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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 and 02/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US 20160178875, hereinafter “Matsumura”).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura discloses an optical system (Fig. 1; Paras. [0014], [0061]-[0066]) comprising:
a first lens unit (G1), a second lens unit (G2) having a negative refractive power (Para. [0059]), a third lens unit (G3), and a fourth lens unit (G4) having a positive refractive power (Para. [0059]) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side (see Fig. 1),
wherein intervals between adjacent ones of the lens units change during focusing (Para. [0066]),
wherein the second lens unit moves toward the image side and the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range (Fig. 1 and Para. [0066]), and
wherein the first lens unit includes a negative meniscus lens and a positive lens, the negative meniscus lens having a convex surface facing the object side (see Fig. 1 and Para. [0061] “first lens group G1 includes … negative meniscus second lens element L2 … positive meniscus third lens element L3”).
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, 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjo (US 20140029112) in view of Matsumura.
Regarding claim 1, Sanjo discloses an optical system (Fig. 5; Paras. [0027], [0160]-[0162]) comprising:
a first lens unit (U1; Para. [0162]), a second lens unit (U2) having a negative refractive power (Para. [0162]), a third lens unit (U3), and a fourth lens unit (U4) having a positive refractive power (Para. [0162]) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side (Fig. 5; Para. [0162]),
wherein intervals between adjacent ones of the lens units change during focusing (Para. [0162]),
wherein the second lens unit moves toward the image side and the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range (Para. [0162]), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-10.0 < f2/f < -3.6
where f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit and f is a focal length of an entire system (Numerical Embodiment 3, choose f2/f = -29.50/7.20 = - 4.097; Para. [0215]).
Sanjo does not explicitly disclose the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range.
However, Matsumura teaches a second lens unit moves towards the image side and a fourth lens unit moves towards the object side during focusing from infinity to close range (Fig. 1; Para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Sanjo with the teachings of Matsumura, wherein the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range, for the purpose of reducing occurrence of aberration (Matsumura: Para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Sanjo further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
2.0 < | fR/f | < 500.0
where fR is a focal length of one of the lens units that is closest to the image side in the optical system (see Numerical Embodiment 3, |30.60/7.20| = 4.25).
Regarding claim 6, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Sanjo further discloses wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.30 < BF/f < 1.50
where BF is a back focal length when the optical system is focused at infinity (see Numerical Embodiment 3, choose Intermediate focal length wherein BF/f = 12.20/31.78 = 0.38).
Regarding claim 19, Sanjo discloses an imaging apparatus (Figs. 5 and 11; see Paras. [0027] and [0039] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 11) comprising:
an optical system (Fig. 5; Paras. [0027], [0160]-[0162]); and
an imaging device (124) configured to receive an image formed by the optical system,
wherein the optical system includes a first lens unit (U1; Para. [0162]), a second lens unit (U2) having a negative refractive power (Para. [0162]), a third lens unit (U3), and a fourth lens unit (U4) having a positive refractive power (Para. [0162]) arranged in that order from an object side to an image side (Fig. 5; Para. [0162]),
wherein intervals between adjacent ones of the lens units change during focusing (Para. [0162]),
wherein the second lens unit moves toward the image side and the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range (Para. [0162]), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-10.0 < f2/f < -3.6
where f2 is a focal length of the second lens unit and f is a focal length of an entire system (Numerical Embodiment 3, choose f2/f = -29.50/7.20 = - 4.097; Para. [0215]).
Sanjo does not explicitly disclose the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range.
However, Matsumura teaches a second lens unit moves towards the image side and a fourth lens unit moves towards the object side during focusing from infinity to close range (Fig. 1; Para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Sanjo with the teachings of Matsumura, wherein the fourth lens unit moves toward the object side during focusing from infinity to close range, for the purpose of reducing occurrence of aberration (Matsumura: Para. [0013]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjo in view of Shinohara et al. (US 20200400919, hereinafter “Shinohara”).
Regarding claim 11, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Sanjo does not explicitly disclose an entirety or part of a lens element included in the third lens unit moves in a direction including a component perpendicular to an optical axis during image blur correction.
However, Shinohara teaches a similar optical system, wherein an entirety or part of a lens element included in a third lens unit moves in a direction including a component perpendicular to an optical axis during image blur correction (Para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical system as disclosed by Sanjo with the teachings of Shinohara, wherein an entirety or part of a lens element included in the third lens unit moves in a direction including a component perpendicular to an optical axis during image blur correction, for the purpose of correcting a blur caused by a shift of the image plane (Shinohara: Para. [0079]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-11 and 13 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:
Regarding claim 2, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the following inequality is satisfied: -3.5 < M2/M4 < -0.5 where M2 and M4 are respectively an amount of movement of the second lens unit and an amount of movement of the fourth lens unit during focusing from infinity to an object distance at which a lateral magnification of the entire system is −0.1, and a sign of an amount of movement toward the image side is positive”.
The examiner further considered Abe et al. (US 20190212525, hereinafter “Abe”), Takemoto (US 20180045928) and Tashiro (US 20180024314). For example, Abe identifies an amount of movement of the second lens unit M2 and an amount of movement of the fourth lens unit M4, wherein −15.0<M2/M4<−6.0 (Para. [0123]), but fails to explicitly disclose the second lens unit having a negative refractive power as required in claim 1. The prior art of Sanjo, Matsumura and Abe, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the following inequality is satisfied: -7.00 < f2/f4 < -2.50 where f4 is a focal length of the fourth lens unit”. Rather, Sanjo teaches away from the claimed invention, because Sanjo teaches f2/f4 = -13.50/57.69 = -0.23 (Numerical Embodiment 3). The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. However, the prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the following inequality is satisfied: 0.05 < ❘f1/f2❘ < 0.50 where f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit”. Rather, Sanjo teaches away from the claimed invention, because Sanjo teaches ❘f1/f2❘ = 103.68/29.50 = 3.51 (Numerical Embodiment 3). The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. However, the prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “an aperture stop, wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.45 < Da/TL < 0.70 where Da is a distance from the aperture stop to an image plane along an optical axis when the optical system is focused at infinity and TL is an overall lens length of the optical system”. Rather, Sanjo teaches away from the claimed invention, because Sanjo teaches Da/TL = 148.55 / 606.40 = 0.24 (Numerical Embodiment 3). The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. However, the prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 7.
Dependent claims 8-9 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the following inequality is satisfied: 0.70< (1-β42)×βR2 < 3.00 where β4 is a lateral magnification of the fourth lens unit and βR is a combined lateral magnification of all of the lens units disposed closer to the image side than the fourth lens unit when the optical system is focused at infinity”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. For example, Tashiro teaches the lateral magnifications of the second lens units and the lateral magnifications of the fourth lens unit (Para. [0007]), but fails to explicitly disclose the range of the inequality as required in claim 10. The prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “the following inequality is satisfied: 70.0 < v4p < 96.0 where ν4p is an Abbe number of at least one positive lens included in the fourth lens unit”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. However, the prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Sanjo as modified by Matsumura discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Sanjo further discloses wherein the optical system includes the first lens unit having a positive refractive power (Para. [0162]), the second lens unit, the third lens unit having a positive refractive power (Para. [0162]), the fourth lens unit (U4).
However, Sanjo and Matsumura fail to disclose, in light of the specification, “a fifth lens unit having a negative refractive power arranged in that order from the object side to the image side”. The examiner further considered the prior art of Abe, Takemoto and Tashiro. For example, Abe teaches a lens system further comprises a fifth lens unit having a negative refractive power, but fails to explicitly disclose the inequality of -10.0 < f2/f < -3.6 as required in claim 1. The prior art applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights