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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18951505 filed on 11/18/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on divisional of application #18139801, filed 04/26/2023, that is a Divisional of #17123597, filed 12/16/2020, that is a Divisional of #16503615, filed 07/04/2019 that is a Divisional of #15545706, filed 11/26/2017 which is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2016/052735, with International Filing Date of 01/29/2016 that claims foreign priority to JP 2015-017212, filed 01/30/2015 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2,4-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10379319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as presented in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant case #18951505
US Pat. # 10379319
Notes
1
1, 5
2
2
3
1
4
1
6
4
7
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
13
16
14
17
15
18
16
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2,3-4, 6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10908388. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as presented in the claims correspondence table below:
Instant case #18951505
US Pat. # 10908388
Notes
1
1, 2
3
4
4
1
6
3
17
6
18
8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanashi US 20120268831 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 11/18/2024).
In regard to independent claim 1 and 19, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a zoom lens and method for manufacturing zoom lens (wide angle zoom lens, e.g. 100 and equivalents, see abstract, paragraphs [01,29-35,99-109,111,113-123, 150-181]) comprising, zoom lens includes, in order from an object along an optical axis (along optical axis from object to image side, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs [29-35]):
a first lens group having a negative refractive power (negative group e.g. 110 and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-181], Figs. 1-6);
a second lens group having a positive refractive power (positive group e.g. 120 and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-181], Figs. 1-6);
a third lens group having a negative refractive power (negative group e.g. 130 and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-181], Figs. 1-6);
a fourth lens group (positive group e.g. 140 and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-181], Figs. 1-6); and
a fifth lens group (group e.g. 150 as positive and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-169,177-181], Figs. 1-4,6), regarding claim 19 method includes arranging the zoom lens such that, wherein when the zoom lens performs varying magnification (as zooming of zoom lens varies image magnification, e.g. paragraphs [29-35,99-110]), the distance between the first and second lens groups changes, the distance between the second and third lens groups changes, the distance between the third and fourth lens groups changes, the distance between the fourth and fifth lens groups changes (as second, third, fourth and fifth groups move during zooming, e.g. paragraphs [29-35,99-110], Figs. 1), the second and fourth lens groups move along the same trajectory along the optical axis (i.e. as second ad fourth groups have matching movement plans, e.g. 165 and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110], Figs. 1-4,6), and at least the third lens group moves along the optical axis (as third group e.g. 130, moves along optical axis paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-6), and
the following conditional expression is satisfied: 1.000<f5/(-f1)<10.000
where f5: a focal length of the fifth lens group,
f1: a focal length of the first lens group (e.g. given lens data, focal lengths of first and fifth lens group, e.g. value 4.17, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 2, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the fourth lens group has a positive refractive power, and the fifth lens group has a positive refractive power (as fourth group and fifth group e.g. 140, 150 are positive and equivalents, paragraphs [29-35,99-110,113-123, 150-169,177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 3, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the following conditional expression is satisfied:
1.500<(-f3)/fw<10.000
where f3: a focal length of the third lens group fw: a focal length of the zoom lens system in a wide-angle end state (e.g. given lens data, focal lengths of third lens group and focal length at wide end, e.g. value 3.367, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 4, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.050<|m34|/fw<1.500
where m34: a change in distance between the third lens group and the fourth lens group along the optical axis upon zooming from a wide-angle end state to a telephoto end state, fw: a focal length of the zoom lens in the wide-angle end state (e.g. given lens data, change of separation between group 3 and 4 and focal length at wide end, e.g. value 1.31, 1.66 paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 6, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.030<|m12|/fw<5.000
where m12: a change in distance between the first lens group and the second lens group along the optical axis upon zooming from a wide-angle end state to a telephoto end state, fw: a focal length of the zoom lens in the wide-angle end state (e.g. given lens data, change of separation between group 1 and 2 and focal length at wide end, e.g. value 2.509, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 7, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.200<f5/f4<4.000
where f4: a focal length of the fourth lens group (e.g. given lens data, focal lengths of fourth and fifth lens group, e.g. value 1.1198, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 8, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the following conditional expression is satisfied:
0.500<f4/f2<10.000
where f4: a focal length of the fourth lens group, f2: a focal length of the second lens group (e.g. given lens data, focal lengths of fourth and second group, e.g. value 2.405, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 9, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the fifth lens group has a meniscus-shaped positive lens having a convex surface oriented toward the image side, and the following conditional expression is satisfied:
1.100<(rl+r2)/(r1-r2)<5.000
where r1: a radius of curvature of an object-side surface of the positive lens
r2: a radius of curvature of an image-side surface of the positive lens (e.g. given lens data, e.g. value 2.65, paragraphs [113-123, 150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 13, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the zoom lens performs focusing from an object at infinity to an object at a close distance by moving at least one lens of the second lens group along the optical axis (i.e. see at least Figs. 1A, 2A, e.g. as second group is moved in zooming while focusing relative to part of first lens group)
Regarding claim 14, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the zoom lens performs focusing from an object at infinity to an object at a close distance by moving at least one lens of the third lens group along the optical axis (i.e. see at least Figs. 1A, 2A, e.g. as third group is moved in zooming while focusing relative to part of first lens group).
Regarding claim 15, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the zoom lens performs focusing from an object at infinity to an object at a close distance by moving at least one lens of the fourth lens group along the optical axis (i.e. see at least Figs. 1A, 2A, e.g. as fourth group is moved in zooming while focusing relative to part of first lens group).
Regarding claim 16, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the zoom lens performs focusing from an object at infinity to an object at a close distance by moving at least one lens of the fifth lens group along the optical axis (i.e. see at least Figs. 1A, 2A, e.g. as fifth group is moved in zooming while focusing relative to part of first lens group).
Regarding claim 17, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an aperture stop is provided between the second lens group and the third lens group (i.e. as STO between second and third lens group, e.g. table 1A, paragraphs [113-123, 139,150-169, 177-181], Figs. 1-4,6).
Regarding claim 18, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) an optical apparatus having the zoom lens of claim 1 (i.e. as zoom lens e.g. 100 and equivalents are part of a camera, digital camera, image capture device, e.g. paragraphs [01,94,132], claim 7).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi US 20120268831 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 11/18/2024).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 12, Yamanashi teaches (see Figs. 1-6) the zoom lens but not explicitly that that at least one lens of the third lens group is configured to be movable so as to include a component in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis, or regarding claim 11 that at least one lens of the second lens group is configured to be movable so as to include a component in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis, or regarding claim 12 that at least one lens of the fourth lens group is configured to be movable so as to include a component in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the above cited limitations, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 C.C.P.A. 1950). One would be motivated to move the vibration correction unit in order to either reduce vibration early in collimation or late in collimation and correction. Adjusting the correction later provides the benefit of a tighter beam to correct and adjusting the beam earlier allows for the vibration to be removed before the aberration correction so that it does not cause as much an effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka US 5229886 A also teaches features of instant invention (see Figs. 1-3 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights