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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 14 in view of Byon et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0341926; hereafter Byon), Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation of “an actuator locking mechanism securable over the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel” as called for in the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, Examiner would note that Applicant alleges that Byon does not disclose the claimed feature “because item 217 extends into rather than over the locking lever 263” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 10), however this is incorrect. As can be seen in Figs. 8B and 9B of Byon, item 217 pushes against locking lever 263b, rather than penetrating into locking lever 263. If this misunderstanding is the basis of Applicant’s argument, then it is in error and is therefore unpersuasive.
Furthermore, the term “over” is fairly broad and can have multiple interpretations which the Byon reference meets. First, there is “above,” and as can be seen in Figs. 7B, there are orientations in which the locking portions 217 and 263 are “above” the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel (e.g. when the camera is facing a direction such that Fig. 7B would be rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise, item 263 is above or “over” both the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel). Secondly, the term “over” can mean to be placed around a cylindrical object, such as placing a jacket over a shirt, or cladding a sheath over a cable. Applicant’s claims do not require placing the actuator locking mechanism over the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel in the optical axis direction (which the locking lever also does in certain orientations), or that the actuator locking mechanism completely cover the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel. Examiner is bound by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language consistent with the specification, and Byon reasonable discloses that the actuator locking mechanism is securable over the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel, as called for in claim 14. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections made in view of Byon are maintained.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that “There is no evidence on the record that indicates that Byon teaches that its magnet 262c moves the barrel mount at the flange” because “Byon is configured to move the lens barrel, not the barrel mount” (see Applicant’s remarks pp. 10 and 11). This argument misconstrues Byon and Examiner’s rejection. Examiner and Byon both state that the magnet 262c (mounted in the flange 262d as shown in Fig. 7B), is configured to move the lens barrel, but that is because the magnet moves the barrel mount, in which the lens barrel is fixed. Byon clearly discloses that the lens barrel is moved, via the barrel mount, due the magnet 262c which is placed in the flange 262d. Applicant’s arguments that Byon does not meet the claim limitations of claim 15 because “Byon is configured to move the lens barrel, not the barrel mount” are therefore unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant’s arguments rest on the arguments addressed with respect to claim 14, above, and are similarly addressed. In certain orientations the locking mechanism is over both the barrel and the barrel mount.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant’s argument are mere bare assertion that no evidence is provided for the limitation “wherein the first and second forces are applied in the same direction or different directions” as called for. However, this is necessarily true, if there are two forces (which Applicant is not arguing that there are not) then the forces are either in the same direction, or they are not, which is inherently a different direction. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 14 in view of Wilson (U.S. Patent No. 6,337,775; hereafter Wilson), Applicant argues that Wilson does not disclose that the actuator is “configured to adjust a position of the lens barrel by moving the barrel mount” because the actuator moves the barrel, and not the barrel mount, which is part of the housing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Movement is, by definition, relative, therefore since the actuator moves the lens barrel and barrel mount relative to each other, either object can be reasonably construed as the moving object. Furthermore, Applicant’s quote of Wilson that “the position of the projection lens barrel within the housing does not change” is made in reference to zooming of the image, and does not universally apply. Indeed, in the next paragraph, Wilson explicitly states that “The cooperation between the guide pins 24 and the helical slots 26 allows the projection lens barrel 14 to advance and retract along the focal axis 16” (see Wilson col. 3, ll. 40-42, emphasis added). Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejection of claim 14 in view of Wilson is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to claims 16 and 26 rest on the arguments made with respect to claim 14, and addressed above, and therefore have similarly been addressed.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues that because “a force is applied to the collet 28 to urge it into engagement with the barrel mounting portion” that “there is no evidence on the record that a force is applied to the barrel mount such that movement of at least one of the barrel mount and lens barrel is prevented” as called for in the claim (see Applicant’s remarks p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Applicant noted, the collet is urged into engagement with the barrel mounting portion. This urging is a force “applied to the barrel mount such that movement of at least one of the barrel mount and lens barrel is prevented.” The claim does not require that force be directly applied to the barrel mount, therefore the force being applied via the collet reasonably reads on the claim limitation as currently presented. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to claim 24 is therefore unpersuasive, and the rejection of claim 24 made in view of Wilson is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 19, 20, 26, and 29-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 19, 20, 26, and 29-33 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 21-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byon et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0341926 A1; hereafter Byon).
Regarding claim 14, Byon discloses a system, comprising: barrel mount disposed within a body, the barrel mount comprising a central axis (see Byon Fig. 6, item 262); a lens barrel secured within the barrel mount and aligned with the central axis (see Byon Fig. 6, item 250); an actuator configured to adjust a position of the lens barrel by moving the barrel mount along the central axis (see Byon Fig. 6, item 265); and an actuator locking mechanism securable over the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel and configured to prevent movement of the actuator and/or the barrel mount by applying a force along the central axis towards the actuator (see Byon Figs. 6, 7B, and 9B, items 217 and 264).
Regarding claim 15, Byon discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the barrel mount further comprises a flange connected with the actuator, and wherein the actuator is configured to move the barrel mount along the central axis at the flange (see Byon Figs. 6 and 7B, the magnet 262c can be construed as mounted in a flange which is configured to move the lens barrel).
Regarding claim 21, Byon discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein the actuator locking mechanism is configured to apply and release the force along the central axis by rotating or snap-fitting relative to the barrel mount (see Byon paragraph [0171] “In a case where the cam barrel 230 continuously rotates and the front barrel 240 continuously descends, the locking protrusion 217 may contact the locking lever protrusion 263b to support the second lens group barrel holder 262 in the optical axis direction.).
Regarding claim 22, Byon discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the lens barrel is in a fixed position relative to the barrel mount, and wherein the lens barrel comprises two or more lenses (see Byon Fig. 7B, items 252, 262, and paragraph [0108] “second lens group barrel 250 includes a plurality of lenses 251”).
Regarding claim 23, Byon discloses the system of claim 14, wherein when the actuator locking mechanism is secured over the lens barrel (see Byon Fig. 6, locking mechanism 263 is placed over the outside of the barrel mount, which itself is over the lens barrel), a sensor of the system is configured to capture light through one or more lenses of the lens barrel and the actuator locking mechanism (see Byon Fig. 4, item 296).
Regarding claim 24, Byon discloses a method, comprising: applying, using an actuator of an image capture device, a first force on a barrel mount of the image capture device along a central axis extending longitudinally through the barrel mount; and applying, using an actuator locking mechanism, a second force on the barrel mount along the central axis such that movement of at least one of the barrel mount and a lens barrel of the image capture device disposed within the barrel mount is prevented by the applied first and second forces, wherein the first and second forces are applied in the same direction or in different directions (see Byon Fig. 9B, items 217 and 263. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
Regarding claim 27, Byon discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the actuator locking mechanism rotates relative to the lens barrel and/or the barrel mount so that the second force is applied along the central axis, or wherein the actuator locking mechanism is compressed against the lens barrel and/or the barrel mount so that the second force is applied along the central axis (see Byon Figs. 8B and 9B, item 217 applies force in the optical axis direction to compress against the lens barrel).
Claim(s) 14-17, 19, 24-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (U.S. Patent No 6,337,775 B1; hereafter Wilson).
Regarding claim 14, Wilson discloses a system, comprising: barrel mount disposed within a body, the barrel mount comprising a central axis (see Wilson Fig. 1, item 18, in this case, the barrel portion 18 can be construed as “disposed within” body 12, as it is formed as in integral portion of the body, and therefore is “disposed within” (e.g. embedded in) the body 12); a lens barrel secured within the barrel mount and aligned with the central axis (see Wilson Fig. 1, items 14 and 16); an actuator configured to adjust a position of the lens barrel by moving the barrel mount along the central axis (see Wilson Fig. 1, item 26); and an actuator locking mechanism securable over the barrel mount and/or the lens barrel and configured to prevent movement of the actuator and/or the barrel mount by applying a force along the central axis towards the actuator (see Wilson Figs. 4, and 5, items 28, 36, and 42)).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the barrel mount further comprises a flange connected with the actuator (see Wilson Fig. 4, item 24), and wherein the actuator is configured to move the barrel mount along the central axis at the flange (see Wilson Figs. 1 and 4, item 26).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the actuator comprises: a cam configured to adjust a position of the barrel mount along the central axis (see Wilson Fig. 4, item 26); and a compressible component configured to apply a force against the cam (see Wilson Fig. 4, item 36 applies a force against the cam via the collet 28 and flange 24).
Regarding claim 17, Wilson discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the compressible component and the actuator locking mechanism apply the respective forces along the central axis in a same direction (see Wilson Fig. 4, both the locking mechanism 28 and compressible component 36 apply force in the leftward direction as oriented in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Wilson discloses a method, comprising: applying, using an actuator of an image capture device, a first force on a barrel mount of the image capture device along a central axis extending longitudinally through the barrel mount (see Wilson Fig. 4, items 24 and 26); and applying, using an actuator locking mechanism, a second force on the barrel mount along the central axis such that movement of at least one of the barrel mount and a lens barrel of the image capture device disposed within the barrel mount is prevented by the applied first and second forces wherein the first and second forces are applied in the same direction or in different directions. (see Wilson Fig. 4, items 28 an d36. See also Response to Arguments, above.).
Regarding claim 25, Wilson discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the actuator comprises: a cam configured to adjust a position of the lens barrel by moving the barrel mount along the central axis; and a compressive component configured to apply the first force along the central axis against the cam and/or a flange of the barrel mount so that movement of the barrel mount is prevented (see Wilson Fig. 4, items 26 and 36).
Regarding claim 28, Wilson discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the lens barrel comprises: a first split lens barrel associated with the actuator locking mechanism (see Wilson Fig. 4, item 14); and a second split lens barrel associated with the lens barrel (see Wilson Fig. 4, item 12), wherein the first split lens barrel and the actuator locking mechanism are detachable from the barrel mount (see Wilson Fig. 1, items 14 and 28 are separable members).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-33 are allowed.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest, either singly or in combination, “an actuator locking mechanism comprising a cover connectable over a top of the lens barrel and configured to prevent movement of the lens barrel by applying a force along the central axis towards the actuator,” in combination with the remaining claim limitations recited in claim 29. Claim 29 is therefore allowable over the prior art.
Claims 30-33 are dependent on claim 29, and are allowable for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 18-20 and 26 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.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 3/11/2026