DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 17, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on July 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all of the species are configured based on the same optical design principle and embody the fundamental design concept of claim 1”. This is not found persuasive because the claims to the species recite mutually exclusive characteristics such as the configuration of the lenses in the system and not considered obvious variants based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 16-27 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.
In regard to independent claim 1, the limitations, “assuming that . . .” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, the limitation appears to be conditional. For examination purposes, it is assumed, that the limitation “assuming that a focal length of the N lens group is fN, and a focal length of the first lens group is f1, a conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by -6 < fN/f1 < -0.55 (1)” should be “a focal length of the N lens group is fN, and a focal length of the first lens group is f1, a conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by -6 < fN/f1 < -0.55 (1)”.
Claims 8, 9, 16-21, and 26 use similar conditional language incorporating “assuming” and are similarly rejected.
In regard to claim 20 and 26, the use of the conditional phrase “in a case” renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is not clear if the limitations following “in a case” are optional. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the limitations are not optional. Note that withdrawn claim 14 uses similar language.
Claims 2-27 depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 16, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada (US 2019/0064478 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Shimada discloses a zoom lens comprising (see e.g. Figure 1, Tables 1-2):
a first lens group G1 that is disposed to be closest to an object side and that has a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1);
a negative group G2 that is disposed to be adjacent to an image side of the first lens group G1, that consists of two or fewer lens groups (see e.g. Figure 1 and note the lenses are considered to be in a single group or broken into two groups), and that has a negative refractive power as a whole (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1);
an N lens group G3 that is disposed to be closer to the image side than the negative group G2 and that has a negative refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1);
a P lens group G4 that is disposed to be closer to the image side than the negative group G2 and that has a positive refractive power (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1); and
a final lens group G5 that is disposed to be closest to the image side (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1),
wherein during zooming, all spacings between adjacent lens groups G1-G5 change (see e.g. Figure 1 and note that the middle three lens groups G2-G4 move during zooming, satisfying the limitation), and
a focal length of the N lens group G3 is fN, and
a focal length of the first lens group G1 is f1,
a conditional Expression (1) is satisfied, which is represented by -6 < fN/f1 < -0.55 (1) (Using the values in table 1, fN and f1 were calculated to be -41.34 and 71.09, respectively, such that fN/f1 ~ -0.58 which falls within applicant’s claimed range). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates that range (see e.g. MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 2, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 remains stationary with respect to an image plane during zooming (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1).
In regard to claim 3, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the final lens group G5 remains stationary with respect to an image plane during zooming (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1).
In regard to claim 4, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the P lens group G4 is disposed to be adjacent to the image side of the N lens group G3, and the final lens group G5 is disposed to be adjacent to the image side of the P lens group G4 (see e.g. paragraph [0039], Figure 1).
In regard to claim 5, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein during focusing, a part of the first lens group G1 moves along an optical axis (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0053] for G1b, G1c moving).
In regard to claim 6, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes, successively in order from a position closest to the object side to the image side, at least a first a-part group G1a, a first b-part group G1b, and a first c-part group G1c, and during focusing, a spacing between the first a-part group G1a and the first b-part group changes G1b, and a spacing between the first b-part group G1b and the first c-part group G1c changes (see e.g. paragraph [0053], Figure 1).
In regard to claim 7, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 consists of, in order from the object side to the image side, a first a-part group G1a, a first b-part group G1b, and a first c-part group G1c, and during focusing, the first a-part group G1a remains stationary with respect to an image plane, and the first b-part group G1b and the first c-part group G1c move on tracks different from each other (see e.g. paragraph [0053], Figure 1).
In regard to claim 10, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein during zooming from a wide angle end to a telephoto end, the N lens group G3 moves along a locus convex toward the object side (see e.g. Figure 1 for lens path).
In regard to claim 11, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein a lens L1n closest to the object side in the zoom lens is a negative lens (see e.g. paragraph [0049]), and a lens (i.e. not labeled, next to L1n) which is second from the object side in the zoom lens is a positive lens (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0053]).
In regard to claim 12, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes one negative lens L1n and four or more positive lenses (i.e. unlabeled parts of G1, see e.g. Figure 1).
In regard to claim 13, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes, successively in order from a position closest to the object side to the image side, a negative lens L1n, a positive lens (i.e. not labeled, see e.g. Figure 1), and a positive lens (i.e. not labeled, see e.g. Figure 1).
In regard to claim 16, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but and
wherein the first lens group G1 includes, successively in order from a position closest to the object side to the image side, at least a first a-part group G1a and a first b-part group G1b, a spacing between the first a-part group G1a and the first b-part group G1b changes during focusing (see e.g. paragraph [0053], Figure 1),
assuming that a focal length of the first a-part group is f1a, Conditional Expression (4) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.85 < f1/f1a < 0.15 (4) (see e.g. Table 1 and note that f1 and f1a are calculated to be 71.09 and -817.937, respectively, and thus f1/f1a ~0.0869, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates that range (see e.g. MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 17, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein assuming that a focal length of the negative group G2 is fUN, Conditional Expression (5) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.4 < fUN/f1 < -0.09 (5) (see e.g. Table one and note that fUN and f1 are calculated to be ~ -14.26 and 71.09, respectively, which gives fUN/f1 ~ 0.201, which falls within applicant’s claimed range). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates that range (see e.g. MPEP 2131.03).
In regard to claim 27, Shimada discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: the zoom lens according to claim 1 (see e.g. Figure 1 and 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, above).
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 8, 9, 18-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2019/0064478 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.2 < Denw/fw < 8 (2).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.2 < Denw/fw < 8 (2), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, Conditional Expression (2) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.2 < Denw/fw < 8 (2).
Since the value of Denw is related to the total track length of the device and spacing of the lenses, optimizing the ratio of Denw to the focal length in the wide angle would provide a desired focal length while having a smaller footprint, and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 9, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that a focal length of the negative group is fUN, and a focal length of the N lens group is fN, Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.118 < fUN/fN < 0.25 (3).
However, Shimada does disclose a value of fUN/fN of ~0.35 which is close to applicant’s claimed range (note fUN and fN were calculated using the values in Table 1 to be -14.26 and -41.34, respectively, which results in fUn/fN ~0.35). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that a focal length of the negative group is fUN, and a focal length of the N lens group is fN, Conditional Expression (3) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.118 < fUN/fN < 0.25 (3).
Selecting the ratio of the second and third groups would contribute to the desired magnification of the device as well as total track length and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 18, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, Conditional Expression (6) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.4 < Denw/f1 < 1.6 (6).
However, Shimada does disclose Denw/f1 ~1.9, which is close to applicant’s claimed range (see e.g. Table 1 and note the values from Table 1 were used to calculate Denw ~137.9, f1 ~ 71.09, thus Denw/f1 ~1.9). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, Conditional Expression (6) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.4 < Denw/f1 < 1.6 (6).
Since the value of Denw is related to the total track length of the device and spacing of the lenses, optimizing the ratio of Denw to the focal length of the first group would provide a desired focal length of the system while having a smaller footprint, and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 19, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by 3.4 < Denw/IHw < 7.5 (7).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by 3.4 < Denw/IHw < 7.5 (7), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to a paraxial entrance pupil position in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Denw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (7) is satisfied, which is represented by 3.4 < Denw/IHw < 7.5 (7).
Selecting the distance between the front lenses and the paraxial pupil position as a ratio to the image height would provide an improved image quality and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 20, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that an amount of displacement of the N lens group in an optical axis direction during zooming from a wide angle end to a telephoto end is MovN, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at the telephoto end is ft, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, and a sign of the amount of displacement is negative in a case where the N lens group moves toward the object side and is positive in a case where the N lens group moves toward the image side, Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.4 < MovN/(f1/log(ft/fw)) < 0.1 (8).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein assuming that an amount of displacement of the N lens group in an optical axis direction during zooming from a wide angle end to a telephoto end is MovN, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at the telephoto end is ft, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, and a sign of the amount of displacement is negative in a case where the N lens group moves toward the object side and is positive in a case where the N lens group moves toward the image side, Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.4 < MovN/(f1/log(ft/fw)) < 0.1 (8), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that an amount of displacement of the N lens group in an optical axis direction during zooming from a wide angle end to a telephoto end is MovN, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at the telephoto end is ft, a focal length of the zoom lens in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is fw, and a sign of the amount of displacement is negative in a case where the N lens group moves toward the object side and is positive in a case where the N lens group moves toward the image side, Conditional Expression (8) is satisfied, which is represented by -0.4 < MovN/(f1/log(ft/fw)) < 0.1 (8).
Selecting the ratio of the telephoto and wide angle focal lengths would provide an optimized the field of view and depth of field which also optimizing the distance the group moves during the zooming function and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 21, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein assuming that a back focal length at an air-equivalent distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Bfw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.9 < Bfw/IHw < 6 (9).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein assuming that a back focal length at an air-equivalent distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Bfw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.9 < Bfw/IHw < 6 (9), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shimada with wherein assuming that a back focal length at an air-equivalent distance in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end is Bfw, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (9) is satisfied, which is represented by 1.9 < Bfw/IHw < 6 (9).
Selecting the back focal length as a function of the image height would allow the field coverage to be characterized ensuring a good sensor fit.
In regard to claim 26, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, in a case where an air spacing, which has a maximum length among air spacings on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the P lens group to a lens surface closest to the image side in the final lens group in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end, is set as a longest air spacing, assuming that a Petzval sum from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to an object side surface constituting the longest air spacing is PF, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.12 < PF×IHw < 0.25 (10).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, in a case where an air spacing, which has a maximum length among air spacings on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the P lens group to a lens surface closest to the image side in the final lens group in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end, is set as a longest air spacing, assuming that a Petzval sum from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to an object side surface constituting the longest air spacing is PF, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.12 < PF×IHw < 0.25 (10), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Shimada with wherein, in a case where an air spacing, which has a maximum length among air spacings on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object side in the P lens group to a lens surface closest to the image side in the final lens group in a state where an infinite distance object is in focus at a wide angle end, is set as a longest air spacing, assuming that a Petzval sum from a lens surface closest to the object side in the first lens group to an object side surface constituting the longest air spacing is PF, and a maximum image height in a state where the infinite distance object is in focus at the wide angle end is IHw, Conditional Expression (10) is satisfied, which is represented by 0.12 < PF×IHw < 0.25 (10).
Selecting the product of the Petzval sum and image height to be small would all for the image to have a weak curvature/almost flat surface, which would have a better off axis sharpness.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (US 2019/0064478 A1) in view of Moskovich (US 5,200,861).
In regard to claim 22, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first a-part group includes an aspherical lens having at least one surface of which an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, 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 device of Shimada with wherein the first a-part group includes an aspherical lens having at least one surface of which an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
Doing so would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 23, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first c-part group includes an aspherical lens having at least one surface of which an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, 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 device of Shimada with an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
Doing so would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 24, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the negative group includes an aspherical lens having at least one surface of which an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is less than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is less than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, 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 device of Shimada with an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is less than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
Doing so would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
In regard to claim 25, Shimada discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the P lens group includes an aspherical lens having at least one surface of which an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
However, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Moskovich, 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 device of Shimada with an absolute value of a curvature radius at a position of a maximum effective diameter is greater than an absolute value of a paraxial curvature radius.
Doing so would correct for aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights