DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a filing of 9/24/2025.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP2006337957, English translation attached) in view of Ito (US20180081164).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches a lens unit (Figs.1-6, paragraph [0011], the lens barrel 1), comprising:
a first optical element (fig.4, Lens L1);
a second optical element (fig.4, aperture unit 200) that is disposed along an optical axis direction (fig.4, optical axis I) of the first optical element with respect to the first optical element (fig.4, the L1);
a frame body (see annotated image, Yamashita, fig.4, the frame body) to which the first optical element (fig.4, the L1) is attached; and
a coil (fig.4, coil 314) that is attached to the frame body, is disposed so as to sandwich the second optical element (fig.4, aperture unit 200) between the coil (fig.4, the 314) and the first optical element (fig.4, the L1),
but Yamashita does not explicitly teaches a linear motor configured to drive the first optical element and the frame body back and forth in the optical axis direction (paragraph [0012], lens groups L2 and L3 be movable in the direction of the optical axis).
However, Ito teaches the analogous lens unit (Ito, figs.1-12, abstract, an optical unit, a movable part arranged slidably relative to the fixing part main body), and further teaches wherein included in a linear motor (Ito, fig.4, paragraph [0023], voice coil motor 10) configured to drive the first optical element (fig.4, paragraph [0021], the first optical element has been referred as the movable lens group Gv held by the movable part 3) and the frame body back and forth (see Ito, figs.4 and 6, paragraphs [0031]-[0035], the frame body has been referred as outer circumferential portion 31, and the frame body 31 back and forth) in the optical axis direction (Ito, fig.4, axis C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the linear motor configured to drive the first optical element and the frame body back and forth in the optical axis direction as taught by Ito for the purpose to be stabilized, and also, miniaturization in the axis direction may be realized (Ito, paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yamashita further teaches wherein the second optical element (fig.4, the 200) is disposed at a position overlapping the coil (fig.4, the 314) when viewed in the optical axis direction (fig.4, the optical axis I).
Regarding claim 4, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yamashita further teaches wherein the second optical element (fig.4, the 200) is provided between the first optical element (fig.4, the L1) and a yoke (fig.4, yokes 311) included in the linear motor (fig.4, the 310).
Regarding claim 10, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yamashita further teaches wherein the first optical element) is either a lens, an aperture unit, or an image stabilization unit (fig.4, the L1 is lens).
Regarding claim 11, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yamashita further teaches wherein the second optical element is either an aperture unit, a lens, or an image stabilization unit (Yamashita, paragraph [0011] shutter diaphragm unit 200).
Regarding claim 12, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Yamashita further teaches wherein a lens barrel, comprising:
the lens unit according to claim 1;
a substantially cylindrical housing portion (Yamashita, fig.5, paragraph [0016] The fixed barrel 130 is a cylindrical body fixed to a camera body) that encompasses the lens unit (figs.1-6, lens barrel 1) and the linear motor (Yamashita, fig.5, the motor 310);
and further, Ito teaches the linear motor (Ito, fig.4, voice coil motor 10) configured to move the frame body back and forth in the optical axis direction ((see Ito, figs.4 and 6, paragraphs [0031]-[0035], the frame body has been referred as outer circumferential portion 31, and the frame body 31 back and forth) in the optical axis direction (Ito, fig.4, axis C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the linear motor configured to drive the first optical element and the frame body back and forth in the optical axis direction as taught by Ito for the purpose to be stabilized, and also, miniaturization in the axis direction may be realized (Ito, paragraph [0057]).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP2006337957, English translation attached) in view of Ito (US20180081164), and further in view of Noguchi (US20080181594).
Regarding claim 2, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yamashita does not explicitly teach wherein the first optical element moves back and forth in the optical axis direction while maintaining a positional relationship in which the second optical element is sandwiched between the first optical element and the coil in the optical axis direction.
However, Noguchi teaches the analogous lens unit (Noguchi, abstract, an optical image stabilizer includes a lens-holding member), and further teaches wherein the first optical element (Noguchi, figs.1-7, the first optical element has been referred as lens unit L2) moves back and forth in the optical axis direction (paragraph [0041], lens unit L2 that is movable in the optical axis direction) while maintaining a positional relationship in which the second optical element (figs.1-7, the second optical element has been referred as lens unit L3a) is sandwiched between the first optical element (the L2) and the coil (figs.1-7, paragraph [0050] coil15b) in the optical axis direction (paragraph [0050] optical axis direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the first optical element moves back and forth in the optical axis direction while maintaining a positional relationship in which the second optical element is sandwiched between the first optical element and the coil in the optical axis direction as taught by Noguchi for the purpose to perform operation for image stabilization, that is, image-shake correction operation (Noguchi, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yamashita does not explicitly teach wherein the second optical element is fixedly disposed.
However, Noguchi teaches the analogous lens unit (Noguchi, abstract, an optical image stabilizer includes a lens-holding member), and further teaches wherein the second optical element (Noguchi, figs.1-7, the second optical element has been referred as lens unit L3a) is fixedly disposed (Noguchi, paragraph [0041], fixed front lens sub-unit L3a).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the second optical element is fixedly disposed as taught by Noguchi for the purpose to perform operation for image stabilization, that is, image-shake correction operation (Noguchi, paragraph [0041]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP2006337957, English translation attached) in view of Ito (US20180081164), and further in view of Fujinalka (US20190384142, of record, see IDS dated 1/5/2024).
Regarding claim 5, combination Yamashita-Ito discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but Yamashita does not explicitly teach wherein the frame body has a main bearing portion that is disposed along the optical axis direction and into which is inserted a main shaft that guides the frame body in the optical axis direction,
the first optical element is fixed on a first end side of the main bearing portion of the frame body, and
the coil is fixed on a side of a second end that is on an opposite side from a first end of the main bearing portion of the frame body.
However, Fujinalka teaches the analogous lens unit (Fujinalka, abstract, a lens barrel 10 comprises a holding frame 51, a guide pole 53 supported by the holding frame 51, a focus lens unit 52 that moves along the guide pole 53), and further teaches wherein the frame body (Fujinalka, fig.6, frame 52) has a main bearing portion (fig.6, hole 52c) that is disposed along the optical axis direction (Fujinalka, fig.6, paragraph [0052], the optical axis direction) and into which is inserted a main shaft (fig.6,the guide pole 53) that guides the frame body (fig.6, frame 52) in the optical axis direction,
the first optical element (fig.6, has been referred as lens L4) is fixed on a first end side of the main bearing portion of the frame body (fig.6, 52c), and
the coil (fig.6, coil 22) is fixed on a side of a second end that is on an opposite side from a first end of the main bearing portion of the frame body (see Fujinalka, fig.6, the coil 22 is fixed on a side of a second end that is on an opposite side from a first end of the main bearing portion 52c of the frame body 52).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have bearing portion of the frame body as taught by Fujinalka for the purpose to provide a lens barrel with which there is less friction between the lens frame and the guide pole, and the lens frame can be positioned at a finer pitch and more accurately than in the past, as well as an imaging device equipped with this lens barrel (Fujinalka, paragraph [0008]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP2006337957, English translation attached) in view of Ito (US20180081164) and Fujinalka (US20190384142, of record, see IDS dated 1/5/2024), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US20050067922) and Minamisawa et al. (US20210223661).
Regarding claim 6, combination Yamashita-Ito-Fujinalka discloses the invention as described in Claim 5, but Yamashita does not explicitly teach wherein the frame body further has a reinforced portion that is provided substantially parallel to the main bearing portion and links a portion where the first optical element is provided and a portion where the coil is provided in the optical axis direction.
However, Sasaki teaches the analogous lens unit (Sasaki, figs.1-14, abstract, the lens unit has frame body and linear motor), and further teaches wherein the frame body (Sasaki, fig.2, frame 15) further has a reinforced portion (fig.2, paragraph [0088] parts 63, 63-2, 63-3 for reinforcement) that is provided substantially parallel to the main bearing portion (fig.2, paragraph [0088], bearing parts 53, 53-2, 53-3) and links a portion (fig.2, portion 18-1) where the first optical element (fig.2, lens frame 18) is provided.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the frame body further has the reinforced portion as taught by Sasaki for the purpose of providing to reinforce the strengths of the lens frames, which are insufficient due to the cut wall frames corresponding to the back flat portions of the oval lenses in order for a reduction in the thickness of the entire implement (Sasaki, paragraph [0089]).
But Yamashita does not explicitly teaches wherein the reinforced portion that links portion where the coil is provided in the optical axis direction.
However, Minamisawa teaches the analogous lens unit (Minamisawa,fig.1, abstract, a drive device is provided and includes: a movable body including an attachment part, to which an optical module is attached; a fixed body), and further teaches wherein a reinforced portion (Minamisawa, fig.1, reinforcement plates 43) that links a portion (fig.1, the fixed body-side fixing part 17) where the first optical element (fig.1, the optical module 3) is provided and a portion (fig.1, the fixed body-side fixing part 17) where the coil (fig.1, coil 31) is provided in the optical axis direction (fig.1, optical axis L).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the reinforced portion as taught by Minamisawa for the purpose of due to the thermal change is reduced by selecting the material, whose thermal expansion coefficient is approximate to the thermal expansion coefficient of a material for the respective fixing parts, as a material for the reinforcement plate (Minamisawa, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, combination Yamashita-Ito-Fujinalka-Sasaki-Minamisawa discloses the invention as described in Claim 6 and Sasaki further teaches wherein the frame body (figs.2-3,the frame 15; paragraph [0082]-[0086]) further has an opening (see Sasaki, fig.3, the stage height part 58 has an opening ) formed between the main bearing portion (fig.3, the bearing portion 53-2) and the reinforced portion (fig.3, the reinforced portion 63-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the frame body further has the reinforced portion as taught by Sasaki for the purpose of providing to reinforce the strengths of the lens frames, which are insufficient due to the cut wall frames corresponding to the back flat portions of the oval lenses in order for a reduction in the thickness of the entire implement (Sasaki, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 8, combination Yamashita-Ito-Fujinalka-Sasaki-Minamisawa discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and Yamashita further teaches wherein the second optical element (Yamashita, fig.4, the 200) is disposed so that a portion thereof is inserted into the opening (Yamashita, fig.4, opening 201).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see Remarks Page. 5-9 with respect to the 35 U.S.C.& 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
One having ordinary skill in the art would have no idea how to modify the coil 314 in Yamashita for image stabilization to suddenly function as a Coil in a linear motor for movement along the optical axis based on Ito in claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
The test for obviousness is not whether the features may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, See claim 1 described, combination Yamashita-Ito teaches all of limitation of claim 1; further, See MPEP § 2114.04, the system claim interpretation se the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yamashita to have the linear motor configured to drive the first optical element and the frame body back and forth in the optical axis direction as taught by Ito for the purpose to be stabilized, and also, miniaturization in the axis direction may be realized (Ito, paragraph [0057]).
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights