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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claim amendments Applicant argues, on pages 9-10 of the remarks, the “Takanashi reference does not appear to suggest or disclose a display of a lens apparatus being updated to reflect a change in the function of the control apparatus without the need to update the firmware of the lens apparatus”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is not sure where Applicant’s “Firmware” recitation regarding Takanashi comes from and they have not cited any portions of support. However, Fig. 4 of Takanashi shows the operation method includes step S402-403 as updating the display of the lens where this is repeated as long as the lens does not have the power supply disconnected or the camera does not give a sleep instruction. Then, paragraphs 51-53 discuss what types of information is displayed by the lens, this includes things like “a result of a focus detection process by the digital camera 100”. Additionally, it can be seen in Fig. 1 that the lens and the camera 100 comprise control units related to things like focus (i.e. unit 206 and 118), however, the discussion of these components makes clear the actual focusing analysis/operation determinations is done by the digital camera 101. See paragraph 42 which states the focus control unit 206 merely moves the lens based on information received from system control unit 110 and paragraph 32 which starts the cameras AF control unit 118 performs focusing determinations. Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees these updated displayed functions like focus are do not reflect the control apparatus function.
Additionally, Applicant argues their amendments avoid invoking a 112f interpretation. The Examiner agrees in part, any limitation that still requires a 112f interpretation has been pointed out in the updated interpretation section below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “operation unit” in claims 1-2, 4 and 8.
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 § 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) 1-2, 4, 8, 16-17, 19, 23 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0105613 A1 to Takanashi.
With respect to claim 1 Takanashi disclose, in Fig. 1-9, a control apparatus (100) configured to communication with a lens apparatus (200) including a display (213) and an optical member (201/202) (paragraph 26 and 43), comprising: an operation unit configured to be operated by a user to drive the optical member (paragraph 37 and 42); at least one processor (paragraph 35 and 109); and a memory that stores a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to (paragraph 35 and 109): generate display data about at least one of a display state and a display setting of the control apparatus (paragraph 61); wherein the display data is transmitted to the lens apparatus based on a notification that the display is in a displayable state, from the lens apparatus (paragraph 66-67 and 71), wherein the display state and the display setting related to a function of the control apparatus and when the function of the control apparatus is changed, the display data transmitted from the control apparatus to the lens apparatus is updated to reflect the change in the function and displayed on the display of the lens apparatus (paragraph 32, 42 and 51-53; where info like focus info is updated during operation and it is clear this info is generated camera side and is therefore a control apparatus function).
With respect to claim 2 Takanashi disclose, in Fig. 1-9, the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display data includes a character code (paragraph 81).
With respect to claim 4 Takanashi disclose, in Fig. 1-9, the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control apparatus is any of an operation apparatus configured to operate the lens apparatus, and a camera apparatus including an imaging device configured to capture an image formed by the lens apparatus (paragraph 26).
With respect to claim 8 Takanashi disclose, in Fig. 1-9, the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display data is transmitted to the lens apparatus based on a request from the lens apparatus (paragraph 66-67; where data is only sent if the lens has a display, thus, the indication the lens has a display is at least a request because it indicates that the camera operates to use the display).
Claims 16-17, 19 and 23 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-2, 4 and 8 above as they are corresponding claims from the lens side to those of claims 1-2, 4 and 8 which are from the camera side. Takanashi can be seen to provide camera side operations in Fig. 5, 7A and 8A that have corresponding lens side operations in corresponding Fig. 6, 7B and 8B.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected for similar reason as claims 1 and 16 above as they are corresponding program claims to those of apparatus claims 1 and 16 respectively and Takanashi disclose their process can be done via a program in paragraph 109.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM 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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
March 16, 2026