CTNF 18/804,216 CTNF 92011 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-15 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/14/2024 and 10/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 14 August 2024 . These drawings are accepted . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togino (US 2016/0320606) (hereafter Togino), in view of Uchida (US 2020/0107707) (hereafter Uchida) . Regarding claim 1 , Togino discloses an optical system (see at least Fig. 17) comprising: a first optical system configured to form an optical image of an object in a first imaging area (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf1 is a first optical system); and a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system and configured to form an optical image of the object in a second imaging area (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf2 is a section optical system), wherein each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes an aperture stop fixed in an optical axis direction relative to a position of an image plane (see at least Fig. 17, where S1 and S2 are aperture stops), and at least one of the first optical system and the second optical system includes a lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf1 3 and Gf2 3 are lens units disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stops), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.30 < Φs/DL < 0.90 Φs is a diameter of the aperture stop configured to determine an on-axis light beam of each of the first optical system and the second optical system, and DL is a distance between an optical axis that passes a lens closest to the object of the first optical system and an optical axis that passes a lens closest to the object of the second optical system (see at least Fig. 17 and pages 14-15, where the data for example 3 indicates a stop diameter of 1.0 mm and a base length of 2 mm, thus Φs/DL = 0.5). Togino does not specifically disclose that the lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop is movable in the optical axis direction. However, Uchida teaches an optical system for stereoscopic vision (see at least the abstract) comprising an aperture stop and a lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop that is movable in the optical axis direction (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0351] and [0353], where lens L6 is on the image plane side of aperture stop S and is movable in the optical axis direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino to include the teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop is movable in the optical axis direction for the purpose of adjusting the focus of the optical system (see at least paragraph [0353] of Uchida). Regarding claim 2 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Uchida also teaches that the lens unit is an intermediate lens unit configured to adjust a difference between a first image plane position of the optical image formed in the first imaging area by the first optical system and a second image plane position of the optical image formed in the second imaging area by the second optical system (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0274] and [0353], where lens L6 is moved to adjust a focus of each optical system and thus suppressing a difference between imaging magnifications of the optical systems). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida to include the further teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit is an intermediate lens unit configured to adjust a difference between a first image plane position of the optical image formed in the first imaging area by the first optical system and a second image plane position of the optical image formed in the second imaging area by the second optical system for the purpose of suppressing a difference between imaging magnifications of the optical systems (see at least paragraph [0274] of Uchida). Regarding claim 3, Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Uchida also teaches that each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes the lens unit, and the lens unit is configured to move for focusing from infinity to a close distance (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0353]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida to include the further teachings of Uchida so that each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes the lens unit, and the lens unit is configured to move for focusing from infinity to a close distance for the purpose of being able to adjust the focuses of the optical systems separately and thus matching their imaging magnifications. Regarding claim 4 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino as modified by Uchida does not specifically disclose that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.40 < Lm/Ls < 0.90, where Ls is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the image plane, and Lm is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object of the lens unit in an in-focus state at infinity to the image plane. Lengths and distances of an optical system along the optical axis are known to be result effective variables in the art. Thus, the ratio of distance Lm to the distance Ls is also understood to be a result effective variable. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of 0.40 < Lm/Ls < 0.90 include optimizing the focusing of the optical system and the amount of light allowed to pass through the aperture stop. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida so that 0.40 < Lm/Ls < 0.90 for the purpose of optimizing the focusing of the optical system and the amount of light allowed to pass through the aperture stop. Regarding claim 5 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino also discloses a focal length of the optical system is 1.046 mm (see at least page 15, example 3 data). Togino as modified by Uchida does not specifically disclose that the following inequality is satisfied: 1.2 < |fm|/f < 6.0 wherein fm is a focal length of the lens unit, and f is a focal length of the optical system. Focal lengths are known result effective variables. Thus, the ratio of a focal length of the lens unit to the focal length of the optical system is also understood to be a result effective variable. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of 1.2 < |fm|/f < 6.0 include making the optical system compact, while optimizing the focusing power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida so that 1.2 < |fm|/f < 6.0 for the purpose of making the optical system compact, while optimizing the focusing power. Regarding claim 6 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Uchida also discloses that the lens unit has negative refractive power (see at least paragraph [0351], where lens L6 is a negative meniscus lens). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida to include the further teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit has negative refractive power for the purpose of optimizing the focusing of the optical system. Regarding claim 7 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Uchida also discloses that the lens unit has a negative meniscus lens with a convex surface facing the object (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0351], where lens L6 is a negative meniscus lens with a convex surface facing the object). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida to include the further teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit has a negative meniscus lens with a convex surface facing the object for the purpose of optimizing the focusing of the optical system. Regarding claim 8 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Uchida also discloses that the lens unit consists of a single lens (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0351], where lens L6 is a single lens). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida to include the further teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit consists of a single lens for the purpose of optimizing the focusing of the optical system and making the optical system more compact. Regarding claim 9 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino also discloses that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.50 < Ls/LT < 0.80 where Ls is a distance on the optical axis from the aperture stop to the image plane, and LT is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object of the optical system to the image plane (see at least pages 14-15, data for example 3, where Ls = 10.504 and LT = 19.355, thus Ls/Lt = 0.54). Regarding claim 10 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino as modified by Uchida does not specifically disclose that the following inequality is satisfied: 4.0 < LT/f < 10.0 where LT is a distance on the optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object of the optical system to the image plane, and f is a focal length of the optical system. Lengths and distances of an optical system along the optical axis and focal lengths of an optical system are both recognized as result effective variables. Thus, a ratio of a total length of an optical system to a focal length of an optical system is also considered a result effective variable. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of 4.0 < LT/f < 10.0 include making the optical system compact, while obtaining the desired focusing function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida so that 4.0 < LT/f < 10.0 for the purpose of making the optical system compact, while obtaining the desired focusing function. Regarding claim 11 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino also discloses that the following inequality is satisfied: 1.2 < |fn|/f < 15.0 where fn is a focal length of a front group disposed on an object side of the aperture stop, and f is a focal length of the optical system (see at least Pages 14-15, data for example 3, where the focal length of the front group is calculated to be approximately -4, and the total focal length is 1.046, thus |fn|/f is approximately 3.8). Regarding claim 12, Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino as modified by Uchida does not specifically disclose that the following inequality is satisfied: 0.80 < Φf/Φr < 1.20 where Φf is an effective diameter of a lens disposed closest to the object in the optical system, and Φr is an effective diameter of a lens disposed closest to the image plane. Effective diameters of lenses are known result effective variables in the art since they affect the amount of light transmitted through the lens. Thus, the ratio of an effective diameter of a front lens to an effective diameter of a rear lens is also considered a result effective variable. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of 0.80 < Φf/Φr < 1.20 include optimizing the amount of light transmitted through the optical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical system of Togino as modified by Uchida so that 0.80 < Φf/Φr < 1.20 for the purpose of optimizing the amount of light transmitted through the optical system. Regarding claim 13, Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Togino also discloses that the optical system does not include a reflective optical element configured to bend an optical path (see at least Fig. 17). Regarding claim 14 , Togino discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising: an optical system; and an image sensor (see at least Fig. 17, the abstract, and paragraph [0005]), wherein the optical system includes: a first optical system configured to form an optical image of an object in a first imaging area (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf1 is a first optical system); and a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system and configured to form an optical image of the object in a second imaging area (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf2 is a section optical system), wherein each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes an aperture stop fixed in an optical axis direction relative to a position of an image plane (see at least Fig. 17, where S1 and S2 are aperture stops), and at least one of the first optical system and the second optical system includes a lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop (see at least Fig. 17, where Gf1 3 and Gf2 3 are lens units disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stops), and wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.30 < Φs/DL < 0.90 Φs is a diameter of the aperture stop configured to determine an on-axis light beam of each of the first optical system and the second optical system, and DL is a distance between an optical axis that passes a lens closest to the object of the first optical system and an optical axis that passes a lens closest to the object of the second optical system (see at least Fig. 17 and pages 14-15, where the data for example 3 indicates a stop diameter of 1.0 mm and a base length of 2 mm, thus Φs/DL = 0.5). Togino does not specifically disclose that the lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop is movable in the optical axis direction. However, Uchida teaches an optical system for stereoscopic vision (see at least the abstract) comprising an aperture stop and a lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop that is movable in the optical axis direction (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0351] and [0353], where lens L6 is on the image plane side of aperture stop S and is movable in the optical axis direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image pickup apparatus of Togino to include the teachings of Uchida so that the lens unit disposed on an image plane side of the aperture stop is movable in the optical axis direction for the purpose of adjusting the focus of the optical system (see at least paragraph [0353] of Uchida). Regarding claim 15 , Togino as modified by Uchida discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Togino also discloses that the first imaging area and the second imaging area are imaging areas on a single image sensor (see at least Fig. 17) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0007002 to Uehara discloses an optical system wherein the distance between the optical axes of first and second optical systems can be adjusted (see at least Figs. 3-5B). US 2022/0397816 to Noda et al. discloses an optical system wherein the diameter of an aperture stop can be adjusted (see at least paragraph [0074]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm. 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. /A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/804,216 Page 14 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights