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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami (JP-2001356269-A, Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Kawakim discloses on Fig. 1, a zoom projection lens, comprising: a first zoom lens group (LG1), a second zoom lens group (LG2), a compensation lens group (LG3), and a fixed lens group (LG4), positioned sequentially along an optical axis direction from a zoom-in side to a zoom-out side; wherein, the first zoom lens group has a positive focal power (LG1 is positive), the second zoom lens group has a negative focal power (LG2 is negative) [Par 9], the compensation lens group has a positive focal power (LG3 is positive) [Par 9], and the fixed lens group has a positive focal power (LG4 is positive) [Par 9]; and the first zoom lens group, the second zoom lens group, and the compensation lens group are movable along the optical axis (see Fig. 1 where groups LG1-LG3 move along the axis).
Re Claim 11, Kawasaki discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and further discloses on Fig. 1,wherein the compensation lens group (LG3) comprises a sixth lens (L6) and a seventh lens (L7), which have opposite focal powers (L6 is biconvex and positive, and L7 is biconcave and negative).
Re Claim 12, Kawasaki discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Kawasaki further discloses, wherein the fixed lens group (LG4) comprises an eighth lens (L9) with a positive focal power (L9 is positive, calculated from Table 1).
Re Claim 15, Kawasaki discloses, an electronic device, comprising a zoom projection lens according to claim 1 (Fig. 1: “photographic lenses for digital still cameras “, digital cameras are electronic devices) [Par 07].
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10, and 12 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minefuji (US 5504625 A).
Re Claim 1, Minefuji discloses on Fig. 1 and Table 1-3, a zoom projection lens, comprising: a first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], a second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] , a compensation lens group (surfaces r11-r12, see Tables 1-3) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], and a fixed lens group (surfaces r13-r16, see Tables 1-3, fourth lens groups does not move) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], positioned sequentially along an optical axis direction from a zoom-in side to a zoom-out side (left to right); wherein, the first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] has a positive focal power (first group is positive) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], the second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] has a negative focal power (second group is negative) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], the compensation lens group (surfaces r11-r12, see Tables 1-3) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] has a positive focal power (third lens group is positive) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], and the fixed lens group (surfaces r13-r16, see Tables 1-3, fourth lens groups does not move) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] has a positive focal power (fourth lens group is positive) [Col 4, Lines 45-65]; and the first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], the second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] , and the compensation lens group (surfaces r11-r12, see Tables 1-3) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] are movable along the optical axis (groups 1-3 move along the optical axis) [Col 4, Lines 45-65].
Re claim 2, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Minefuji further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein lenses of the first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], the second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] , the compensation lens group (surfaces r11-r12, see Tables 1-3) [Col 4, Lines 45-65], and the fixed lens group (surfaces r13-r16, see Tables 1-3, fourth lens groups does not move) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] are all spherical lenses (it can be seen in Fig. 1 that none of the lenses have inflection points and there is no mention of the lenses being aspherical nor are their aspheric coefficients, thus the lenses must be spherical by default) [Col 4, Lines 45-65].
Re Claim 7, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Minefuji further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] comprises a first lens (r1-r2) with a positive focal power (r1 and r2 are convex and thus the lens is positive) and a second lens (r2-r3) with a negative focal power (second lens is negative, calculation using Table 1).
Re Claim 8, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Minefuji further discloses, wherein the second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] comprises a third lens (r4-r5), a fourth lens (r6-r7), and a fifth lens (r7-r8), the third lens has a negative focal power (r4-r5 are both concave and thus the lens is negative), and the fourth lens (r6-r7 are both concave so the lens is negative) and the fifth lens (r7-r8 lens is positive, determined using calculations using Table 1) have opposite focal powers to each other (r6-r7 and r7-r8 have opposite powers, negative and positive).
Re Claim 10, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 8, and Fig. 1 discloses, wherein the fourth lens (r6-r7) and the fifth lens (r7-r8) are cemented together to form a doublet lens (Fig. 1 shows that surfaces r6-r8 form a doublet lens and are cemented).
Re Claim 12, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Minefuji urther discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the fixed lens group (r13-r16) comprises an eighth lens (r15-r16) with a positive focal power (Fig. 1 shows surfaces r15 and r16 are convex, thus the lens is positive).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minefuji in view of Amano (US 20180059394 A1).
Re claim 3, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and
Minefuji further discloses on Table 2, wherein in a zooming process of the zoom projection lens from a short focus end to a long focus end, a first air gap between the first zoom lens group (surfaces r1-r3, see Tables 1-3, first lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] and the second zoom lens group (surfaces r4-r10, see Tables 1-3, second lens group moves) [Col 4, Lines 45-65] gradually widens (d3 increases from f=80 mm to f=120 mm) [Table 2].
But Minefuji does not explicitly disclose, wherein a second air gap between the second zoom lens group and the compensation lens group gradually widens, and a third air gap between the compensation lens group and the fixed lens group gradually narrows.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Amano teaches, on Fig. 1 and Table 1 and 3, that it is desirable in lens systems to include wherein a second air gap (Table 3: DD 20) between the second zoom lens group (G12) and the compensation lens group (G21) gradually widens (DD20 increases at the telephoto end)[Table 3], and a third air gap (DD27+ the sum of thickness between surfaces 23 and 38) between the compensation lens group (G21) and the fixed lens group (G23) gradually narrows (DD20 decreases by close to 26 mm, while DD38 increases by only 16 mm making the net total distance between G21 and G23 decreasing)[Table 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Minefuji with Amano in order to provide, aberration suppression as taught by Amano [Par 35].
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Amano (US 20180059394 A1).
Re claim 3, Kawasaki discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Kawasaki further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein in a zooming process of the zoom projection lens from a short focus end to a long focus end, a first air gap between the first zoom lens group (LG1) and the second zoom lens group (LG2) gradually widens (Fig. 1 shows that the gap between LG1 and LG2 widens).
But Minefuji does not explicitly disclose, wherein a second air gap between the second zoom lens group and the compensation lens group gradually widens, and a third air gap between the compensation lens group and the fixed lens group gradually narrows.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Amano teaches, on Fig. 1 and Table 1 and 3, that it is desirable in lens systems to include wherein a second air gap (Table 3: DD 20) between the second zoom lens group (G12) and the compensation lens group (G21) gradually widens (DD20 increases at the telephoto end)[Table 3], and a third air gap (DD27+ the sum of thickness between surfaces 23 and 38) between the compensation lens group (G21) and the fixed lens group (G23) gradually narrows (DD20 decreases by close to 26 mm, while DD38 increases by only 16 mm making the net total distance between G21 and G23 decreasing)[Table 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kawasaki with Amano in order to provide, aberration suppression as taught by Amano [Par 35].
Re Claim 4, Kawasaki in view of Amano obviates, the zoom projection lens according to claim 3, and Kawasaki further teaches on Fig. 1 and Table 1,wherein at the long focus end of the zoom projection lens [Par 11], the zoom projection lens has a total optical length of TTL1 (62.91 mm), the first air gap has a width of d1 (16.69 mm), and the second air gap has a width of d2 (2.33 mm), satisfying: 0.25≤d1/TTL1 ≤0.3 (d1/TTL1=26.5) [Table 1]; 0.03≤d2/TTL1≤0.07 (d2/TTL1=0.037)[Table 1].
Re Claim 5, Kawasaki in view of Amano obviates, the zoom projection lens according to claim 3, and Kawasaki further teaches, wherein at the short focus end of the zoom projection lens, the zoom projection lens has a total optical length of TTL2 (65.46 mm) and the third air gap is has a width of d3 (1.4 mm), thus d3/TTL2=0.021 [Table 1].
But Kawasaki in view of Amano, does not explicitly disclose satisfying the following formula: 0.04≤d3/TTL2≤0.06.
Optimizing air gap width is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kawasaki teaches the third air gap distance d3 and wide angle track length TTL2 variables which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting d3/TTL2 and identifies said ratio as result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize d3/TTL2 such that, : 0.04≤d3/TTL2≤0.06, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki.
Re Claim 6, Kawasaki discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1.
But Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose, wherein the zoom projection lens has a working F-number, which satisfies: 1.6≤working F-number≤1.8.
Optimizing working F-number is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Kawasaki teaches F-number (See Table 1 where F-number= 2.05) as a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting F-number and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize F-number such that, 1.6≤working F-number≤1.8, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minefuji as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kawasaki.
Re Claim 9, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 8.
But Minefuji does not explicitly disclose, wherein the zoom projection lens comprises an aperture stop, located between the third lens and the fourth lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kawasaki teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include, an aperture stop (aperture S) [Par 09 and 15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Minefuji with Kawasaki in order to provide control of the amount of light entering the system,
But Minefuji in view of Kawasaki still does not explicitly disclose, wherein the aperture stop is located between the third lens and the fourth lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kawasaki teaches, on Fig. 1 that it is desirable in optical lenses, the inclusion of a stop (aperture S) [Par 09 and 15] between the fourth (L4) and fifth lens (L5). Thus, Kawasaki teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to explicitly control the location of the aperture stop (“The third lens group LG3 has an aperture diaphragm S closest to the object…”) [Par 15]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of simply changing the location of the aperture stop (as taught by Kawasaki) such that, it is located between the third lens and the fourth lens. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide control of the amount of light entering the system. Note the Court has held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification to the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1059) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 188 (USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Minefuji with Kawasaki, such that the aperture stop, is located between the third lens and the fourth lens, in order to control the amount of light entering the system.
Re Claim 13, Minefuji discloses, the zoom projection lens according to claim 1, and Minefuji further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein each of the first zoom lens group (r1-r3), and the second zoom lens group (r4-r10), comprise a cemented lens (See Fig. 1 where surfaces r1-r3 and r6-r8 are cemented respectively).
But Minefuji does not explicitly disclose, wherein the compensation lens group comprises a cemented lens.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kawasaki teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical systems to include, wherein the compensation lens group (LG3) comprises a cemented lens (Fig. 1: lenses L6 and L7 are cemented) [Table 1].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Minefuji with Kawasaki in order to provide reduced color distortion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Minefuji and Kawasaki both teach a zoom lens with at least four lens groups but neither Minefuji and Kawasaki nor the prior art as a whole teach, wherein effective focal lengths of the first zoom lens group, the second zoom lens group, the compensation lens group, and the fixed lens group are f1, f2, f3, and f4 respectively, the zoom projection lens has a short focus end focal length of fw, which satisfies: 3.52≤f1/fw≤3.80, 1.41≤f2/fw≤1.17, 1.41≤f3/fw≤1.64, and 2.96≤f4/fw≤3.19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murayama (US 20110170203 A1) similarly teaches a four-lens group zooming optical system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights