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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 12/10/2024, 1/14/2025, 10/07/2025, 2/11/2026, and 4/24/2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabe (20150362712).
Regarding claim 1, Yabe discloses an optical system (Fig 14, [0169], imaging optical system 171) internally having an intermediate imaging position that is conjugate with each of a magnification conjugate point on a magnification side ([0054], imaging optical system comprises at least, a lens group which has positive power and forms an intermediate real image, a lens group which has positive power and refracts the off-axis ray bundles toward along the optical axis) and a reduction conjugate point on a reduction side (Fig 14a-Fig 14b, [0054], a lens group which has positive power and relays the intermediate real image onto the image sensor), the optical system (171) comprising: a magnification optical system including a plurality of lens elements and positioned on the magnification side with respect to the intermediate imaging position (Fig 14a-Fig 14c, [0054], optical system which has the function of the magnification adjustment (zooming function)); and a relay optical system including a plurality of lens elements and positioned on the reduction side with respect to the intermediate imaging position ([0054], a lens group which has positive power and relays the intermediate real image onto the image sensor); wherein a first lens element positioned closest to the magnification side of the magnification optical system has a positive power (Fig 14a-Fig 14c, [0170], first lens group G1, the second lens group G2, and the third lens group G3 which have positive power), and the optical system (171) satisfies the following condition (1): 0.9 < f1/f2 < 1.5 … (1) (Table 13 discloses a value of 1.1743 and within the claimed range) where f1 is a focal length of the magnification optical system ([0176], focal length of each lens group(FGi)), and f2 is a focal length of the relay optical system ([0176], total focal length at the wide end(F)| of the present example).
Regarding claim 6, Yabe discloses wherein surface shapes of the plurality of lens elements (Fig 14a-Fig 14c, G1, G2, G3) constituting the magnification optical system ([0054], optical system which has the function of the magnification adjustment (zooming function)) and the plurality of lens elements (Fig 14a-Fig 14c, G1, G2, G3) constituting the relay optical system ([0054], a lens group which has positive power and relays the intermediate real image onto the image sensor) are spherical (Fig 14a-Fig 14c shows each lens has a spherical or curved lens) or planar.
Regarding claim 14, Yabe discloses an image projection apparatus ([0169], Fig 14a-Fig 14c, ray bundle which is projected to the center of the image sensor 50) comprising: the optical system (171) according to claim 1; and an image forming element that generates an image to be projected through the optical system ([0170], image sensor 50 are located after the third lens group G3) onto a screen ([0054], relays the intermediate real image onto the image sensor, in order after the optical axis bending means).
Regarding claim 15, Yabe discloses an imaging apparatus ([0169], Fig 14a-Fig 14c, ray bundle which is projected to the center of the image sensor 50) comprising: the optical system (171) according to claim 1; and an imaging element (IRF) that receives an optical image formed by the optical system to convert the optical image into an electrical image signal ([0054], relays the intermediate real image onto the image sensor, in order after the optical axis bending means).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 2, the prior art of Yabe taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical system comprising: “satisfying the following condition (2): 2.0 < (L1R2+L1R1)/(L1R2-L1R1) < 5.0…(2) where L1R1 is a radius of curvature of the surface on the magnification side of the first lens element, and L1R2 is a radius of curvature of the surface on the reduction side of the first lens element”. Claims 3-5 and 12-13 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 7, the prior art of Yabe taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical system comprising: “satisfying the following condition (3): 5 < IL1f/fwl < 10…(3) where L1f is a focal length of the first lens element, and fw is a focal length at a wide-angle end of the optical system in total”.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art of Yabe taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical system comprising: “the field curvature correction lens group is moving along the optical axis of the magnification optical system, while both of a lens element positioned on the magnification side with respect to the field curvature correction lens group and the relay optical system remain stationary”. Claims 9 and 10 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 8.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 11, the prior art of Yabe taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical system comprising: “a fourth relay lens group having a positive power, and wherein, during performing zooming operation from the wide-angle end to the telephoto end, the magnification optical system and the first relay lens group remain stationary, and the second relay lens group, the third relay lens group, and the fourth relay lens group are moving to the magnification side”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugita (20190004296) and Mihara (7436599) are examples of an electronic image pickup apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights