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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-11 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 claim 1, the limitation, “νn is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the negative lens closest to the object, f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear if this is a different lens than the at least one negative lens claimed in claim 1. For examination purposes, it is presumed that it is the same lens.
In regard to claim 6, the limitation “60 ≤ ν ≤ 100 where ν is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the at least one negative lens” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear to which negative lens this is referring and it is in conflict with the limitations of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is presumed that any of the negative lenses in the system satisfy the claim.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2022/0269057 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hori et al. discloses a zoom lens (see e.g. paragraph [0125]) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side (see e.g. Figure 7):
a first lens unit U1 having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]);
an intermediate group U2-U4 including at least three lens units U2, U3, U4 that move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]); and
a final lens unit U5 having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein the intermediate group U2-U4 includes at least one lens U2, U3 unit having negative refractive power (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein a lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to an object among the at least one lens unit having negative refractive power U2 includes at least one negative lens (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] and note the first lens of group US has a focal length of -23.163), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
20.0 ≤ νn ≤ 40.0 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for νn =29.14, which falls within applicant’s claimed range)
1.5 ≤ f1/fw ≤ 7.7 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for f1=31.68 and fw=4.40 thus f1/f2~7.2, which falls within applicant’s claimed range)
where nn is a refractive index for d-line of a negative lens closest to the object among the at least one negative lens, νn is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the negative lens closest to the object, f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit, and fw is a focal length of the zoom lens at a wide-angle end (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for various values for the optical system of Figure 7).
Hori et al. fails to disclose
2.02 ≤ nn ≤ 2.30 .
However, Hori et al. does disclose nn = 2.001 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152]), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, 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 Hori et al. with 2.02 ≤ nn ≤ 2.30 .
Optimizing the refractive index of the lens would allow the device to be made smaller or lighter by choosing a material with a higher refractive index.
In regard to claim 2, Hori et al. discloses the imitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.7 ≤ fn/fV ≤ 2.0 where fn is a focal length of the negative lens closest to the object, and fV is a focal length of the lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to the object (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] and note that fn = -23.163 and fV = -20.30, thus fn/fv ~1.14, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 3, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.63 ≤ θn+0.00162×νn ≤ 0.70 where θn is a partial dispersion ratio of the negative lens closest to the object for g-line and F-line (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] and θn = 0.5997, νn = 29.14, thus θn+0.00162×νn ~ 0.65, which falls within applicant’s claimed range) .
In regard to claim 5, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the lens unit U2 having negative refractive power and closest to the object includes at least four lenses (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]).
In regard to claim 6, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
60 ≤ ν ≤ 100 where ν is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the at least one negative lens (see e.g. 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above for claim interpretation and Table in paragraph [0152] for various negative lenses with ν falling in the claimed range).
In regard to claim 7, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -0.0040 ≤ (θpave-θnave)/(νpave-νnave) < 0.0000 where νpave is an average value of Abbe numbers based on the d-line of at least one positive lens included in the lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to the object, θpave is an average value of partial dispersion ratios for g-line and F-line of the at least one positive lens, νnave is an average value of Abbe numbers based on the d-line of the at least one negative lens, and θnave is an average value of partial dispersion ratios for the g-line and F-line of the at least one negative lens (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for values and note (θpave-θnave)/(νpave-νnave) = (0.6122-0.5997)/(24.8-29.14) ~ -0.28, which falls within applicant’s claimed range).
In regard to claim 8, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: -5.5 ≤ fV/fw ≤ -0.3 where fV is a focal length of the lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to the object (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for values and note fV/fw = -20.3/4.4 ~ -4.61, which falls within applicant’s claimed range) .
In regard to claim 9, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and
wherein a part of the first lens unit U1 moves for focusing (see e.g. paragraph [0125]).
In regard to claim 10, Hori et al. discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising (see e.g. Figure 7):
a zoom lens U1-U5 (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]); and
an image sensor (see e.g. paragraph [0030] for image sensor or IP of Figure 7) configured to capture an object image through the zoom lens U1-U5 (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein the zoom lens includes U1-U5 , in order from an object side to an image side (i.e. from left to right in Figure 7):
a first lens unit having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming; an intermediate group including at least three lens units that move during zooming; and a final lens unit having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming, wherein a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming, wherein the intermediate group includes at least one lens unit having negative refractive power, wherein a lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to an object among the at least one lens unit having negative refractive power includes at least one negative lens, and wherein the following inequalities are satisfied: 2.02 ≤ nn ≤ 2.30 20.0 ≤ νn ≤ 40.0 1.5 ≤ f1/fw ≤ 7.7 where nn is a refractive index for d-line of a negative lens closest to the object among the at least one negative lens, νn is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the negative lens closest to the object, f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit, and fw is a focal length of the zoom lens at a wide-angle end.
a first lens unit U1 having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]);
an intermediate group U2-U4 including at least three lens units U2, U3, U4 that move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]); and
a final lens unit U5 having positive refractive power that does not move during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein a distance between adjacent lens units changes during zooming (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein the intermediate group U2-U4 includes at least one lens U2, U3 unit having negative refractive power (see e.g. Figure 7 and paragraph [0125]),
wherein a lens unit having negative refractive power and closest to an object among the at least one lens unit having negative refractive power U2 includes at least one negative lens (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] and note the first lens of group US has a focal length of -23.163), and
wherein the following inequalities are satisfied:
20.0 ≤ νn ≤ 40.0 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for νn =29.14, which falls within applicant’s claimed range)
1.5 ≤ f1/fw ≤ 7.7 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for f1=31.68 and fw=4.40 thus f1/f2~7.2, which falls within applicant’s claimed range)
where nn is a refractive index for d-line of a negative lens closest to the object among the at least one negative lens, νn is an Abbe number based on the d-line of the negative lens closest to the object, f1 is a focal length of the first lens unit, and fw is a focal length of the zoom lens at a wide-angle end (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152] for various values for the optical system of Figure 7).
Hori et al. fails to disclose
2.02 ≤ nn ≤ 2.30 .
However, Hori et al. does disclose nn = 2.001 (see e.g. Table in paragraph [0152]), which is close to applicant’s claimed range.
Further, 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 Hori et al. with 2.02 ≤ nn ≤ 2.30 .
Optimizing the refractive index of the lens would allow the device to be made smaller or lighter by choosing a material with a higher refractive index.
In regard to claim 11, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.2 ≤ fw/IS ≤ 2.2 where IS is a diagonal length of an effective imaging surface of the image sensor.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.2 ≤ fw/IS ≤ 2.2 where IS is a diagonal length of an effective imaging surface of the image sensor, 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 Hori et al. with wherein the following inequality is satisfied: 0.2 ≤ fw/IS ≤ 2.2 where IS is a diagonal length of an effective imaging surface of the image sensor.
Selecting a ratio of the focal length and diagonal length of the image sensor would allow an optimized image that is collected by the sensor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2022/0269057 A1) in view of Moskovich (US 5,200,861)
In regard to claim 4, Hori et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the negative lens closest to the object is an aspheric lens.
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).
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 Hori et al. with wherein the negative lens closest to the object is an aspheric lens.
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
