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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia (CN 200944150).
Regarding claim 1, Jia (figures 1-3) discloses a lens control mechanism for a lens, comprising:
a first control body (base 1);
a driving assembly (5, 51- 53); and
driving teeth (8, 81, 82) configured to mesh with the lens, wherein the driving teeth are movably arranged on the first control body, the driving assembly is fixedly arranged on the first control body, the driving assembly is drivingly connected to the driving teeth, and the first control body is provided with a mounting position for mounting the lens control mechanism such that the driving teeth mesh with the lens (portion of the base 1; the base 1 is provided with a hand wheel capable of rotating 8, a hand wheel 8 is provided with a coaxial with the gear of the 82 is set at the lower part of the outer curvilinear canister 52 gear teeth, the gear 82 with the gear teeth of the lower part of the outer curvilinear canister is engaged. the gear 82 and the outer curvilinear canister 52 of gear transmission, when using conveniently hand wheel 8 drives the focusing mechanism 5 rotate, the inner focusing mechanism 5 on the curve 51 and the straight groove 4 on the sleeve 3 controlling the lens assembly 2 along the axial direction. moving up and down for focusing; see at least page 3, 6th paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the driving teeth are movably arranged on the first control body, the driving assembly is fixedly arranged on the first control body, the driving assembly is drivingly connected to the driving teeth, and the first control body is provided with a mounting position for mounting the lens control mechanism such that the driving teeth mesh with the lens” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, Jia (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the driving teeth are located at one end of the first control body, and the mounting position is a mounting hole located at the other end of the first control body; and wherein the first control body is movably provided with a first hand-twist assembly for locking an external circular tube in the mounting hole, and a front end of the first hand-twist assembly extends to a side edge of the mounting hole (portion of the body 1 and projection 21).
The limitation “wherein the first control body is movably provided with a first hand-twist assembly for locking an external circular tube in the mounting hole, and a front end of the first hand-twist assembly extends to a side edge of the mounting hole” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (CN 200944150) in view of Fisher et al. (WO 2016/049781).
Regarding claim 1, Jia discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Jia is silent regarding a control handwheel mechanism. Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches a control device, comprising:
the lens control mechanism according to claim 1 (camera system 500); and
a control handwheel mechanism (adjustment device 510; via control system 530) wirelessly connected to an external camera,
wherein the control handwheel mechanism is connected to the lens control mechanism (The adjustment device 510 according to the illustrated embodiment is in communication with the camera 520 and with the control system 530 over a communication network 550; see at least page 25, last paragraph),
the control handwheel mechanism comprises:
a second control body (510, 514, 515);
a touch screen assembly (548) configured to control at least one of the external camera or the lens control mechanism (The remote HMI (Human Machine Interface) Control system 510 is a wireless hand held control system, incorporating a full embedded micro computer system 516, with integrated touch screen 548); and
a handwheel assembly configured to control at least one of the external camera or the lens control mechanism,
wherein the touch screen assembly is fixedly arranged on the second control body, and
the handwheel assembly is rotatably and movably arranged on the second control body (see at least page 25, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control device as taught by Fisher et al. in order to achieve a camera system having motion tracking data with very specific properties to create multiple predefined positional and directional 'nodes' in three-dimensional space, an increased level of equipment control and automation is achievable in a wide variety of moving and still photographic environments.
The limitation “a control handwheel mechanism wirelessly connected to an external camera, wherein the control handwheel mechanism is connected to the lens control mechanism” and “wherein the touch screen assembly is fixedly arranged on the second control body, and the handwheel assembly is rotatably and movably arranged on the second control body” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 4, Jia (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the driving teeth (8, 81, 82) are located at one end of the first control body, and the mounting position is a mounting hole located at the other end of the first control body; and wherein the first control body is movably provided with a first hand-twist assembly for locking an external circular tube in the mounting hole, and a front end of the first hand-twist assembly extends to a side edge of the mounting hole (portion of the base 1; the base 1 is provided with a hand wheel capable of rotating 8, a hand wheel 8 is provided with a coaxial with the gear of the 82 is set at the lower part of the outer curvilinear canister 52 gear teeth, the gear 82 with the gear teeth of the lower part of the outer curvilinear canister is engaged. the gear 82 and the outer curvilinear canister 52 of gear transmission, when using conveniently hand wheel 8 drives the focusing mechanism 5 rotate, the inner focusing mechanism 5 on the curve 51 and the straight groove 4 on the sleeve 3 controlling the lens assembly 2 along the axial direction. moving up and down for focusing; see at least page 3, 6th paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the first control body is movably provided with a first hand-twist assembly for locking an external circular tube in the mounting hole, and a front end of the first hand-twist assembly extends to a side edge of the mounting hole” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 5, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the control handwheel mechanism is wirelessly connected to the lens control mechanism (The adjustment device 510 according to the illustrated embodiment is in communication with the camera 520 and with the control system 530 over a communication network 550; see at least page 25, last paragraph).
The limitation “wherein the control handwheel mechanism is wirelessly connected to the lens control mechanism” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 6, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the lens control mechanism comprises a first lens control mechanism and a second lens control mechanism, the first control body is provided with a plurality of first interfaces, the first lens control mechanism and the second lens control mechanism are connected in series through the plurality of first interfaces, the second control body is provided with a second interface, and the control handwheel mechanism and the lens control mechanism are wired through the second interface and the plurality of first interfaces (the adjustment device 510 according to the illustrated embodiment is in communication with the camera 520 and with the control system 530 over a communication network 550, wirelessly. Alternatively, the adjustment device 510 may be connected to the camera 520 and/or to the control system 530 over a wire connection).
The limitation, “the first control body is provided with a plurality of first interfaces, the first lens control mechanism and the second lens control mechanism are connected in series through the plurality of first interfaces, the second control body is provided with a second interface, and the control handwheel mechanism and the lens control mechanism are wired through the second interface and the plurality of first interfaces” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Fisher et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 7, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the handwheel assembly is arranged around the touch screen assembly (514-515 and 548).
Regarding claim 8, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the second control body is movably provided with a limit switch configured to limit a rotation angle of the handwheel assembly (figure 31; The adjustment device 510 may further comprise a user feedback mechanism 518 being operatively connected to the processor 516 and to the command component 514, to provide feedback to a user via the command component 514, when the command component 514 is operated manually in the override mode. The user feedback mechanism 518 may comprises a haptic feedback mechanism. For example, the haptic feedback mechanism may be configured to apply a torque to the command component 514, and more particularly to create a detent during the manual operation of the command component (i.e. during the rotation of the knob 544) by increasing the torque. The adjustment device comprises a memory 546 which stores one or more feedback condition and the processor is configured to activate the user feedback mechanism in the override mode, when the one or more feedback condition is met).
The limitation, “wherein the second control body is movably provided with a limit switch configured to limit a rotation angle of the handwheel assembly” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Fisher et al. discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The limitations “wherein the second control body is movably provided with a limit switch configured to limit a rotation angle of the handwheel assembly” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the second control body is further provided with a second key configured to control at least one of the external camera or the lens control mechanism (figure 31; The adjustment device 510 may further comprise a user feedback mechanism 518 being operatively connected to the processor 516 and to the command component 514, to provide feedback to a user via the command component 514, when the command component 514 is operated manually in the override mode. The user feedback mechanism 518 may comprises a haptic feedback mechanism. For example, the haptic feedback mechanism may be configured to apply a torque to the command component 514, and more particularly to create a detent during the manual operation of the command component (i.e. during the rotation of the knob 544) by increasing the torque. The adjustment device comprises a memory 546 which stores one or more feedback condition and the processor is configured to activate the user feedback mechanism in the override mode, when the one or more feedback condition is met).
The limitation “wherein the control handwheel mechanism is wirelessly connected to the lens control mechanism” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 10, Jia (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the second control body is further provided with a lever configured to control the lens control mechanism (figure 31).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia (CN 200944150) in view of Fisher et al. (WO 2016/049781); further in view of Kawasaki (JP JPH07143371).
Regarding claim 11, Fisher et al. (figures 24-36) teaches wherein the handwheel assembly and the touch screen assembly are located at a first side of the second control body. However, Jia as modified by Fisher et al. is silent regarding the mounting groove. Kawasaki (figures 1-8) teaches a second side of the second control body is provided with a mounting groove (concave member 131), a first electronic contact pin is arranged in the mounting groove, a mounting assembly (14) is detachably arranged in the mounting groove, the mounting assembly is electrically connected to the control handwheel mechanism through the first electronic contact pin (141; The connector 14 has a male side having a plurality of vertical connector pins 141 vertically screwed upward by a plurality of screws 140 at a position directly below the concave member 131 on the rear surface 2d of the video camera body 2; see at least page 3, the last 2 paragraphs), the mounting assembly is provided with a mounting position for detachably connecting an external device, and the mounting position is internally provided with a second electronic contact pin for electrically connecting with an external device (25 and 26; figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mounting groove as taught by Kawasaki in order to easily attach or detach a battery pack to the controller.
The limitation “a mounting assembly is detachably arranged in the mounting groove, the mounting assembly is electrically connected to the control handwheel mechanism through the first electronic contact pin, the mounting assembly is provided with a mounting position for detachably connecting an external device, and the mounting position is internally provided with a second electronic contact pin for electrically connecting with an external device” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights