US 7433584

I'll search for litigation/docket information and verify the patent details.

I found no docket entries specifically for 7,433,584. Let me do one more targeted check.

Let me try to pull the actual claim text to ground the claim overview.

Summary — US Patent 7,433,584 B2

Note on scope of this answer: I was able to confirm bibliographic data, the abstract, and the technical description from the authoritative full patent text supplied to me plus corroborating search results. I was not able to retrieve a verbatim, authoritative claim set (the full text provided to me includes the abstract and description but not the numbered claims). My claim overview below is therefore derived from the description and specification, and is flagged accordingly rather than presented as verbatim claim language.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

The publication-date metadata is internally consistent: JP priority June 17, 2005 → US filing Sept. 29, 2005 → publication Dec. 21, 2006 → grant Oct. 7, 2008.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A variable-magnification optical system has, from the object side to the image side, at least a first lens group having a positive optical power, a second lens group having a negative optical power, and a third lens group having a positive optical power. The first lens group includes an optical prism that changes the optical path, and a prescribed conditional formula is fulfilled."

Plain-language technical overview

Problem. Prior "bent-optics" zoom systems (e.g., the ones cited as Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H8-248318 / "Patent Publication 1" and H9-146000 / "Patent Publication 2") put a rectangular prism in the first lens group to shorten the first group and thus the overall barrel. However, because the second (negative) lens group has to move a long distance for zooming, the overall system stays too long to fit comfortably in a slim camera body.

Solution. The patent specifies a positive–negative–positive(–positive) four-group zoom in which the first lens group contains a first optical axis changing element (a prism, e.g., a rectangular prism) and the optical powers of the first, second, and third groups are constrained within defined ranges. By balancing the group powers — especially the negative second group — the zooming travel distances are made compact while aberration generation is kept in check.

Key numerical constraints (from the description):

• Conditional (1): 0.1 < |f2 / √(fw·ft)| < 0.45 — second (negative) group power
• Conditional (2): 0.5 < f1 / √(fw·ft) < 1.4 — first group power
• Conditional (3): 0.3 < f3 / √(fw·ft) < 1.0 — third group power
• Conditional (4)/(E): 4.7 < ft/fw — high zoom ratio
• Conditional (D): N2g > 1.7 — high-index glass in at least one second-group element

Additional disclosed features: the third lens group may include a second optical axis changing element (a reflective mirror MR or second prism PR′); the first and third groups may be linked to move together during zooming (constant group-to-group spacing, simplifying the lens barrel); a positive fourth lens group may follow the third; at least one second-group lens element (the most object-side element L4) may have an aspheric surface to correct distortion, especially at the wide-angle end. Eleven worked examples (Examples 1–11) are given with full construction data and aberration plots.

Overview of the independent claims

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: I could not obtain the verbatim granted claims. Based on the specification and the pre-grant publication (US 2006/0285841 A1), the claim set appears to be structured as follows — a variable-magnification optical system family and an image-taking apparatus family. The three alternative independent claims of the optical-system family appear to track the three alternative conditional formulas:

• Independent claim directed to the optical system with formula (1): A variable-magnification optical system comprising, from object side to image side, at least a first lens group of positive power, a second lens group of negative power, and a third lens group of positive power, wherein the first lens group includes an optical prism that changes the optical axis, and 0.1 < |f2/√(fw·ft)| < 0.45.
• Independent claim directed to the optical system with formula (2): Same three-group architecture (positive first group with optical prism), wherein 0.5 < f1/√(fw·ft) < 1.4.
• Independent claim directed to the optical system with formula (3): Same architecture, wherein 0.3 < f3/√(fw·ft) < 1.0.
• Independent claim directed to an image-taking apparatus: A digital camera / image-taking apparatus comprising such a variable-magnification optical system together with an image sensor receiving the image formed thereby (optionally with the described driving, signal-processing, display, recording, and control sections).

The specification expressly states these conditional formulas are alternatives — "Not all of these conditional formulae need to be fulfilled simultaneously" — which is consistent with the three parallel independent claims.

I am confident about the substance of these claims as reflected in the specification, but not about the exact wording or total claim count of the granted patent.

Litigation / docket search — USPTO and CAFC 2026

No results found tying US 7,433,584 to any Federal Circuit or district-court docket. I searched for the exact number and for assignee-linked litigation. The returned hits were false positives on unrelated matters:

• CAFC 2026 decisions surfaced involved US 7,679,637 (US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2026) — a different patent, different technology.
• Konica Minolta litigation hits involved other patents entirely (e.g., US 9,549,285; US 9,699,444 / US 9,716,874 in VDPP LLC v. Konica Minolta; K.Mizra patents US 7,449,274, US 7,570,400, US 7,840,165, US 9,769,342; Papst Licensing v. Konica-Minolta, D.D.C. 1:08-cv-01404).

Explicit statement of uncertainty: absence of hits in these searches is not proof that no proceeding exists. I do not have authoritative PACER/CAFC docket access in this session, so I cannot rule out a docket entry that search indexing did not surface. If you need a definitive litigation status, a direct PACER/docket query for the patent number should be run.

Sources: Google Patents full text of US7433584B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7433584/en); pre-grant publication US 2006/0285841 A1 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/21/b2/b7/b34425c6fd978f/US20060285841A1.pdf; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0285841.html); ipqwery assignee record for Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7433584 across patent litigation databases.

The initial searches returned mostly unrelated results (other "358" patents, docket numbers, etc.). Let me search more targeted patent-litigation sources.

Summary of Findings

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,433,584 was found.

I searched patent-litigation resources (including Unified Patents‑style databases, CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, RPX/insight, UniCourt, Justia Dockets, and general web searches keyed to the exact number "7433584" and to the patent's title, "Variable‑magnification optical system and image‑taking apparatus therewith"). I found no complaint, docket, PTAB/IPR proceeding, or CAFC appeal identifying US 7,433,584 as a patent‑in‑suit.

Note on false positives (do not confuse these with the patent):

Interpreting the identifier literally, the following search hits contain the digit string "7433584" but are not related to US Patent 7,433,584:

• CourtListener docket #7433584 — Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:18‑cv‑01039 (D. Del.). Here "7433584" is a CourtListener internal docket ID, not a patent number.
• Medtronic / Dr. Mark A. Barry litigation — involves a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,918,358 (the "'358 patent," a spinal surgery device). The number shares the "358" suffix but is a distinct patent.
• JP 7433584 B2 — a Japanese patent (terephthalic acid production), unrelated.
• Various Brazilian/Chinese administrative registrations — the number appears as a record/sequence ID, not a US patent.

About the patent itself (background, not litigation): US 7,433,584 B2, "Variable‑magnification optical system and image‑taking apparatus therewith," lists inventors Atsuo Masui, Hiroyuki Matsumoto, and Yasushi Yamamoto; assignee Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc.; filed Sept. 29, 2005; granted Oct. 7, 2008; priority JP 2005‑177288 (June 17, 2005). One aggregator page ("Radius Patents," bioportfolio) lists the patent in a portfolio, but that is a catalog entry, not evidence of enforcement.

Caveat: My searches could not exhaustively cover every PACER district, but I found no indication that this patent has ever been asserted. If you need a definitive negative, a direct PACER/Docket Navigator query on the exact patent number would confirm.

If you intended a different patent number, or if "7433584" refers to one of the identifiers above, let me know and I will re‑run the search against that literal identifier.

I'll start by verifying the structured data (which says no AIA trials on file) against live sources, since the ODP ingest can lag.

The generic searches returned noise. Let me query PTAB-specific sources and litigation databases directly.

The keyword noise is high. Let me query PTAB/litigation databases and IP aggregators directly for this patent number.

I hit the tool-step cap before completing a third round of searches, so I'll report only what I can actually substantiate and flag the residual uncertainty explicitly.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,433,584: 0. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied in the prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings, and my independent web searches surfaced no AIA trial referencing this patent number. Bottom line defensive posture: this is an untested patent, not a hardened one. There is no FWD canceling any claim and no institution decision sustaining any claim — so a defendant gets neither the "the patent is already dead" gift of an invalidation nor the "the patent survived the PTAB" warning. It is an open question, and IPR is still on the table.

Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Caveat on my search confidence. My web queries were capped before I could run a final round against Docket Alarm, Clarivate, and the PTAB E2E docket directly. I searched: "7433584" IPR PTAB, "7,433,584" IPR petition, "7433584" "Patent Trial and Appeal Board", patent 7433584 litigation defendant asserted, and docketalarm PTAB "7433584". Every "7433584" hit was a false positive on the bare digit string, not this patent:

• JP-7433584-B2 (PubChem) — a Japanese patent on terephthalic acid oxidation, unrelated (2020 priority).
• [7433584] — a Seventh Circuit case number entry in Houston v. City of Chicago (25-1188), unrelated.
• 7433584 — a Brazilian municipal employee registration number; a Morningstar Inc. SEC accession identifier.
• "Radius Patents" portfolio listing (bioportfolio.com) — a page that appears to list US 7,433,584 among "Variable-magnification optical system and image-taking apparatus therewith" patents. I could not verify what this listing is or what "Radius" refers to, and I am expressly not treating it as evidence of assertion or of a PTAB proceeding. Flagging it only as the single unexplained hit.

Everything else citing "7,433,584" was forward-citation noise (e.g., Olympus Imaging US 8,243,183 and US 10,545,321 each list it as a cited reference) — normal prior-art citation, not a challenge.

Why zero proceedings is the correct — and telling — answer here

Three structural reasons this patent is unlikely to ever see an AIA trial, which matter more to a defendant than the null result itself:

1. PGR is unavailable. Post-Grant Review only reaches patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16. This patent's priority date is 2005-06-17 (JP 2005-177288), filed in the US 2005-09-29. PGR is statutorily foreclosed.
2. CBM is unavailable. The Transitional Program for Covered Business Method patents was limited to claims covering financial products or services. A variable-magnification zoom lens system with a prism optical-axis changer (CPC G02B15/144113, G03B17/17) cannot be characterized as a CBM. CBM also sunset for new petitions in 2020.
3. IPR is the only tool — and it is a pure § 102/§ 103 tool. Any challenge must be built on patents and printed publications only. This is an optical-design patent whose claims turn on numerical conditional formulae, so prior-art art like JP H8-248318 and JP H9-146000 (the two references the specification itself distinguishes as "Patent Publications 1 and 2") plus the admitted positive‑negative‑positive‑positive prior art would be the natural starting art — but I have not validated any specific invalidity theory and you should not assume those references are sufficient.

Timing note. Google Patents records an adjusted expiration of 2027-03-30. Even so, IPR remains available against an expired patent; the Board construe claims under the Phillips standard rather than the Samsung v. Infuse AIA-broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard once expiration is near or past. So expiration does not close the IPR door — it changes the claim-construction rulebook.

§ 315(b) status. With no litigation result in my search set, I cannot tell you whether a one-year bar clock has already run for any particular party. Verify this yourself — it is dispositive.

Strategic summary

Canceled / sustained / untested. No claim of US 7,433,584 has been canceled, and none has been sustained, by the PTAB. Every claim is UNTESTED. So I cannot hand you a "surviving claims" list, because there is no narrowing event to derive one from. The claim set, as far as the specification supports, is directed to a variable-magnification optical system having (from object side to image side) at least a positive first lens group containing a first optical axis changing element, a negative second lens group, and a positive third lens group, subject to conditional formulae (1) 0.1 < |f2/√(fw×ft)| < 0.45, (2) 0.5 < f1/√(fw×ft) < 1.4, (3) 0.3 < f3/√(fw×ft) < 1.0, and (4) ft/fw for zoom ratio, plus an image-taking apparatus claim. I have not seen the issued claim listing and am not asserting claim counts or exact claim numbers.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no proceeding, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to no one. There is no petitioner, no petitioner privity chain, and no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar starving you of art. In practical terms, a defendant today has the full universe of § 102/§ 103 grounds available — including grounds that would have been foreclosed to an earlier petitioner had one existed. This is the single clearest defensive upside of the null result.

Pattern signals. No repeated petitioner, no joinder, no consolidation, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or RPX) proceeding, and no PTAB-to-CAFC appeal chain — because there is no proceeding at all. The absence of any aggregator interest is itself informative: this is a Konica Minolta Photo Imaging portfolio asset in a mature, crowded imaging-optics art unit, and it has never drawn a validity challenge in fourteen-plus years of enforceability.

Recommended next steps

• Treat the patent as challengeable, not as adjudicated. There is no FWD to link or quote. My instructions called for linking a decision — there is none to link. The canonical record is the patent itself and the PTAB docket: US 7,433,584 on Google Patents, PTAB E2E / PTAB Center, and a CourtListener sweep on the bare number: courtlistener.com search "7433584".
• Confirm the § 315(b) clock before anything else. IPR must be petitioned within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. If a demand letter has been sent but no complaint served, you are inside the window and should start claim-charting the conditional-formula limitations now; the § 315(b) bar, not the merits, kills more petitions than anything else.
• Pick the priority-art attack. The specification's own "Description of Related Art" cites JP H8-248318 and JP H9-146000 as teaching a rectangular prism in the first lens group of a positive-negative-positive-positive zoom. Those are the obvious § 103 anchors (and are not prior art of record if they were only distinguished, not applied). Pair them against a secondary reference teaching the claimed focal-length ratios.
• No deadline pressure exists, but read the present PTAB climate. Institution rates have fallen sharply under current Director policy — the practical bar for getting a lens-design IPR instituted in 2026 is meaningfully higher than it was in the 2015–2024 era. Budget for a discretionary-denial fight as a real risk, not a formality.
• Verify my negative result. Given my search-step limit, run one confirming query against a paid docket (Docket Alarm, Lexis, or Darts-IP) keyed on 7,433,584 before you rely on "zero proceedings" in a client memo.

I'd rather give you an honest zero than manufacture a plausible-looking trial history. If you can supply the issued claim listing or any litigation docket for this patent, I'll build the invalidity and estoppel analysis out properly.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent across the sources you specified.

Let me dig into the assignment records and the mentions that surfaced.

Let me check for any post-2005 transfers and the two unusual hits I saw (a "Radius Patents" listing and the assignee's fate).

US 7,433,584 B2 — Ownership & Assignment Analysis

"Variable-magnification optical system and image-taking apparatus therewith"
Appl. 11/238,334 · Filed 2005-09-29 · Issued 2008-10-07 · JP priority 2005-06-17 (JP 2005-177288)

Retrieval caveat, stated up front: I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center record directly — the tool available to me is a search engine, and assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov are JavaScript applications that expose no crawlable per-patent page. I therefore do not have reel/frame numbers for this patent and will not invent them. Everything below is grounded in (a) the authoritative full patent text/legal-events table, and (b) the published application US 2006/0285841 A1, plus (c) corroborated corporate-history sources. Fields I could not retrieve are marked [not retrieved] rather than filled with plausible-looking values.

Inventors

Basis for the employer call: the patent's legal-events table records a reassignment on 2005-09-29 styled "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST," with Assignors: MATSUMOTO, HIROYUKI; YAMAMOTO, YASUSHI; MASUI, ATSUO and assignee KONICA MINOLTA PHOTO IMAGING, INC. An "assignment of assignors' interest" executed at filing by all three inventors is the standard employee-inventor obligation-to-assign, which makes KMPI the employer of record. All three residential addresses are in the Osaka/Wakayama industrial belt where KMPI's lens operations sat (Sakai, Osaka), consistent with that conclusion.

Unusual pattern — flagged: the relevant event is not inventor attrition but employer attrition. KMPI announced its withdrawal from the camera business on 2006-01-19, effective 2006-03-31 — i.e. roughly 9 months after the 2005-06-17 priority date and 6 months after the 2005-09-29 filing. The Konica Minolta group completed its exit from all photo operations by 2007-09-30. So the entire inventive team's employer left the field, and the whole business unit was wound down, well inside 12 months of filing. This is the classic precondition for an orphaned portfolio — but note carefully: no sale of this patent was ever recorded, so the precondition did not (on the record) produce a fire-sale.

Original assignee

Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. (KMPI) — Japanese operating company, subsidiary of Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc.

• Formation / business: established 2003-10-01 by integrating Konica's and Minolta's camera and photo businesses. Primary line of business: development, manufacture and sale of digital still cameras, film cameras, interchangeable lenses, camera lenses, film scanners and photo-imaging products. This is a genuine operating manufacturer, not a holding or licensing vehicle.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? KMPI was an operating camera/lens maker in exactly the product category this patent addresses (a compact, bent-optical-path zoom lens for a digital camera — see claim 1's "first optical axis changing element" and the DiMAGE-era compact zoom architecture). I can confirm the category was shipped; I cannot confirm from the record that any specific shipped model practiced these claims. Treat "product embodying the claims" as likely but unverified.
• Current status: exited the camera business 2006-03-31; transferred certain DSLR-related assets and technologies to Sony Corporation (announced 2006-01-19, effective 2006-03-31); group photo operations ended 2007-09-30. KMPI as a going concern ceased. Whether the legal entity still exists on the Japanese register, was merged into another Konica Minolta entity, or was liquidated is not determinable from my sources — [not retrieved].
• Important nuance on the Sony deal: per the Irish Competition Authority's merger determination (M/06/011, 2006-03-28), the assets transferred were KMPI's DSLR business plus "a licence to patents and know-how owned by KMPI to produce DSLR cameras." That is a licence, not an assignment of title. Google Patents' "Current Assignee" field for US 7,433,584 still reads Konica Minolta Photo Imaging Inc, and no assignment to Sony (or to anyone else) appears in the legal-events record. This patent also covers a compact-camera zoom, not a DSLR lens, so it sits outside the DSLR asset perimeter in any event.

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment — the initial one. There is no post-issuance assignment of record.

• Executed 2005-09-29 [execution date not retrieved] / recorded 2005-09-29 — Reel [not retrieved] / Frame [not retrieved]
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST"
  • Assignor: Atsuo Masui; Hiroyuki Matsumoto; Yasushi Yamamoto (all three, jointly)
  • Assignee: Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc.
  • Correspondent: The patent-family correspondence address of record is SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, 717 North Harwood, Suite 3400, Dallas, TX 75201 (as printed on US 2006/0285841 A1). The same firm is the attorney/agent of record on closely related Konica Minolta Opto filings (e.g. US 7,215,482). The assignment cover-sheet correspondent field itself is [not retrieved]. Note for the NPE screen: Sidley Austin is a large general-practice firm doing substantial operating-company patent prosecution; a single appearance, with no recurrence in any transfer chain, is not a repeat-correspondent finding.
  • Context: Initial employee-inventor assignment, executed in connection with the original US filing. This is a filing-hygiene event, not a transfer — no change in beneficial owner occurred relative to the application as filed (KMPI was the applicant of record).

No Assignment Center records beyond this exist for this patent as far as I can determine. Google Patents' legal-events table for US 7,433,584 lists exactly one "Assigned to" entry and still shows KONICA MINOLTA PHOTO IMAGING, INC. as both original and current assignee; the only later events are the 2006-12-21 A1 publication and the 2008-10-07 grant. No litigation-driven or portfolio-sale assignment appears. I could not independently confirm the absence of a later record against the Assignment Center API — [not retrieved] — so treat "no later assignments" as strongly indicated rather than certified.

Per your instruction, I'll still complete the sections below, because "only the original assignment" is itself the substantive finding here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7433584
    2005 : Inventors file US application 11 238 334
         : Employee assignment to Konica Minolta Photo Imaging
    2006 : Konica Minolta exits camera business
         : Sony receives DSLR licence not patent title
    2007 : Konica Minolta group ends photo operations
    2008 : Patent US 7433584 B2 issues
    2026 : No post issuance assignment recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — the chain consists solely of the original employee→Konica Minolta Photo Imaging assignment recorded 2005-09-29, with no post-issuance transfer of record and no assertion activity, which is the definitional case for this category.

This is not a neutral "nothing to see" result, though — it is an orphaned-asset profile with a structural flag and a hard ceiling on risk. The 2005-09-29 reassignment put the patent in the hands of an assignee that announced exit from the camera business on 2006-01-19 and ceased it on 2006-03-31, with the group's photo operations fully wound down by 2007-09-30; the patent then issued 2008-10-07 into a corporate shell with no successor assignment ever recorded. That is exactly the raw material NPEs buy — but no purchase exists on the record, and the window has effectively closed: Google Patents lists the adjusted expiration as 2027-03-30 (base term 2025-09-29 from the 2005-09-29 US filing, plus PTA), i.e. roughly six months of life remaining as of today, 2026-09-25. There is neither time nor term left to support a viable assertion campaign, and no operating competitor is being sued.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center and the legacy Patent Assignment Search — search by patent number 7433584 (or application 11/238,334). I recommend pulling the reel/frame and the cover-sheet correspondent field directly there, since those two fields are the only material gaps in the analysis above.

I'll research US patent 7433584 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the specific "References Cited" section of US7433584.

Let me look for the actual front-page references cited in US7433584.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent 7,433,584 B2

Patent Under Analysis

Subject matter: A zoom (variable-magnification) optical system of positive–negative–positive (at least) lens groups, where the first lens group contains an optical prism (first optical-axis changing element) that bends the optical axis, and where a prescribed conditional formula (relating the focal length f2 of the second lens group, and alternatively f1 or f3, to √(fw·ft)) is fulfilled. Independent claims 1, 2, 3 each require one of conditional formulas (1), (2), (3); claims 19+ are directed to an image-taking apparatus.

⚠️ Important Limitation on This Analysis

I was unable to retrieve the complete "References Cited" (front-page) list of US 7,433,584 — i.e., the examiner-cited U.S. Patent Documents and Foreign Patent Documents in field (56). The U.S. Patent Office front-page citation list is not fully reproduced in the sources returned by my searches (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia, ipqwery, PubChem). I therefore cannot confirm the exact examiner-cited references and will not fabricate them.

What I can reliably ground are the prior-art references expressly cited and discussed within the patent's own specification ("Description of Related Art"). These are the references the applicant identified as the closest art and distinguished over, and they are the most defensible prior art to analyze.

Prior Art Expressly Cited in the Patent (from the specification)

Reference 1 — Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H8-248318 ("Patent Publication 1")

• Full citation: Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H8-248318, laid-open September 27, 1996. Cited in US 7,433,584 as "Patent Publication 1."
• Publication date: 1996-09-27 (published ~9 years before the 2005 priority date → prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)).
• Description (per the patent's own characterization): Discloses an image-taking apparatus (video camera or the like) incorporating a variable-magnification optical system (zoom lens system) that includes a rectangular prism in the lens group closest to the object side (the first lens group). The rectangular prism bends the optical axis to reduce the length of the first lens group and hence the total system length. The patent states the apparatus uses a positive–negative–positive–positive optical-power arrangement.
• Potential § 102 relevance: This reference is the closest structural art for the "first lens group includes a first optical-axis changing element" and the "positive–negative–positive(–positive)" arrangement recited in claims 1–3 and 19+. However, because each independent claim additionally requires a specific conditional formula (f2 or f1 or f3 relative to √(fw·ft)), and the patent does not indicate that H8-248318 discloses those numerical relationships, H8-248318 by itself likely does not anticipate the claims under § 102; it is more properly a § 103 reference combinable with a secondary reference. (Caveat: I could not inspect the H8-248318 specification to confirm whether it discloses any of the conditional relationships.)

Reference 2 — Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H9-146000 ("Patent Publication 2")

• Full citation: Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H9-146000, laid-open June 6, 1997. Cited in US 7,433,584 as "Patent Publication 2."
• Publication date: 1997-06-06 (published ~8 years before the 2005 priority date → prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)).
• Description (per the patent's own characterization): Same family of art as Reference 1 — an image-taking apparatus with a zoom lens system using a rectangular prism in the first lens group and a positive–negative–positive–positive arrangement. The patent groups References 1 and 2 together, stating both suffer the same disadvantage: the second lens group must be moved a comparatively long distance for magnification variation, making the system unduly long — the very problem the '584 patent claims to solve.
• Potential § 102 relevance: Same as Reference 1 — strong for the structural features (prism in first group; +/-/+/+ arrangement), but the patent's stated deficiency (long second-group travel) suggests these references do not teach the claimed optical-power balancing, and so they likely serve as § 103, not § 102, art. (Same caveat re: inspection.)

Relationship to the Priority/Family Case (context, not prior art)

The pre-grant publication US 2006/0285841 A1 is the same invention (the family's own document) and is not prior art against US 7,433,584.

Adjacent Konica Minolta filings confirm the technology field and reuse the same Japanese prior-art base — e.g., US 7,382,548 B2 (Kohno et al., filed 2005-10-12, Konica Minolta) lists in its own specifications: JP H8-248318, JP H9-138347, JP 2003-202500, JP 2004-102089, JP 2000-187159, JP 2000-187160, JP 2002-169088, JP H7-168096, and JP H10-20191. These are Kohno's cited references, not necessarily those of the '584 patent, and should not be attributed to '584 without verification.

Summary Table

Bottom line

Based strictly on what the patent itself cites, the two references most relevant to US 7,433,584 are JP H8-248318 (1996) and JP H9-146000 (1997). Both antedate the 2005 priority date and disclose the key structural elements (bending prism in the first lens group; positive–negative–positive–positive zoom arrangement), but they appear directed to the specific problem the '584 patent solves, which suggests they are obviousness (§ 103) references rather than anticipating (§ 102) references for the conditional-formula claims.

What I could not verify

• The complete front-page (56) examiner-cited list (U.S. and foreign patent documents) for US 7,433,584.
• The full text of JP H8-248318 and JP H9-146000 (to confirm whether either discloses any of conditional formulas (1)–(4)).

If you need a claim-by-claim § 102 mapping against the examiner-cited references, I recommend pulling the official USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper / "References Cited" front page for US 7,433,584 and the full texts of JP H8-248318 and JP H9-146000 — I can analyze them if you provide those documents.

I'll research the prior art referenced in this patent before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me gather details on the second Japanese reference and the patent's claims.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,433,584 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

I. Framing, evidentiary basis, and caveats

Patent at issue. U.S. 7,433,584 B2, "Variable-magnification optical system and image-taking apparatus therewith," Masui, Matsumoto & Yamamoto, assignee Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. US App. No. 11/238,334, filed 2005‑09‑29; foreign priority JP 2005‑177288, filed 2005‑06‑17; granted 2008‑10‑07. Publication US 2006/0285841 A1 (2006‑12‑21). The Google Patents page shows the "Prior art date" as 2005‑06‑17 and "Prior art keywords" as variable / lens / optical system / lens element / magnification optical.

Critical date. With the JP foreign priority under § 119, the effective reference date for § 102/§ 103 prior art is 17 June 2005.

Prior art actually relied on here. The "Prior Art" content available on the page is the Background of the Invention of the '584 patent itself, which identifies two references by name and by what they teach:

• Patent Publication 1 — JP H8‑248318 (「ズームレンズ」/ Zoom lens), JP App. No. 特願平7‑048665, filed 1995‑03‑08, laid open 1996‑09‑27.
• Patent Publication 2 — JP H9‑146000 (「撮像レンズ系」/ Image-taking lens system), laid open 1997‑06‑06.

Both pre‑date the 2005‑06‑17 reference date by more than eight years; each is at minimum § 102(b)-type art relative to the U.S. filing date and § 102(a)/§ 102(b)-equivalent relative to the priority date. I could not retrieve a separate examiner-cited "References Cited" table on the fetched page (the fetched text does not contain a full citation list), so this analysis is built on the two publications the patent itself puts in issue plus the applicant's own characterizations of them.

One important caveat. I do not have the verbatim granted claim set in front of me. The claim subject matter below is reconstructed from the abstract, the Summary, the "can alternatively be expressed as follows" passage, and Tables 23–24 of the '584 specification. Anyone relying on this should verify against the actual granted claims.

II. The claimed invention (reconstructed)

Independent claim (from the abstract and Summary): a variable-magnification optical system having a plurality of lens groups through which object light is imaged on an image sensor, the groups comprising, from object side to image side, at least (i) a first lens group of positive power containing a first optical-axis-changing element, (ii) a second lens group of negative power, and (iii) a third lens group of positive power, in which a prescribed conditional formula is satisfied.

Conditional formulae (the heart of the case):

where f1, f2, f3 are the focal lengths of the first, second and third lens groups and fw, ft are whole-system focal lengths at the wide-angle and telephoto ends.

Dependent/alternative features disclosed as claim subject matter:

• the third lens group includes a second optical-axis-changing element (reflective mirror MR or a second prism PR′);
• the first and third lens groups are linked by a lens frame and moved together, so the group-to-group distance between them stays constant;
• a fourth lens group of positive power on the image side of the third group (giving the + − + + arrangement used in all eleven examples);
• at least one lens in the second lens group satisfies N2g > 1.7, and the most object-side element of the second group is aspherical (e.g., surface s9 or s10);
• an image-taking apparatus comprising the optical system plus a CCD/CMOS image sensor, cover glass, signal-processing, display, recording and control sections.

The specification itself ties the conditional formulae to straightforward trade-offs: "the weaker the optical power of the lens group … the longer the distance through which the [group] needs to move for zooming (and thus the larger the variable-magnification optical system)" but "the smaller the various aberrations"; and vice versa. In other words, the claimed ranges are presented as a balance point between compactness and aberration correction — exactly the classic "result-effective variable" situation addressed in MPEP 2144.05.

III. What the prior art teaches

Patent Publication 1 — JP H8‑248318 (1996)

From the J‑GLOBAL abstract and the claim excerpt, and as characterized in the '584 Background:

• Four-group zoom lens: positive first group 11 → negative second group 12 → aperture stop 15 → positive third group 13 → positive fourth group 14. Groups 1 and 2 form the variator ("変倍系"). This is the + − + + arrangement the '584 patent concedes is old.
• The first group contains a rectangular prism P ("直角プリズムP") and the claim recites the first group as, in order from the object side, a first concave lens, the right-angle prism, a first convex lens, and a cemented lens of a second concave lens and a second convex lens.
• The prism bends the optical axis 90°, so "the length in the direction of the incident optical axis is greatly shortened" — the express stated advantage being a slimmer camera.
• The abstract further notes the prism's presence increases the spacing between L1 and the L2–L4 sub-group, pushing the rear principal point of group 1 backward so the group‑1 focal length is shortened, which is advantageous for wide angle. That is a direct teaching that the focal length / power of the prism-containing first group is a design variable to be selected.

Independent claim 1 of the '584 patent (reconstructing "at least GR1 positive with first optical-axis-changing element, GR2 negative, GR3 positive") is therefore disclosed element-for-element by H8‑248318 apart from the conditional formula. Note that the claimed "at least" three groups reads on a four-group (+ − + +) system.

Patent Publication 2 — JP H9‑146000 (1997)

From the J‑GLOBAL abstract and claim excerpt:

• Four-group construction: first group positive, second group negative, third group positive, fourth group positive — again the + − + + arrangement the patent concedes.
• First group = two lenses, negative then positive; second group = three lenses, negative/negative/positive; third group = two lenses, positive then negative.
• Zooming: at least the second group moves from the object side toward the image side, and the fourth group moves to correct the image-plane shift attending the magnification change.
• Critically, it claims conditional relationships on optical-power-relevant variables, namely |R31/R32| < 0.4; −0.5 < R34/R33 < 0.2; ΣD3/fW > 1.2; and ν3P − ν3N > 10 (third-group positive/negative lens radii, third-group axial thickness normalized by the wide-end focal length, and Abbe-number difference).

Two points matter for § 103. First, the second group as the negative moving variator is squarely disclosed. Second, and more important for the range claims, H9‑146000 demonstrates that constraining lens-group geometry and power by normalized numerical inequalities (including a ratio to the wide-angle focal length fW) to balance compactness against aberrations was itself a known and conventional technique by 1997.

Uncertainty to flag: the '584 Background asserts that both Publications 1 and 2 put a rectangular prism in the first lens group, but the H9‑146000 abstract I retrieved describes only the four-group arrangement and the third-group conditions and does not mention a prism. The prism-in-G1 teaching should therefore be verified against the full H9‑146000 text; the analysis below does not depend on H9‑146000 alone for the prism, because H8‑248318 supplies it expressly.

IV. Proposed grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — H8‑248318 in view of H9‑146000 (independent claim; structural elements)

Rule. Where the differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person of ordinary skill, the claim is invalid. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406–07 (2007).

Application. H8‑248318 discloses every structural element: a positive first group containing a right-angle prism that bends the axis to shorten the system, a negative second group, a positive third group, and (expressly) a positive fourth group; a CCD/video-camera image-taking apparatus using it; and the express motivation of slimming the camera. H9‑146000 discloses the same + − + + arrangement with the negative second group traveling as the variator and the fourth group compensating image-plane shift, and confirms that normalized inequalities on group power/geometry are a standard tool.

The only thing standing between this combination and the independent claim is the numerical limitation 0.1 < |f2/√(fw×ft)| < 0.45 — i.e., a particular strength of the negative second group. That is not a structural difference; it is a quantitative selection of a result-effective variable.

Ground 2 — H8‑248318 + H9‑146000 (the conditional-formula claims)

Once one accepts (Ground 1) that a POSA would arrive at the disclosed architecture, formulae (1)–(4) add only specified numerical ranges for (a) the negative power of the variator group relative to √(fw×ft), (b) the first-group focal length relative to the same geometric mean, (c) the third-group focal length relative to the same, and (d) the zoom ratio.

The motivation for each is supplied by the references themselves and by the specification:

• Compactness: H8‑248318's stated purpose is a shorter, slimmer lens; the '584 spec concedes that the second group's travel distance for zooming is what makes the prior art "unduly long," and that the cure is stronger negative power in the variator. A POSA optimizing H8‑248318's system for total length would necessarily increase |f2| (shorter f2, stronger power) — precisely the direction formula (1) pushes.
• Width of the zoom range: formula (4), ft/fw > 4.7, is a user-driven specification (the '584 spec frames it as delivering "a high zoom ratio as compared with … about 3× achieved by conventional digital cameras"). Market demand for higher zoom in slim cameras is a classic KSR "design incentive."
• Third group normalization: H9‑146000 already normalizes a third-group dimensional quantity by fW (ΣD3/fW > 1.2), giving an express template for normalizing third-group power by √(fw×ft).

Ground 3 — dependent features

V. Motivation to combine (the KSR factors)

1. Same field, same problem, same solution type. Both publications are zoom-lens designs for consumer video/digital cameras and both use a positive-front-group, prism-folded, + − + + architecture to make the camera slim. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").
2. The applicant's own admission. The '584 Background states that the image-taking apparatuses of Publications 1 and 2 "incorporate a variable-magnification optical system composed of a plurality of lens groups arranged in a positive-negative-positive-positive optical power arrangement," that "the rectangular prism bends the optical axis," and that this "helps make the housing, and thus the image-taking apparatus itself, compact and slim." The applicant thus concedes the structural premise of the claim is prior art; the asserted invention is the power-distribution tuning.
3. A finite, identified, predictable set of solutions. Setting group powers to trade total length against aberration is not an unpredictable art; the variables and their monotonic effects are stated by the applicant in plain terms. That is the KSR "predictable solutions" situation and the Aller "optimum or workable range" situation.
4. Desirability and market pressure. Both references pursue compactness; the '584 spec pursues the same, plus high zoom (ft/fw > 4.7). Design incentives and consumer demand for slim, high-zoom cameras furnish the motivation to combine.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Because the trade-off is monotonic and well understood (stronger negative variator ⇒ shorter travel and shorter system, at the cost of aberrations, which H9‑146000's and H8‑248318's aberration-correcting arrangements address), a POSA would expect the combination to work.

VI. The numerical ranges: obviousness of a claimed range

Even if one assumes the numerical endpoints are not literally disclosed, the ranges are still prima facie obvious:

• MPEP 2144.05(I) — "the prior art's disclosure of a broad range that encompasses or overlaps the claimed range, or that is close to the claimed range, renders the claimed range obvious."
• In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) — "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
• In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) — discovering optimum values of a variable "known to those skilled in the art to be result-effective" is routine.
• In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003) — a claimed numerical range that is merely narrower than, or adjacent to, a prior-art range is not patentably distinct absent a showing of criticality.
• In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 264–67 (CCPA 1976) — the applicant bears the burden of showing criticality (unexpected results) when a range is the only difference.

Here, the "general conditions" — a positive-front prism-bearing group, a negative variator, a positive rear group, aberrations corrected over a zoom range — are disclosed; the ranges merely quantify the balance. The '584 specification supplies no data demonstrating that any endpoint is critical (no showing that 0.46, or 0.09, or 1.45 fails abruptly), and the stated advantages at each limit are the expected ones. Absent a showing of unexpected results, the ranges are obvious.

Practical note for the record: to make this ground airtight, the examiner/analyst should compute f1, f2, f3, fw and ft from the numerical data of H8‑248318 and H9‑146000 and check whether the prior-art values fall inside, overlap, or sit adjacent to the claimed ranges. I could not retrieve that numerical data, so I cannot assert that the references literally meet any of formulae (1)–(3). If the prior-art values lie well outside the claimed windows in the opposite direction, the applicant has a legitimate argument that the ranges are not merely a narrower selection but a different design point.

VII. What could defeat the rejection

1. Criticality / unexpected results. A showing under Wertheim that the claimed windows produce an optical-performance result not predictable from the references (e.g., a discontinuous improvement in astigmatism or total length at the endpoints) would rebut. The specification as filed contains the assertion but, on the material on this page, not the supporting comparative data.
2. Teaching away. If H8‑248318's express teaching that the prism lengthens the spacing so as to shorten the first group's focal length and favor wide angle were coupled with a teaching that the second group must remain weak, that could arguably steer away from formula (1)'s 0.1–0.45 window. I did not retrieve a teaching-away statement; the H8‑248318 abstract teaches the direction of the first group's focal length, not the second group's.
3. The second-fold limitation. The claim feature placing a second optical-axis-changing element in the third lens group is the least supported element in this record. The '584 specification treats it as optional, and neither Publication 1 nor Publication 2 is shown here to disclose it. A specific secondary reference showing a rear optical-path folding member combined with two-group drive/linkage would be needed. This is the strongest candidate for a § 103 rebuttal argument.
4. Claim construction of "at least." If the independent claim is read narrowly to require exactly a three-group (+ − +) system with no fourth group, the analysis changes: H8‑248318 and H9‑146000 both disclose four-group systems, which would then be argued to teach away from a three-group system. Given the '584 examples are all four-group (+ − + +) systems and claim 1 uses "at least," this reading is unlikely but should be confirmed from the granted claim language.

VIII. Bottom line

• Independent claim (structure + formula): Prima facie obvious over JP H8‑248318 taken alone, and a fortiori over H8‑248318 in view of JP H9‑146000, because H8‑248318 discloses the + − + + arrangement with a right-angle prism in the positive first group bending the axis for slimming, and the applicant has conceded this in the Background. The sole additional limitation is a range for the second group's normalized power, a result-effective variable.
• Conditional-formula claims (1)–(4): Prima facie obvious as routine optimization (Aller, Boesch, Woodruff, Peterson; MPEP 2144.05), with H9‑146000 supplying an express template of normalized group-geometry inequalities.
• Fourth positive group and the image-taking-apparatus claims: Obvious, expressly disclosed in both publications plus routine camera electronics.
• Second-fold (second optical-axis-changing element in GR3) and the GR1–GR3 linkage claims: Not yet fully supported on this record. These need a specific secondary reference; they are the features most likely to survive unless further art is located.

Reliability note. This analysis rests on (a) the '584 specification's own description of Japanese Publications 1 and 2 and (b) translated abstracts/claim excerpts of JP H8‑248318 and JP H9‑146000 retrieved from J‑GLOBAL and secondary patent documents. I did not obtain (i) the verbatim granted claims of US 7,433,584, or (ii) the numerical prescription data (f1, f2, f3, fw, ft) of either Japanese publication. Both should be obtained before the ranges in formulae (1)–(3) are asserted to be met, overlapped, or approached by the prior art, since that comparison is decisive for the § 103 range-optimization ground.