CTNF 17/898,589 CTNF 99494 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 2/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-6, 8, 47 under Murakami have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kato and Yamaguchi as previously presented in view of a new reference Lee US 20070268576. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a second focus adjusting device (means for focus adjusting) performing the function of adjusting a relative shift of focus positions of the first and second optical systems in claim 1 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-6, 8, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 1 recites “wherein an operation member of the first focus adjusting device is formed as a single ring rotatable by an operation, and is arranged to surround both the first optical system and the second optical system” in the last three lines of the claim, which appears to be prohibited new matter. Applicant cites paragraph 0077 of the specification and instant Figures 3 and 13 on pages 9-10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 10/24/2025 as supporting this amendment, however paragraph 0077 discusses instant Figure 14, not Figures 3 or 13. Figure 14 shows that the first focus adjusting device includes 300, 301, 301a-b, 302, and 303, however none of these elements are described in paragraph 0077 as a “single rotatable ring rotatable by an operation”. Are any of these elements the “operation member formed as a single ring rotatable by an operation”, if so, which element is this? If not, where in the original specification is the support for this limitation? Further, Figure 3 does not show the first focus adjusting device at all, and Figure 13 shows 400 as a ring, but does not reference an operation member rotating 400 by any operation. Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to show where support for this amendment is in the instant specification and figures. Also, claims 2-6, 8, 47 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-6, 8, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , claim states the limitation “an operation” in the second to last line of the claim. This limitation is unclear as what is meant by “an operation” in the context of “ a single ring rotatable by an operation” is not specified. What is the “operation” which rotates the single ring? Is this a user operation, is there a driver which drives the ring to move, or is there some other mechanism within the device that performs this operation on the single rotatable ring? Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as a ring may be rotatable at any point, this limitation will be considered met. Also, claims 2-6, 8, 47 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et. al US 20060033990 (hereinafter “Kato” of record) in view of Lee US 20070268576 (hereinafter “Lee”) and Yamaguchi et. al US 20110310231 (hereinafter “Yamaguchi” of record) . Regarding claim 1 , Kato teaches a lens apparatus (Kato figs. 1-4 - 1) comprising: a first optical system (Kato fig. 1 - 3, see also para. 0027); a second optical system (Kato fig. 1 - 3, see also para. 0027); a first focus adjusting device (Kato fig. 3 - 5) that simultaneously adjusts focus of the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (3, see also Kato fig. 3 - how 5 is positioned between each adjustment lens 6, and fig. 1 how 6 is disposed in both systems); and a second focus adjusting device (Kato fig. 3 – 7 including 7A and 7B, see also para. 0031-0032) that adjusts a relative shift of focus positions of the first optical system and the second optical system (Kato fig. 3 – shows 7A and 7B both on either side of each optical system 3), wherein the first focus adjusting unit (5) is connected to both the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (3, see Kato fig. 3 – how 5 is distributed between and connected to each system as shown by 6 on either side), and wherein an operation member of the first focus adjusting device is formed as a single ring rotatable by an operation. wherein the second focus adjusting unit (7B) is connected to one of the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (Kato fig. 3 - 7B on one system and not the other, see also para. 0014 and 0031). Kato does not specifically teach an operation member is arranged to surround both the first optical system and the second optical system. In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches an operation member (Lee fig. 3 – 60, 61) is arranged to surround both the first optical system and the second optical system (Lee fig. 3 – 60, 61 surrounds 34 and 44, see also para. 0015 and 0019) for the purpose of achieving the adjusting and compensating effects and an efficient synchronous rotation (Lee para. 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an operation member is arranged to surround both the first optical system and the second optical system as taught by Lee in the lens apparatus of Kato in order to achieve the adjusting and compensating effects and an efficient synchronous rotation (Lee para. 0015). Kato and Lee do not specifically teach a lens mount portion configured to be detachedly attached to a camera body including an image sensor. In a similar field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches a lens mount portion (Yamaguchi fig. 10 - 6) configured to be detachedly attached to a camera body (Yamaguchi fig. 10 – 18, see also para. 0027) including an image sensor (Yamaguchi fig. 10 – 17, see also para. 0027 and 0069-0070) for the purpose of taking images having an angular difference for creating a three-dimensional image (Yamaguchi para. 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a lens mount portion detachedly attached to a camera body as taught by Yamaguchi in the lens apparatus of Kato and Lee in order to take images having an angular difference for creating a three-dimensional image (Yamaguchi para. 0027). Regarding claim 2 , Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (3) are imaging optical systems consisting of same optical systems as each other (Kato fig. 1 – each system 3 shows the same elements on either side). Regarding claim 3 , Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein each of the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (3) can adjust the focus by extending and contracting an entire optical system (Kato para. 0012). Regarding claim 4 , Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein one of the first focus adjusting device (5) and the second focus adjusting device (7, 7A, 7B) does not move in an in-focus direction during focus adjustment (5 does not move, see also Kato para. 0013). Regarding claim 47 , Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kato further teaches wherein the first focus adjusting device (5) is connected to both the first optical system and the second optical system (Kato fig. 3 – shows how 5 is distributed between and connected to each system as shown by 6 on either side), and wherein the second focus adjusting device (7 including 7A and 7B) is connected to one of the first optical system and the second optical system (Kato fig. 3 – shows 7A and 7B both on either side of each optical system 3) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Lee, Yamaguchi (as cited above) in view of Yamanouchi et. al US 20030035230 (hereinafter “Yamanouchi”) . Regarding claim 5 , Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kato further teaches further comprising a decentering-rotating member (Kato fig. 1-4 -22, see also para. 0019-0022) configured to drive one of the first optical system (3) and the second optical system (3) in a direction orthogonal to an image pickup plane (Kato abstract), wherein the decentering-rotating member (22) is connected to the second focus adjusting device (Kato para. 0022). Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi do not teach the decentering-rotating member drives one of the first optical system and the second optical system by rotating the one of the first optical system and the second optical system. In the same field of endeavor, Yamanouchi teaches the decentering-rotating member drives one of the first optical system and the second optical system by rotating the one of the first optical system and the second optical system (Yamanouchi para. 0087) for the purpose of adjusting the optical systems of the binoculars (Yamanouchi para. 0087-0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate one of the first and second optical systems as taught by Yamanouchi in the lens apparatus of Kato, Lee, and Yamaguchi in order to adjust the binoculars (Yamanouchi para. 0087-0088). Regarding claim 6 , Kato, Lee, Yamaguchi, and Yamanouchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 5, and Kato further teaches further comprising a connecting member (Kato figs. 3-4 – 13 connects to 19B and 22, as well as 7A) configured to connect the second focus adjusting device (7A) and the decentering-rotating member (22), wherein the second focus adjusting device (7A) includes a first guide portion (Kato fig. 2 – 14B), wherein the connecting member (13) includes: a second guide portion (Kato fig. 2 - 13A) configured to engage with the first guide portion (Kato fig. 2-3 – 14B is inserted into 13A, as seen in fig. 3); and a third guide portion (Kato fig. 2 – 13B, see also para. 0034) configured to engage with the decentering-rotating member (22, see also Kato para. 0034 and 0051), and wherein the decentering-rotating member (22) includes a fourth guide portion (Kato fig. 2 – 22C) configured to engage with the third guide portion (Kato para. 0051). Regarding claim 8 , Kato, Lee, Yamaguchi, and Yamanouchi teach the lens apparatus according to claim 5, and Kato further teaches further comprising an elastic member (Kato figs. 2-4 - 27D, see also para. 0077) disposed between the second focus adjusting device (7A) and the decentering-rotating member (22, Kato fig. 2 - 27D is disposed between 22 and 7A when all the parts in figure 2 are compiled together, since 22 has a smaller diameter than 27A, which holds 27D). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST. 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. /ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 17/898,589 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights