f3=34.00/(-278.05)=-0.12 which is in the claimed range) (26-3).”
Claims 22-23 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maetaki US 2019/0265450 A1 (hereafter Maetaki) in view of Huang US 2020/0064595 A1 (hereafter Huang).
Regarding claim 22, Maetaki teaches (Fig. 3 example 2) “An optical system (paragraph [0093]: “FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of an optical system OL according to a second exemplary embodiment”) comprising:
a plurality of lens components (there are eight lens components in Fig. 3, example 2, 5 single lenses and three cemented lenses) wherein one lens component is one single lens or one cemented lens (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0130], there are 11 lenses where six of them are cemented into doublets, such that there are eight lens components),
wherein an aperture stop (stop at surface 10) that has a… opening diameter (the effective diameter of surface 10 is 18.83 in paragraph [0130])… and at least one focusing group that moves during focusing are disposed in the optical system (e.g. paragraph [0094]: “In focusing from an infinite distance to a closest distance, the first lens unit L1 does not move, and the second lens unit L2 moves to the object side, whereby a space between the first lens unit L1 and the second lens unit L2 changes.”), and
wherein a lens component that is positioned closer to an object side than the aperture stop, that has a negative refractive power, and of which a surface closest to an image side has a concave shape is referred to as a negative concave lens component (In Fig. 3 and paragraph [0130] the first, second and third lenses, with surfaces 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 respectively are negative concave lens components as so defined.), the negative concave lens component having a maximum absolute value of an angle between an optical axis and a normal line to a surface of the negative concave lens component closest to the image side at a position of a maximum effective diameter of the surface in a cross section including the optical axis among the negative concave lens components of the optical system is referred to as a first negative concave lens component (The angle α of each of the first three lenses can be calculated from the curvature radius and the effective diameter of the image-side surface of each lens which are (16.502,28.58), (13.106,25.27), (22.562,23.15) for the first three lenses respectively. As shown in Fig. 14 α=θp=sin-1{(ED/2)/R}. Thus the angle α for the first three lenses are -59.99°, -74.59°, and -30.87° respectively. Therefor the “first negative concave lens component” as defined in the claim is the negative concave lens of surfaces 3 and 4, which is second in position, but first in having the maximum angle α. Note that although surface 4 is aspheric, its shape does not differ greatly from spherical, such that this calculation should be sufficiently accurate.), the angle of the first negative concave lens component is denoted by α1 (α1=-74.59° as calculated above), α1 is in degree units (see above), and a sign of α1 is negative (see above), an open F-number in a state where an infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by FNo (paragraph [0130] Fno=2.06), a back focus of the optical system as an air conversion distance in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Bf (paragraph [0130] BF=13.50), a focal length of the optical system in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by f (paragraph [0130] Focal length 20.50), a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by ωm (paragraph [0130] Half Angle of View (Degrees) 46.54), and Y = f × tan ωm is established (paragraph [0130] Image height 21.64, or 20.50 x tan (46.54)=21.63), Conditional Expressions (1), (2), and (3) are satisfied, which are represented by
-80 <α1 < -30 (1) (α1=-74.59° as calculated above)
0.5 < FNo < 2.3 (2) (paragraph [0130] Fno=2.06)
0.5 < Bf/Y < 1.7 (3) (given the values above Bf/Y=0.625)
and wherein a distance on the optical axis from a paraxial exit pupil position to an image plane in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Dexp (paragraph [0130]: Exit pupil position -56.98), and an optical member not having a refractive power is disposed between the image plane and the paraxial exit pupil position, Dexp is calculated using an air conversion distance for the optical member (there is no such optical member that has zero refractive power in the claimed position, thus no modification of the calculation of Dexp is needed), Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.25 < Y/Dexp … (Given Dexp=56.98 and Y=21.63, Y/Dexp=0.38) (10-4).”
However, Maetaki fails to teach that the aperture stop is “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter and that determines an F-number of the optical system.”
Huang teaches “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter (paragraph [0085]: “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal.”) and that determines an F-number of the optical system (paragraph [0085]: “the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”).”
Huang teaches (paragraph [0085]): “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal. The mechanical part may include moving parts such as blades, shielding sheets, etc. The light moderation part may include shielding materials such as filters, electrochromic materials, liquid crystal layer, etc. The variable aperture apparatus can control the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment. Meanwhile, the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aperture of Maetaki a mechanically or electrically variable aperture that changes the f-number of the system as taught by Huang for the purpose of controlling the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment by using a variable aperture that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed as taught by Huang (paragraph [0085]).
However, Maetaki fails to teach “0.25 < Y/Dexp < 0.3660” instead teaching a value of Y/Dexp=21.63/56.98 = 0.38 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Maetaki, value of 0.38 for Y/Dexp is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 0.38 and the endpoint of 0.3660 is insubstantial, representing only a 3.8% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Y/Dexp value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 0.38 for Y/Dexp, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.38 and the endpoint of 0.3660 is insubstantial, a value of 0.38 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for Y/Dexp, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, the Maetaki – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Maetaki further teaches “wherein in a case where ωm is in degree units, Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by
32 <ωm < 55 (8) (paragraph [0130] Half Angle of View (Degrees) 46.54).”
Regarding claim 7, the Maetaki – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Maetaki further teaches “wherein in a case where a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the optical system closest to the object side to a paraxial entrance pupil position in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Denp (paragraph [0130] Entrance pupil position 18.26), Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.83 < f/Denp < 2.5 (9) (given the values above f/Denp=20.50/18.26=1.12).”
Regarding claim 23, the Maetaki – Huang combination teaches “the optical system according to claim 22” and Maetaki further teaches “An optical apparatus (paragraph [0023]: “[0023] Each of the optical systems according to the exemplary embodiments is an imaging optical system for use in an imaging apparatus such as a video camera, a digital camera, a silver halide film camera, and a television camera.” emphasis added.) comprising: the optical system according to claim 22 (see claim 22 above).”
Claims 22-23, 4, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. US 2016/0349482 A1 (hereafter Yokoyama) in view of Huang US 2020/0064595 A1 (hereafter Huang) as evidenced by Maetaki US 2019/0265450 A1 (hereafter Maetaki).
Regarding claim 22, Yokoyama teaches (Fig. 5 example 3, paragraph [0087]) “An optical system (paragraph [0033]: “FIG. 5 is a sectional view of a lens according to Example 3 of the present invention.”) comprising:
a plurality of lens components (there are eight lens components in Fig. 3, example 2, 5 single lenses and three cemented lenses) wherein one lens component is one single lens or one cemented lens (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0076], there are 9 lens components, 2 of which are cemented components and 7 of which are single lenses),
wherein an aperture stop (stop SP surface 12) that has a… opening diameter (the effective diameter of surface 12 is 22.9 in paragraph [087])… and at least one focusing group that moves during focusing are disposed in the optical system (paragraph [0038]: “The first lens unit L1, the second lens unit L2, and the third lens unit L3 are configured to move toward the object side in their entirety during focusing from infinity to proximity.” thus all of the groups are focusing groups.), and
wherein a lens component that is positioned closer to an object side than the aperture stop, that has a negative refractive power, and of which a surface closest to an image side has a concave shape is referred to as a negative concave lens component (In Fig. 5 and paragraph [0087] the first and second lenses, with surfaces 3-4, and 5-6 respectively are negative concave lens components as so defined.), the negative concave lens component having a maximum absolute value of an angle between an optical axis and a normal line to a surface of the negative concave lens component closest to the image side at a position of a maximum effective diameter of the surface in a cross section including the optical axis among the negative concave lens components of the optical system is referred to as a first negative concave lens component (The angle α of each of the first two lenses can be calculated from the curvature radius and the effective diameter of the image-side surface of each lens which are (20.805,32.1), (32.6,28.22) for the first two lenses respectively. As shown in Fig. 14 of Maetaki α=θp=sin-1{(ED/2)/R}. Thus the angle α for the first two lenses are -50.48°, and -25.64° respectively. Therefor the “first negative concave lens component” as defined in the claim is the negative concave lens of surfaces 3 and 4, which has the maximum angle α.), the angle of the first negative concave lens component is denoted by α1 (α1=-50.48° as calculated above), α1 is in degree units (see above), and a sign of α1 is negative (see above), an open F-number in a state where an infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by FNo (paragraph [0087] Fno=2.3), a back focus of the optical system as an air conversion distance in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Bf (paragraph [0087] BF=13.55), a focal length of the optical system in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by f (paragraph [0087] Focal length 32.13), a maximum half angle of view in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by ωm (paragraph [0087] Half Angle of View (Degrees) 28.93), and Y = f × tan ωm is established (paragraph [0087] Image height 17.76, or 32.13 x tan (28.93)=17.76), Conditional Expressions (1), (2), and (3) are satisfied, which are represented by
-80 <α1 < -30 (1) (α1=-50.48° as calculated above)
0.5 < FNo < 2.3 (2) (paragraph [0087] Fno=2.3)
0.5 < Bf/Y < 1.7 (3) (given the values above Bf/Y=13.55/17.76=0.76)
and wherein a distance on the optical axis from a paraxial exit pupil position to an image plane in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Dexp (paragraph [0087]: Exit pupil position -46.99, and the optical element with surfaces 24-25 has an air conversion distance of 0.66, thus if the exit pupil postion was already calculated with the air conversion distance Dexp =-46.99, or if not, Dexp=(-46.99 +1.0 -0.66)=-46.65), and an optical member not having a refractive power is disposed between the image plane and the paraxial exit pupil position, Dexp is calculated using an air conversion distance for the optical member (see explanation above Dexp =-46.99 or Dexp=(-46.99 +1.0 -0.66)=-46.65), Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.25 < Y/Dexp … (Given Dexp=46.99 and Y=17.76, Y/Dexp=0.38 or Dexp=-46.65, Y/Dexp=-0.38) (10-4).”
However, Yokoyama fails to teach that the aperture stop is “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter and that determines an F-number of the optical system.”
Huang teaches “an aperture stop that has a variable opening diameter (paragraph [0085]: “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal.”) and that determines an F-number of the optical system (paragraph [0085]: “the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”).”
Huang teaches (paragraph [0085]): “A variable aperture apparatus may be disposed in the photographing lens system of the present disclosure. The variable aperture apparatus may be a mechanical part or a light moderation part, in which the size and shape of the aperture may be controlled by electricity or electronic signal. The mechanical part may include moving parts such as blades, shielding sheets, etc. The light moderation part may include shielding materials such as filters, electrochromic materials, liquid crystal layer, etc. The variable aperture apparatus can control the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment. Meanwhile, the variable aperture apparatus may represent the aperture in the present disclosure that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed by changing the f-number of the lens system.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aperture of Yokoyama a mechanically or electrically variable aperture that changes the f-number of the system as taught by Huang for the purpose of controlling the amount of incoming light and exposure time so as to further strengthen the capability of image adjustment by using a variable aperture that can adjust the image properties such as depth of field or exposure speed as taught by Huang (paragraph [0085]).
However, Yokoyama fails to teach “0.5 < Fno < 2.3 (2)” instead teaching a value of 2.3 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Yokoyama value of 2.3 for Fno is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.5 < Fno < 2.3 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 2.3 and the endpoint of less than 2.3 is insubstantial, representing only an infinitesimal difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the disclosed Fno value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of 0.5 < Fno < 2.3.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 2.3 for Fno, from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.5 < Fno < 2.3 to render it obvious because the difference between 2.3 and the upper limit of less than 2.3 is insubstantial, a value of 2.3 is reasonably expected to have the same effect, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
However, Yokoyama fails to teach “0.25 < Y/Dexp < 0.3660” instead teaching a value of Y/Dexp=21.63/56.98 = 0.38 which is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The Examiner contends that the prior art, Yokoyama, value of 0.38 for Y/Dexp is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660 to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 0.38 and the endpoint of 0.3660 is insubstantial, representing only a 3.8% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the calculated Y/Dexp value from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 0.38 for Y/Dexp, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of 0.25<Y/Dexp<0.3660 to render it obvious because the difference between 0.38 and the endpoint of 0.3660 is insubstantial, a value of 0.38 is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for Y/Dexp, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 23, the Yokoyama – Huang combination teaches “the optical system according to claim 22” and Yokoyama further teaches “An optical apparatus (paragraph [0076]: “An image pickup optical system according to Example 3”, paragraph [0002]: “an image pickup optical system, which is suited to be used for an image pickup apparatus such as a silver-halide film camera, a digital still camera, a digital video camera, a monitoring camera, and a TV camera.”) comprising: the optical system according to claim 22 (see claim 22 above).”
Regarding claim 4, the Yokoyama – Huang combination teaches “the optical system according to claim 22” and Yokoyama further teaches “wherein a larger one of a maximum effective diameter of a surface closest to the object side and a maximum effective diameter of a surface closest to the image side for each lens component of the optical system is referred to as a wide effective diameter, a lens component having the minimum wide effective diameter among lens components included from a surface of the P lens component closest to the object side to a surface, closest to the object side, of a lens component of the optical system closest to the image side is referred to as an Ed lens component (the P lens component in example 3 is surfaces 13-14, the lens with the smallest wide effective diameter that is on the image side of the P lens component is the cemented lens with surfaces 15-17), an angle having a larger absolute value out of an angle between the optical axis and a normal line to a surface of the Ed lens component closest to the object side at the position of the maximum effective diameter of the surface and an angle between the optical axis and a normal line to a surface of the Ed lens component closest to the image side at the position of the maximum effective diameter of the surface in a cross section including the optical axis is denoted by α2 (surface 15 and surface 17 have angles so defined of -18.19 and -0.788 using the r and effective diameters of those surfaces and the equation for the angle from Maetaki. Thus α2 in degrees is -18.19), α2 is in degree units, and a sign of α2 is negative in a case where the surface from which the normal line is obtained is a concave surface, and a sign of α2 is positive in a case where the surface from which the normal line is obtained is a convex surface (α2 in degrees so defined is -18.19), Conditional Expression (6) is satisfied, which is represented by -45 < α2 < 0 (6) (α2=-18.19° which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 7, the Yokoyama – Huang combination teaches “the optical system according to claim 22” and Yokoyama further teaches “where a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface of the optical system closest to the object side to a paraxial entrance pupil position in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by Denp (paragraph [0087] Entrance Pupil position 32.99), Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.83 < f/Denp < 2.5 (9) (given the values above f/Denp=32.13/32.99=0.97 which is in the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 14, the Yokoyama – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Yokoyama further teaches “wherein in a case where for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and in a case where γ = (1 - βf2) ×βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum |Mf ×γ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (All of the lens units move together for focusing and thus Mf for each unit is the same. The focal lengths for each of the lens units can be calculated from the data of surfaces 1-6, 7-19 and 20-25 in paragraph [0087] using a matrix calculator to be about -27.0, 39.69 and -82.312 respectively. The absolute value of the magnification of a lens unit with a long focal length is close to 1, and thus the term (1 - βf2) for the third lens unit is close to zero, such that unit 3 is not the maximum focusing group, which must therefore be either the first or the second lens unit.), and a combined focal length of all lenses closer to the image side than the maximum focusing group is denoted by ffmR (the focal length of all lenses closer to the image side than the first lens unit or the second lens unit can be calculated from the data of surfaces 7-25 or 20-25 in paragraph [0087] using a matrix calculator to be about 30.586 and -82.312 respectively), Conditional Expression (16) is satisfied, which is represented by
-0.5 < f/ffmR < 1.5 (16) (given the values above, the expression f/ffmR for the first and second lens units are 32.13/30.586=1.05 and 32.13/(-82.312)=-0.39 respectively, both of which are in the claimed range).”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada US 20210181462 in view of Huang US 2020/0064595 A1 (hereafter Huang) as evidenced by Maetaki US 2019/0265450 A1 (hereafter Maetaki) as applied to claim 1 above or in the alternative further in view of Uchida et al. US 2016/0266370 A1 (hereafter Uchida).
Regarding claim 9, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada Example 1 further teaches “wherein in a case where a lateral magnification of the optical system in a state where a nearest object is focused on is denoted by B (Assume that the lateral magnification can be calculated as f/(f-d). The focal length of example 1 is 34.00 mm, and the in-focus short distance is 0.28 meters, see paragraph [0028]. Thus B=34.0/(34.0 - 280)=-0.14), Conditional Expression (11) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.07 < |B| < 0.3 (11) (as calculated above |B|=0.14).”
In the alternative that Hatada fails to teach 0.07 < |B| < 0.3 (11), this would also have been obvious as follows.
Uchida teaches an optical system having an aperture stop and at least one focusing group (see examples 13 and 14, Figs. 13 and 14 and paragraphs [0582]-[0583].
Uchida teaches “wherein in a case where a lateral magnification of the optical system in a state where a nearest object is focused on is denoted by B, Conditional Expression (11) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.07 < |B| < 0.3 (11) (paragraphs [0082]-[0086]: −1.0<β (2)… β denotes an imaging magnification of the optical system” paragraphs [0582]-[0583] β=-0.16 and β=-0.09).”
Uchida further teaches (paragraph [0096]): “By the image pickup apparatus including the image pickup element which satisfies conditional expression (1) and the optical system which satisfies conditional expression (2), it is possible to secure a wide area of observation and high resolution, and to small-size the image pickup apparatus. By securing the wide area of observation or wide area of capturing, it is possible to observe the whole sample. Moreover, since it is possible to secure high resolution, it is possible to observe a detailed portion of the sample even when an image that has been captured is magnified.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the lateral magnification when focused at a nearest object to be 0.07 < |B| < 0.3, such as 0.16 or 0.09 as taught by Uchida examples 13 and 14 in the optical system of the Hatada – Huang combination, because Uchida teaches that with such values it is possible to secure a wide area of observation and high resolution, and to small-size the image pickup apparatus thus making it possible to observe the whole sample in great detail (Uchida paragraph [0096]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatada US 20210181462 in view of Huang US 2020/0064595 A1 (hereafter Huang) as evidenced by Maetaki US 2019/0265450 A1 (hereafter Maetaki) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawamura et al. US 2021/0341709 A1 (hereafter Kawamura).
Regarding claim 12, the Hatada – Huang combination teaches “The optical system according to claim 1,” and Hatada example 1 further teaches “wherein for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and when ɣ = (1 - βf2) x βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum |Mf x ɣ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (there is only one focusing group L2, thus it is the maximum focusing group)”
However, Hatada fails to teach “γ of the maximum focusing group is denoted by γfm, Conditional Expression (14) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.38 < |γfm| < 2.5 (14).”
Kawamura teaches “wherein in a case where for each focusing group of the optical system, a moving amount of the focusing group during focusing on a nearest object from the infinite distance object is denoted by Mf, a lateral magnification of the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βf, a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the focusing group in the state where the infinite distance object is focused on is denoted by βfR, and in a case where γ = (1 - βf2) ×βfR2 is established, the focusing group having maximum |Mf ×γ| among the focusing groups of the optical system is referred to as a maximum focusing group (There is only one focusing group in example 1 which is G2. Thus G2 is the maximum focusing group) and γ of the maximum focusing group is denoted by γfm (paragraph [0020]: “In the imaging lens according to the aspect of the present disclosure, assuming that a lateral magnification of the second lens group in a state where an object at infinity is in focus is β2, and a combined lateral magnification of all lenses closer to the image side than the second lens group in a state in which the object at infinity is in focus is βr in a case where a lens is disposed closer to the image side than the second lens group,… it is preferable to satisfy Conditional Expression (5). 0.4<(1−β22)×βr2<1.2 (5)” Table 79 example 1 condition (5) (1−β22)×βr2=0.821), Conditional Expression (14) is satisfied, which is represented by
0.38 < |γfm| < 2.5 (14). (paragraph [0020]: “Conditional Expression (5). 0.4<(1−β22)×βr2<1.2 (5)” the entirety of which is within the claimed range.)”
Kawamura further teaches (paragraph [0142]): “By not allowing the result of Conditional Expression (5) to be equal to or less than the lower limit, there is an advantage in reducing the amount of movement of the focus group during focusing. By not allowing the result of Conditional Expression (5) to be equal to or greater than the upper limit, it is possible to suppress the strictness in accuracy of the stopping of the focus group in the focusing operation.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the lateral magnifications of the second and third groups of Hatada such that 0.38 < |γfm| < 2.5 as taught by Kawamura because Kawamura teaches that by not allowing |γfm| to be equal to or less than 0.4, there is an advantage in reducing the amount of movement of the focus group during focusing. By not allowing |γfm| to be equal to or greater than 1.2 it is possible to suppress the strictness in accuracy of the stopping of the focus group in the focusing operation (see Kawamura paragraph [0142]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 24 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.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein a larger one of a maximum effective diameter of a surface closest to the object side and a maximum effective diameter of a surface closest to the image side for each lens component of the optical system is referred to as a wide effective diameter, a lens component having the minimum wide effective diameter among lens components included from a surface of the P lens component closest to the object side to a surface, closest to the object side, of a lens component of the optical system closest to the image side is referred to as an Ed lens component, and a focal length of the Ed lens component is denoted by fEd, Conditional Expression (5) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.27 < Y/fEd < 0.1 (5).”
In particular, although the closest prior art documents, Yokoyama and Maetaki have an Ed lens (Yokoyama surfaces 15-17, Maetaki lens 9), these references teach Y/fEd=-0.47 and -1.4 respectively, both of which are far from the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: (claim 1) “-0.5 < f/ffmR < 0.1630” and claim 19 “-0.27 < Y/fEd < 0.1 (5) -45 < α2 < 0 (6).”
Regarding claim 24, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: (claim 22) “0.25 < Y/Dexp ≤ 0.3660” and “wherein the optical system comprises three lens groups of a first lens group, a second lens group, and a third lens group in consecutive order from a position closest to the object side to the image side using spacings that change during focusing as the boundaries for each lens group, and wherein a focal length of the third lens group is denoted by f3, Conditional Expression (26- 3) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.5 < f/f3 < 0 (26-3).”
In particular, Maetaki does not teach a third lens group. Yokoyama teaches a third lens group whose focal length can be calculated from the data of surfaces 20-23 in paragraph [0087] using a matrix calculator to be about -82.13, making f/f3=-0.39, however, Yokoyama moves all of the lens groups together for focusing, and thus the third lens group of Yokoyama is not defined by spacings that change during focusing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph of page 22 of 26 of the remarks filed 6/4/2026 the applicant introduces the arguments that follow. No specific argument is presented in this paragraph.
Under the heading “Objections” on page 22 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the claim objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. The examiner agrees that the amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior objections.
Under the heading “Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112” on page 22 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that a 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation has been applied to the claims are requests that the Office apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. This portion of the remarks appears to misunderstand the “claim interpretation” section on pages 3-4 of the previous office action. No 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation was made, rather, the examiner was just making the record clear as to how the term “single lens” was being interpreted in light of the specification and one of the common meanings in the prior art.
Under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112” on pages 22 to 23 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claim 8 has been overcome by the cancellation of claim 8. The examiner agrees and notes that new claim 22, which contains subject matter similar to original claim 8, contains no new matter and does not raise any 35 USC §112(b) issues.
In the first paragraph under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103” on page 23 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first summarizes each of the prior art rejections made in the previous office action. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
In the paragraph spanning pages 23 to 24 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant reproduces the portion of claim 1 that has been added, which is similar to original claim 14, but with a narrower range of values for the expression f/ffmR, that is supported by at least Table 32 of paragraph [0173] of the specification as filed. The examiner agrees, the narrower range is supported by the application as filed.
In the second through fourth paragraphs of page 24 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that in the two rejections of claim 14 in the previous office action the values of f/ffmR (Abe 0.31 and “Huang”, actually Yamada, 1.25) are outside of the narrowed range. The examiner agrees, the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous rejections of claim 14, however, in light of the amendment a new rejection over Hatada US 2021/0181462 is entered above.
In the first paragraph under the heading “New Claims” on page 24 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant points out some places where support for new claims 21-24 can be found in the specification as filed. The examiner agrees, new claims 21-24 do not introduce any new matter.
In the paragraph spanning pages 24 to 25 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “Huang” teaches a value of Y/Dexp of 0.38 which falls outside the newly claimed range of 0.25 < Y/Dexp ≤ 0.3660 and thus “Huang” fails to teach or suggest new independent claim 22. The reference in question was Maetaki, not Huang, however, the examiner agrees that this narrower range in new claim 22 is not anticipated by Maetaki. However, because 0.38 is only 3.8% outside the newly claimed range and there is no evidence of record showing criticality or unexpected results within the narrowed range, a new grounds of rejection is made above under the rubric of Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, in light of the newly narrowed range, an additional rejection over Yokoyama is entered above.
No further specific arguments are made after this paragraph.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the first paragraph of page 26 of 26 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights