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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings with 9 sheets of Figs. 1-9 received on 12/5/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 11-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keisuke, JP 2012-053260 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Keisuke).
As to claim 1, Keisuke teaches (Fig. 1) an optical system (para [0069], macro lens, Fig. 1) comprising, in order from an object side to an image side (para [0069], in order from the object side, Fig. 1):
a front group (G1, G2, para [0069], positive group 1 G1 and negative group 2 G2 are considered the front group, Fig. 1(a)) having positive refractive power (G1, G2, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 1-14, the focal length of the front group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLf=82.6, thus the front group has a positive refractive power, Fig. 1(a)) and including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2, para [0069], the front group includes positive group 1 G1 and negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a));
an aperture stop (S, para [0069], an aperture diaphragm, Fig. 1(a)); and
a rear group (G3, G4, para [0069], positive group 3 G3 and negative group 4 G4 are considered the rear group, Fig. 1(a)) having positive refractive power (G3, G4, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 17-26, the focal length of the rear group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLr=94.8, thus the rear group has a positive refractive power, Fig. 1(a)) and including a plurality of lens units (G3, G4, para [0069], the rear group includes positive group 3 G3 and negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)),
wherein during focusing (para [0074], when focusing from an infinity-focused object state with a 1:1 magnification, Fig. 1(a)), a first focus lens unit included in the front group (G2, para [0074], the second group G2 moves towards the image side along the optical axis Lc while widening the distance between it and the first group G1, Fig. 1) and a second focus lens unit included in the rear group (G3, para [0074], the third group G3 moves towards the object along the optical axis Lc while narrowing the distance between it and the second group G2, Fig. 1) move, and thereby a distance between adjacent lens units change (G2, G3, para [0074], the second group G2 moves towards the image side and the third group G3 moves towards the object along the optical axis Lc, thus the distance between adjacent lens units changes, Fig. 1), and
wherein the front group includes:
a first lens having positive refractive power and disposed closest to an object (L11, para [0070], a biconvex lens L11, Fig. 1(a)), and
a second lens having negative refractive power and disposed adjacent to and on the image side of the first lens (L12, para [0070], a meniscus lens L12 with negative refractive power, Fig. 1(a)).
As to claim 2, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the first lens is a single lens (L11, para [0070], a biconvex lens L11, Fig. 1(a)).
As to claim 4, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 ≤ f1/f ≤ 4.0 (given the values that follow f1/f=1.05)
where f1 is a focal length of the first lens (L11, the focal length of the first lens is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be f1=158.18), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 6, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.1 ≤ SK/f ≤ 0.6 (given the values that follow SK/f=0.3)
where SK is an air equivalent distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an image plane of the optical system to the image plane (paras [0076] and [0078], Table 1, the distance from r26 to the image plane is D26+4.2+D28, at infinity D26=40.00 and D28=1.31, thus SK=40.00+4.2+1.31=45.51), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 8, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens unit having positive refractive power (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a)); and
a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)), and
wherein the second lens unit is the first focus lens unit (G2, para [0074], the second group G2 moves towards the image side along the optical axis Lc, Fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens unit having positive refractive power (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a)); and
a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.01 ≤ T2/f ≤ 0.30 (given the values that follow T2/f=0.13)
where T2 is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object in the second lens unit to a lens surface closest to an image plane in the second lens unit (paras [0076] and [0078], Table 1, the sum of rows 1 to 6 of column d gives T1=20), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 12, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first rear lens unit having positive refractive power (G3, para [0069], positive group 3 G3, Fig. 1(a)); and
a second rear lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G4, para [0069], negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)), and
wherein the first rear lens unit is the second focus lens unit (G3, para [0074], the third group G3 moves towards the object along the optical axis Lc while narrowing the distance between it and the second group G2, Fig. 1).
As to claim 15, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 ≤ fLf/f ≤ 5.0 (given the following values fLf/f=0.55)
where fLf is a focal length of the front group (G1, G2, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 1-14, the focal length of the front group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLf=82.6), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 16, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 ≤ fLr/f ≤ 5.0 (given the values that follow fLr/f=0.63)
where fLr is a focal length of the rear group (G3, G4, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 17-26, the focal length of the rear group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLr=94.8), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 17, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 ≤ fLf/fLr ≤ 4.0 (given the values that follow fLf/fLr=0.87)
where fLf is a focal length of the front group (G1, G2, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 1-14, the focal length of the front group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLf=82.6), and fLr is a focal length of the rear group (G3, G4, para [0069], Table 1, Surface No. 17-26, the focal length of the rear group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLr=94.8).
As to claim 18, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens unit having positive refractive power (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a)); and
a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 ≤ fL1/f ≤ 5 (given the values that follow fL1/f=0.39)
where fL1 is a focal length of the first lens unit (G1, para [0079], the focal length of the first lens unit is 58.85), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
As to claim 20, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first rear lens unit having positive refractive power (G3, para [0069], positive group 3 G3, Fig. 1(a)); and
a second rear lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G4, para [0069], negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)), and
wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.1 ≤ fLr1/f ≤ 4.0 (given the values that follow fLr1/f=0.42)
where fLr1 is a focal length of the first rear lens unit (G3, para [0079], the focal length of the third lens unit is 62.52), f is a focal length of the optical system in a state focused on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuribayashi, US 2023/0375802 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuribayashi).
As to claim 22, Kuribayashi teaches (Figs. 1-11) an image pickup apparatus (1, para [0040], camera 1, Fig. 11) comprising:
an optical system (OL, paras [0041] and [0136], optical system OL, Figs. 1 and 11); and
an image sensor configured to image an object through the optical system (4, I, paras [0040] and [0136], image-pickup element 4, image surface I, Figs. 1 and 11),
wherein the optical system includes, in order from an object side to an image side (OL, para [0136], in order from an object on the optical axis, Fig. 1):
a front group (G1, G2, para [0136], first lens group G1 and second lens group G2 are considered the front group, Fig. 1) having positive refractive power (G1, G2, para [0136], Table 1, Surface No. 1-11, the focal length of the front group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLf=54.57, thus the front group has a positive refractive power, Fig. 1) and including a plurality of lens units (G1, G2, para [0136], the front group includes the first lens group G1 and second lens group G2, Fig. 1);
an aperture stop (S, para [0136], aperture stop S, Fig. 1); and
a rear group (G3, G4, para [0136], third lens group G3 and fourth lens group G4 are considered the rear group, Fig. 1) having positive refractive power (G1, G2, para [0136], Table 1, Surface No. 14-28, the focal length of the rear group of lenses is calculated from the data given in Table 1 using a matrix calculation to be fLr=96.66, thus the rear group has a positive refractive power, Fig. 1) and including a plurality of lens units (G3, G4, para [0136], the rear group includes the third lens group G3 and fourth lens group G4, Fig. 1),
wherein during focusing, a first focus lens unit included in the front group (G2, para [0136], during focusing the second lens group G2 moves toward the image on the optical axis, Fig. 1) and a second focus lens unit included in the rear group move (G3, para [0136], during focusing the third lens group G3 moves toward the object on the optical axis, Fig. 1), and thereby a distance between adjacent lens units change (G2, G3, para [0136], during focusing the second lens group G2 and the third lens group G3 move on the optical axis and the distances between the lens groups adjacent to each other change, Fig. 1), and
wherein the front group includes:
a first lens having positive refractive power and disposed closest to the object (L11, para [0137], biconvex positive lens L11, Fig. 1), and
a second lens having negative refractive power and disposed adjacent to and on the image side of the first lens (L12, para [0137], negative meniscus lens L12, Fig. 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke, JP 2012-053260 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Keisuke), in view of Saito, US 2017/0371132 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Saito).
As to claim 3, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the second lens includes a resin layer on an object-side surface of a single lens, and wherein an object-side surface of the resin layer is aspheric.
Keisuke and Saito are related as optical systems having two focusing lens groups.
However, Saito teaches an optical system (para [0071], zoom lens, Fig. 1), wherein the second lens includes a resin layer on an object-side surface of a single lens, and wherein an object-side surface of the resin layer is aspheric (G2, L21, paras [0073], [0096], and [0101], the first lens group G1 includes a cemented lens, thus L11 and L12 are considered the first lens, and L21 is considered the second lens, an aspheric resin is attached to the object side surface of the lens of the second lens group G2 closest to the object side, thus forming a compound aspheric lens, Fig. 1).
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 Keisuke with the second lens having an aspheric, resin object side of Saito, because it is possible to effectively perform aberration correction, para [0096]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke, JP 2012-053260 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Keisuke), in view of Kuribayashi, US 2023/0375802 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuribayashi).
As to claim 5, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.02 ≤ LD1/f ≤ 0.15
where LD1 is an air gap on an optical axis between the first lens and the second lens, and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity.
Keisuke and Kuribayashi are related as optical systems having two focusing lens groups.
However, Kuribayashi teaches an optical system (OL(3), para [0148], optical system OL(3), Fig. 5), wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.02 ≤ LD1/f ≤ 0.15 (given the values that follow LD1/f=0.036)
where LD1 is an air gap on an optical axis between the first lens and the second lens (para [0150], Table 3, row 2, column D, gives LD1=4.067), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (para [0150], Table 3, f=112.70).
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 Keisuke with the air gap and focal length of Kuribayashi, because aberrations are favorably corrected, and an excellent imaging performance is achieved (para [0151]).
Claims 7, 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke, JP 2012-053260 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Keisuke).
As to claim 7, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Keisuke’s first embodiment does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
15 ≤ vd1 ≤ 30
where vd1 is an Abbe number of the first lens based on d-line.
Keisuke’s first and sixth embodiment are related as optical systems having two focusing lens groups.
However, Keisuke’s sixth embodiment teaches an optical system (para [0139], macro lens, Fig. 6), wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
15 ≤ vd1 ≤ 30 (para [0146], row 1, column vd, gives vd1=25.42), where vd1 is an Abbe number of the first lens based on d-line.
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 first embodiment of Keisuke with the Abbe number of the first lens of the sixth embodiment of Keisuke, because the entire optical system can be miniaturized and coma aberration can be corrected (para [0018]).
As to claim 10, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens unit having positive refractive power (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a)); and
a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 ≤ T1/f ≤ 1.5 (given the values that follow T1/f=0.14)
where T1 is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to an object in the first lens unit to a lens surface closest to an image plane in the first lens unit (paras [0076] and [0078], Table 1, the sum of rows 1 to 6 of column d gives T1=21.66), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Keisuke teaches a value of T1/f=0.14 which is close to the claimed range of 0.2 ≤ T1/f ≤ 1.5.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the T1/f such that T1/f=0.14 is 0.2 ≤ T1/f ≤ 1.5 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Keisuke to have T1/f to be 0.2 ≤ T1/f ≤ 1.5 for the purposes of miniaturizing the optical system and correcting coma aberration (para [0018]).
As to claim 13, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first rear lens unit having positive refractive power (G3, para [0069], positive group 3 G3, Fig. 1(a)); and
a second rear lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G4, para [0069], negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.1 ≤ Tr1/f ≤ 0.9 (given the values that follow Tr1/f=0.06)
where Tr1 is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object in the first rear lens unit to a lens surface closest to an image plane in the first rear lens unit (paras [0076] and [0078], Table 1, the sum of rows 17 to 20 of column d gives Tr1=9.23), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Keisuke teaches a value of Tr1/f=0.06 which is close to the claimed range of 0.1 ≤ Tr1/f ≤ 0.9.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the Tr1/f such that Tr1/f=0.06 is 0.1 ≤ Tr1/f ≤ 0.9 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Keisuke to have Tr1/f to be 0.1 ≤ Tr1/f ≤ 0.9 for the purposes of miniaturizing the optical system and correcting coma aberration (para [0018]).
As to claim 14, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first rear lens unit having positive refractive power (G3, para [0069], positive group 3 G3, Fig. 1(a)); and
a second rear lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G4, para [0069], negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.2 ≤ Tr2/f ≤ 0.9 (given the values that follow Tr2/f=0.095)
where Tr2 is a distance on an optical axis from a lens surface closest to the object in the second rear lens unit to a lens surface closest to an image plane in the second rear lens unit (paras [0076] and [0078], Table 1, the sum of rows 22 to 25 of column d gives Tr2=14.2), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Keisuke teaches a value of Tr2/f=0.095 which is close to the claimed range of 0.2 ≤ Tr2/f ≤ 0.9.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the Tr2/f such that Tr2/f=0.095 is 0.2 ≤ Tr2/f ≤ 0.9 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Keisuke to have Tr2/f to be 0.2 ≤ Tr2/f ≤ 0.9 for the purposes of miniaturizing the optical system and correcting coma aberration (para [0018]).
As to claim 19, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first lens unit having positive refractive power (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a)); and
a second lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
0.5 ≤ |fL2|/f ≤ 5.0 (given the values that follow |fL2|/f=0.27)
where fL2 is a focal length of the second lens unit (G2, para [0079], the focal length of the second lens unit is -40.02), and f is a focal length of the optical system in a state focused on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Keisuke teaches a value of |fL2|/f=0.27 which is close to the claimed range of 0.5 ≤ |fL2|/f ≤ 5.0.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the |fL2|/f such that |fL2|/f=0.27 is 0.5 ≤ |fL2|/f ≤ 5.0 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Keisuke to have |fL2|/f to be 0.5 ≤ |fL2|/f ≤ 5.0 for the purposes of miniaturizing the optical system and correcting coma aberration (para [0018]).
As to claim 21, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the rear group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
a first rear lens unit having positive refractive power (G3, para [0069], positive group 3 G3, Fig. 1(a)); and
a second rear lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (G4, para [0069], negative group 4 G4, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the following inequality is satisfied:
-7.0 ≤ fLr2/f ≤ -0.2 (given the values that follow fLr2/f=-1.43)
where fLr2 is a focal length of the second rear lens unit (G4, para [0079], the focal length of the fourth lens unit is -214.57), and f is a focal length of the optical system in an in-focus state on an object at infinity (f, para [0077], the focal length at infinity is f=150.11).
Keisuke teaches a value of fLr2/f=-1.43 which is close to the claimed range of -7.0 ≤ fLr2/f ≤ -0.2.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the fLr2/f such that fLr2/f=-1.43 is -7.0 ≤ fLr2/f ≤ -0.2 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Keisuke to have fLr2/f to be -7.0 ≤ fLr2/f ≤ -0.2 for the purposes of miniaturizing the optical system and correcting coma aberration (para [0018]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke, JP 2012-053260 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Keisuke), in view of Ino, JP 2022-016822 A (of record, hereinafter referred to as Ino).
As to claim 9, Keisuke teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Keisuke further teaches the optical system, wherein the front group includes, in order from the object side to the image side:
the first lens unit (G1, para [0069], positive group 1 G1, Fig. 1 (a));
the second lens unit (G2, para [0069], negative group 2 G2, Fig. 1(a)).
Keisuke does not teach the optical system, wherein the front group includes a third lens unit having positive or negative refractive power.
Keisuke and Ino are related as optical systems having two focusing lens groups.
However, Ino teaches an optical system (para [0048], optical system of embodiment 3, Fig. 5), wherein the front group includes (L1, L2, L3, para [0048], the first lens group L1, the second lens group L2, and the third lens group L3 are considered the front group, Fig. 5), in order from the object side to the image side:
the first lens unit (L1, para [0048], first lens group L1, Fig. 5);
the second lens unit (L2, para [0048], second lens group L2, Fig. 5);
a third lens unit having positive or negative refractive power (L3, para [0048], third lens group L3 with negative refractive power, Fig. 5).
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 Keisuke with the third lens unit of Ino, because doing so corrects spherical aberration and axial chromatic aberration (para [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakahara et al., US 2020/0110242 A1, teaches an optical system with a positive first lens unit and two lens units that are moved during focusing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
9/28/2026
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights